- (1.) This is a State Appeal whereby restricted challenge is made to the impugned order dated 10th August, 1987 in Land Acquisition Reference No.13 of 1981. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded an amount to the claimant. The learned Joint District Judge, Thane in Reference enhanced the same and thereby added 12% p.a. additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act for the period from 04/02/1970 to 26/11/1980 and added further solatium at 30% and passed the order deducting the compensation and solatium already paid to the claimant.
(2.) As the award was passed prior to 1982, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant failed to restrict the claimant based upon the Supreme Court decision in Kashiben Bhikabai & Ors. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2002) 2, Supreme Court Cases 605 whereby the Supreme Court after considering the provisions of Section 23(1-A) as amended by Act 68 of 1984 and observed in para 17 as under:- "17. Counsel appearing for the claimants contended that the claimants would be entitled to an additional compensation @ 12% as provided under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. This contention cannot be accepted in view of a Bench decision of this Court in Union of India Vs. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama, (1990) 1 SCC 277 which held that additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) of the Act would not be available to a claimant in which the acquisition proceedings commenced and the award was made by the Collector prior to 30-04-1982. If the Collector made the award before 30-04-1982 then the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) cannot be awarded. The pendency of the acquisition proceedings on 30-04-1982 before the Collector was essential for attracting the benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. It was held: "21. Entitlement of additional amount provided under Section 23(1-A) depends upon pendency of acquisition proceedings as on 30-04-1982 or commencement of acquisition proceedings after that date. Section 30 sub-section (1)(a) provides that additional amount provided under Section 23(1-A) shall be applicable to acquisition proceedings pending before the Collector as on 30-04-1982 in which he has not made the award before that date. If the Collector has made the award before that date then, that additional amount cannot be awarded. Section 30 sub-section (1)(b) provides that Section 23(1-A) shall be applicable to every acquisition proceedings commenced after 30-04-1982 irrespective of the fact whether the Collector has made an award or not before 24-09-1984. The final point to note is that Section 30 sub-section (1) does not refer to court award and the court award is used only in Section 30 sub-section (2)." No Judgment taking a contrary view to the above-referred case was cited before us. Accordingly, it is held that the appellants would not be entitled to the additional compensation provided under Section 23(1-A) of the Act."
(3.) Therefore, in view of the above, it is a clear decision of the Supreme Court granting additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) at the rate of 12% p.a. from 04/02/1970 to 26/11/1980 is impermissible. The claimant is not entitled to additional compensation as granted. The impugned order, therefore, is modified. The same portion/part is therefore, quashed and set aside. The above part needs to be given effect with all consequences in view of this order and the impugned judgment and order be modified accordingly. The rests of the impugned order is maintained.;