http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1 PETITIONER:
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RESPONDENT:
MARUTI LAXMAN DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/04/1996 BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J) CITATION:
1996 SCC (4) 595 JT 1996 (5) 73 1996 SCALE (4)298 ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R Though notice was served on the respondent, no one appears on behalf of him.
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.
Notification under Section 4 [1] of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short, the ’Act’] was published on July 31, 1969. The Land Acquisition officer made his award on October 12, 1972 awarding compensation @ Rs. 1,000/- per acre. On reference, the civil Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.2,000/- per acre by award and decree dated February 18, 1977. The High Court while dismissing the State appeal on July 16, 1986 has awarded the enhanced benefits under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. Thus this appeal by special leave.
This appeal is only in respect of awarding of enhanced benefits under Sections 23 [2], 28 end 23 [1A] of the Act. In view of the settled legal position that the award of the civil Court was made long before the date of the introduction of the Amendment Act 68 of 1984, the claimant is not entitled to the enhanced benefits. That apart, it is also settled legal position that the High Court, while dismissing the appellant’s appeal, had no jurisdiction to award the additional benefits since the claimants did not file any appeal for further enhancement. Therefore, in the absence of award additional compensation being awarded, the High Court has no jurisdiction to award the benefits under the provisions Of the Amendment Act 68 of 1984.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court awarding solatium, interest and additional amount under Section 23 [2], 28 and 23 [1-A] stands set aside. No costs.