Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Hira Lal and ors. - Court Judgment |
| Civil |
| Supreme Court of India |
| Sep-06-1996 |
| C.A. No. 11470 of 1996 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 8321 of 1996) |
| B.P. Jeevan Reddy and; K.S. Paripoornan, JJ. |
| 1996VIIAD(SC)541; JT1996(8)SC350; 1996(6)SCALE675; (1996)10SCC574; 1996(2)LC721(SC) |
| Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 |
| Union of India (Uoi) |
| Hira Lal and ors. |
- central excise tariff act, 1985. schedule, heading 98.01: [s.h. kapadia & b. sudershan reddy, jj] exemption from duty - import of goods for expansion of fertilizer project - notification no. 11/97, dated 1.3.1997 - essentiality certificate dated 22.10.1997 assessees imported captive power plant essential for expansion essentiality certificate issued by sponsoring ministry recommended said captive power plant as part of entire capital goods required by the assessee-company for expansion held, where the list of items appended to certificate contained 14 items and 13 of them were accepted as capital goods, it cannot be said that sponsoring ministry had not applied its mind to list appended to the essentiality certificate. heading 98.01 is a specific and not a general entry. it is not residuary entry. it needs to be liberally interpreted as it deals with industrialization. it has to be read in the context of the notification referred above. fertilizer project is dependent on continuous flow of electricity, revenue cannot go behind such certificate and deny the benefit of exemption from duty. .....at rs. 3.61 lacs (excluding the amount of rs. 72037.85 paise which has already been paid to the respondents in the year 1982). having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, however, we direct that the said amount of rs. 3.61 lacs shall carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent simple from the date of the decree of the learned subordinate judge, i.e., the date on which the learned subordinate judge made the award a rule of the court. the said interest shall be payable till the date of payment.4. we must mention that the concession made by the government advocate before the learned district judge that the respondents are entitled to solatium and interest as provided in the land acquisition act 1894 (as amended in 1984) was a totally unwarranted concession. being a concession on a question of law, it cannot be said to be binding upon the appellant. it is surprising how the government advocate could have made such a concession which is totally untenable in law and is prejudicial to the interests of the parties he was representing. we are equally of the opinion that this was not a matter in which the revision petition filed by the appellant should have been dismissed in.....
ORDER
B.P. Jeevan Reddy and K.S. Paripoornan, JJ.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard the counsel for the parties.
3. We are of the opinion that the learned District Judge who heard the appeal filed by the State and the cross-objections filed by the respondents was not competent to award solatium and interest as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (as amended by the 1984 Amendment Act). Accordingly, we delete the award of solatium and also award of interest at the rate and for the periods mentioned in the order of the learned District Judge. We, however, affirm the quantum of compensation awarded by the Arbitrator at Rs. 3.61 lacs (excluding the amount of Rs. 72037.85 paise which has already been paid to the respondents in the year 1982). Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, however, we direct that the said amount of Rs. 3.61 lacs shall carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent simple from the date of the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, i.e., the date on which the learned Subordinate Judge made the award a rule of the Court. The said interest shall be payable till the date of payment.
4. We must mention that the concession made by the Government Advocate before the Learned District Judge that the respondents are entitled to solatium and interest as provided in the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (as Amended in 1984) was a totally unwarranted concession. Being a concession on a question of law, it cannot be said to be binding upon the appellant. It is surprising how the Government Advocate could have made such a concession which is totally untenable in law and is prejudicial to the interests of the parties he was representing. We are equally of the opinion that this was not a matter in which the Revision Petition filed by the appellant should have been dismissed in limine by the High Court.
5. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part in the above terms. No costs.