1991 (11) TMI 268 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Interpretation of Section 30(1)(a) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984.
3. Substantive rights conferred by Section 23(1-A) and Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.

Summary:

1. Applicability of Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
The primary issue was whether the benefits of Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, introduced by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, could be granted to landowners when the Collector's award was made before April 30, 1982. The Supreme Court held that Section 23(1-A) deals with substantive rights and is applicable to cases where the Collector or the Trial Court had yet to make its award after the coming into force of the said sub-section on September 30, 1984. The Court clarified that the term "award" in Section 23(1-A) refers to the award made by the Collector or the Reference Court, not to decrees made by appellate courts.

2. Interpretation of Section 30(1)(a) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984:
The Court interpreted Section 30(1)(a) of the Amendment Act of 1984, which states that the provisions of Section 23(1-A) shall apply to every proceeding for the acquisition of land where the Collector had not made his award by April 30, 1982. The Court concluded that the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) is payable even if the court had made its award before September 24, 1984, provided the Collector had not made his award by April 30, 1982. This interpretation limits the benefits strictly to cases where the Collector and the Court made their awards between April 30, 1982, and September 24, 1984.

3. Substantive Rights Conferred by Section 23(1-A) and Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act:
The Court emphasized that Section 23(1-A) and Section 23(2) confer substantive rights, which generally have prospective application unless explicitly stated otherwise by the legislature. The Court rejected the narrow interpretation given in Union of India v. Fillip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama, which limited the applicability of Section 23(1-A) to cases where the Collector made his award after April 30, 1982. The Court held that the benefits under Section 23(1-A) should be awarded in all cases pending before the Reference Court on September 1, 1984.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in Union of India v. Zora Singh, affirming the High Court's decision to grant the benefits of Section 23(1-A) to the claimants. The Court also dismissed other similar appeals filed by the Union of India, while directing that appeals filed by the claimants be placed before appropriate Benches for disposal in light of this decision.