Scribd
Upload
9 views

Task 3

Uploaded by

Amit Kumar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
9 views

Task 3

Uploaded by

Amit Kumar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Bench: HON'BLE MR. Justice K.J.

Shetty

HON’BLE MR. Justice A.M. Ahmadi

AIR 1980 SC 981

Case Title : Union of India & Versus Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco
De Gama.

Case details: The case as filed in Union of India and Others v. Filip Tiago de
Gama is about the dispute as to compensation for a tract of land acquired by the
state in 1967 to build a naval airport. While the low rate was initially imposed,
the respondent was given a higher compensation seeking order. After the
introduction of the reforms in the Land Acquisition Act of 1984 where it was
provided for an enhancement of the solatium (30%) and additional payment
(12%) in some instances, the respondent in the case claimed for such reliefs.

Facts: The matter which is subject of this appeal “Union of India and Others v
Filip Tiago de Gama” concerns the issue of land acquisition. The land in
question is the respondent’s land which was acquired by the government in the
year 1967 for the purposes of constructing a naval air station with compensation
at first awarded at a very nominal value even including a 15% solatium. The
claimant sought for further payment which led to the district court increasing
the per square meter rate and interest. Not satisfied with the award, the claimant
filed an appeal seeking other increases contained in the 1984 Land Acquisition
(Amendment) Act which provided for a bigger solatium of 30% and for further
compensation over 12% for some periods. This reliefs were granted all the same
by the High Court. The Union of India, however, contended that these amended
sections, could not be applied to the case in question in any case. The Supreme
Court was of the view that the higher solatium was appropriate but the
additional compensation provisions did not come into effect as the acquisition
had not been completed by the last dates in the amendment. The court,
therefore, affirms the appeal in part; increased solatium is confirmed, additional
compensation is declined.
Court Observed: The Court, in this instance, pointed out that although
amendments enacted in 1984 to the Land Acquisition Act provided for higher
solatium and additional compensation in certain specific cases of acquisition of
land, the same did not apply to all cases of acquisition made prior to the
enactment of the amendment. The court further stated that the provisions stated
in Sections 23(2) and 23(1A), which proffer enhanced solatiums and additional
compensation, were made with a specific purpose of enhancing compensation to
land owners in compulsory acquisition of lands. Though extended, these
amendments were not fully retroactive. The Court noted that subsection
30(2)was transitional and related only to awards made on or after April 30,
1982, and before September 24, 1984, and to appeals from such awards. In this
case, since the acquisition process started in 1967 and the Collector gave the
award in 1969, Section 30(2) could not be invoked. The court also recognized
the seeming injustice and possible irregularity that could arise from refusing to
give the respondent the extra 12% compensation, especially since other awards
given in that interim were entitled to it. The Court however maintained that
there was no other way but to obey the law as Parliament made it and ruled that
the higher solatium of 30% would be applicable but not the additional
compensation.

Held by court: In its final decision, the Supreme Court of India granted only in
part the appeal of the Union of India, which in its turn altered the decision of
the Bombay High Court. The Court upheld the claimant’s entitlement to
enhanced solatium at 30%, finding that the provisions of Section 23(2) as
amended by the 1984 Act were also applicable to provide for higher solatium.
This was however set aside the tribunal in making the award of extra
compensation under Section 23(1A) as that provision did not comply with the
case as the land acquisition proceedings had already commenced even before
30 April, 1982, which was the transitional date provided in Section 30 (1)
created for the purposes of this Act. The Court noted that although the
amending legislation aimed at ensuring increased compensation for
landowners, the provisions therein could not be operated in cases which were
filed long before the amending legislation came into force. Consequently, the
higher solatium was preserved to the claimant but the extra 12% compensation
was not granted. The Court further pointed out that no modification was
required with respect to the interest awarded by the lower courts.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy