Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. versus JAGIR SINGH ETC.

Decided
30 October 1995
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 552 · 1995 INSC 644

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Though respondents have been served, none is appearing. Leave granted.

p. 553, margin D

The award of the Additional District Judge is dated March 2, 1978. When the State had gone in appeal against the award, while dismissing the appeals the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh had granted additional benefits under the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1894. Sub-section (1) of S.23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') envisages determination of the amount of compensation· to be awarded lo the acquired land. Sub-section (JA) envisages that addition" to the n1arket value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated @ 12 per centum per annum on such market value for the period commencing on from the dale of the publication of the notification under S.4(1) to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. Sub-section (2) also provides that "in addition" to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of 30 per centun1 on such market value in consideration of the compulsory nature of acquisition.

p. 553, margin D

Section 28 envisages that if the sum which, in the opinion of the Court, the Collector ought lo have awarded as compensation is in excess of the sum which the Collector did award as compensation, it enjoins the Court that the Collector 'shall pay mt such excess" compensation interest @ nine per ccnlum per annum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Cowt. Under the proviso, if such excess or any part thereof is paid into Court after the date of expiry period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest @ 15 per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess.

pp. 553–554, margin G

It would thus be seen that the legislative animation is clear that the Civil Court on reference under section 18, or the High Court or in some States District Judge exercising appellate power under S. 54 or Civil Court under section 26, as the case may be, awards compensation in excess of tl.e amount awarded by the Collector, then it gets jurisdiction and power to award additional benefits envisaged in sub-section (1-A) of S.23, subsection (2) of S.23 and S.28 of the Act. In other words, enhancenient of the compensation in excess of the award of the Collector under Section 11 is a condition precedent lo exercise the power to award statutory additional amounts envisaged under the aforesaid respective provisions on the excess compensation. If the High Court dismisses the appeal confirming the award of the Collector or that of the Civil Court, then it has no jurisdiction and power to award additional statutory amount under the respective provisions as amended under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. This Court held that the same view in U11io11 of !11dia v. Smt. Pratap (Kaur) through Lrs. & Alli'.' Etc., J.T. (1995) 2 SC 569, State of Maharashtra v. Maharau Srawan Hatkar, J.T. (1995) 2 SC 583 and The Stale of Punjab & A11r. Etc. v. Babu Singh & On. Etc., CA Nos. 3287-95 @ SLP (C) No. 2207-15 of 1979 decided on February 28, 1995.

p. 554, margin B

Moreover, the Constitution Bench of this Court in Union of l11dia v. Raghubir Singh, 11989] 2 SCC 754 and K.S. Paripooma11 v. State of Kera/a, [1994] 5 sec 593 covered the entire· gamut of controversy and entitlement under sections 23 (lA), 23(2) and 28.

p. 554, margin F

The High Court, therefore, has no power to award the statutory benefits under sections 23(1.A), 23(2) and 28 while confirming the decree of the Reference Court. The appeals are accordingly allowed and the additional benefits awarded arc set aside. Ho\vevcr, the clain1ants are entitled to solatiun1 @ l? and interest@ 6'-fr; on the enhanced con1pcnsation made by the Reference Court. The award of the District Judge as confirmed by the High Court stands upheld with the above modification. The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances without costs_. R.P. Appeal allowed.

pp. 554–555, margin G