AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned senior counsel for the respondents, placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in CA No. 174 and 602- 605/82 dated October 29,1987, wherein the counsel appearing for the appellant had conceded in those appeals that "the respondents have agreed that the provisions of the amending Act shall apply and escalated rates provided therein would be available." Based thereon, it is contended by Sri Gopal Subramaniam that it is no longer open to the appellant to contend that the respondents are not entitled to the benefits provided u/s 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act as amended under Act 68/1984. Section 23(1-A) provides that in addition to the compensation the owner is entitled to the payment of 12% per annum of the enhanced c§mpensation from the date of the notification u/s 4(1) till date of passing award by the Collector or taking possession, whichever is earlier. This is independent of the escalation of the solatium and interest provided under sub-s (2) of Section 23, and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended under Act 68 of 1984, respectively. Therefore, what was meant by this Court in the above quoted direction is escalation but not independent of the claims available u/s 23(1-A) since by then that question was pending adjudication before this Court.
Under these circumstances, the respondents are not entitled to the benefits u/s 23(1-A) of Land Acquisition Act. It should accordingly be deleted from the award. It is needless to mention that the respondents shall pay the balance amount as directed by this Court in the earlier order within a period of one month from today. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.