Trace Your Case

UNION OF INDIA V. FILIP TIAGO DE GAMA OF VEDEM VASCO DE GAMA

Union of India v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama, (1990) 1 SCC 27

ISSUE:

  • Whether section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, which provides for a higher solatium(compensation) proprio vigore (by its own force), applies to awards made after 24.09.1984, even if the land acquisition process started before that date?
  • What is the applicability of section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act,1984, which provides for an additional amount of compensation, in acquisition proceedings?

RULE:

  • Where an Act contains substantive, amending, or repealing provisions, it typically contains transitional provisions that regulate how those changes will take effect and modify their effect during the period of transition. If an Act does not include such provisions expressly, the Court must infer the intended transitional arrangements, considering the interpretative criteria that reflect Parliament’s intent.
  • If a strict grammatical interpretation of the law leads to absurdity or inconsistency, the Court could discard such interpretation and instead adopt one that aligns with the purpose of the legislature.

FACTS:

  • On 26.10.1967, the State Government, by notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, declared its intention to acquire the land belonging to the Respondent for establishing Naval Air Station Dabolim.
  • On 5.03.1969, the Land Acquisition Officer declared an award determining compensation at the rate of 40 paise per square meter with 15% solatium.
  • The Claimant sought relief under section 18 of the Act to reassess the compensation amount, and on 28.05.1985, the Civil Court, awarded compensation at Rs.3 per square meter with 15% solatium and 6% interest from the date of possession to the payment date.
  • Unsatisfied, the Claimant appealed to the High Court, seeking enhanced compensation and 30% solatium.
  • The High Court granted the relief, but two reliefs- additional compensation under sections 23(1A) and solatium under 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 were challenged by the Union of India.

HELD:

  • The Court granted limited retrospectivity to section 23(2) by incorporating transitional provisions under section 30(2).
  • The Court observed that the benefit of section 30(2) applies to an award by the Collector or the Court made between 30.04.1982 and 24.09.1984, or to an appellate order arising from such awards. The word ‘or’ refers to the stage at which the proceeding stands when the benefits under section 30(2) are sought.
  • If the proceeding concluded with an award between the aforementioned dates, section 30(2) would apply. If the case has reached the appellate stage, the benefit will apply then. However, the original award must have been made between 30.04.1982 and 24.09.1984.
  • The market value of the land must be determined at the date of section 4(1) notification, and cannot be calculated based on any other date, as provided under section 23(1) of the Act. In this case, section 4(1) notification was published on 20 October 1967, and the Amending Act 68 of 1984 came into force on 24 September 1984. Therefore, Section 23(2) is not retrospective by default.
  • The Court ruled that the entitlement of the additional amount under Section 23(1A) depends on whether acquisition proceedings were pending on 30.04.1982 or started after that date. Section 30(1)(a) provides that additional amount provided under Section 23(1A) shall be applicable if proceedings were pending before the Collector on 30.04.1982, and he had not yet made an award.
  • If the Collector has made the award before that date then, that additional amount cannot be awarded.
  • Section 30(1)(b) provides that section 23(l-A) shall be applicable to every acquisition proceedings commenced after 30 April 1982 irrespective of the fact whether the Collector has made an award or not before 24 September 1984.
  • The final point to note is that Section 30(1) does not refer to Court award and the Court award is used only in section 30 (2).
  • In this case, the notification under section 4 was issued on 26 October 1967, and on 5 March 1969, the Collector made the award. The result is that on 30 April 1982, there were no proceedings pending before the Collector. Therefore, section 30 (1)(a) is not attracted to the case.
  • Since the proceedings for acquisition commenced before 30 April 1982, section 30(1)(b) is also not applicable to the case.
  • As a result, the Claimant is not entitled to the additional compensation provided under Section 23(1A).
  • In the result, the appeal was allowed in part. The judgment of the High Court is modified and the compensation award under Section 23(IA) is deleted. The judgment and decree, in other respects, were kept undisturbed.