Is Section 23(2) automatically retrospective?

No. It is not retrospective by itself. Limited retrospectivity flows only through the transitional clause in Section 30(2).

What was decided for the claimant here?

Additional compensation under Section 23(1A) was disallowed; other parts of the High Court’s decision remained.

Union of India v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama

Q: What was the key question in this case?

Whether the higher 30% solatium under Section 23(2) and the additional amount under Section 23(1A) apply to awards made after 24-09-1984 when acquisition began earlier.

Q: When does Section 23(1A) apply?

It applies if proceedings were pending before the Collector on 30-04-1982 without an award, or if acquisition commenced after that date, per Section 30(1).

Q: What dates matter for Section 30(2)?

Awards by the Collector or Court made between 30-04-1982 and 24-09-1984—and appeals from such awards—can get the Section 23(2) benefit.

Union of India v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama (1990)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (as amended by Act 68 of 1984): Section 23(1A), Section 23(2), solatium, and transition under Section 30.

Supreme Court of India 1990 Bench: SC (1990) 1 SCC 27 Land Acquisition ~7 min read

Author: Gulzar Hashmi • India • Published: October 31, 2025

Quick Summary

This case explains how the 1984 amendments to the Land Acquisition Act work over time. The big questions were: does the higher solatium (30%) under Section 23(2) and the additional amount under Section 23(1A) apply to awards made after 24-09-1984 when acquisition began earlier?

The Supreme Court said: Section 23(2) is not automatically retrospective. Limited retrospectivity comes through Section 30(2) for awards made between 30-04-1982 and 24-09-1984 (and appeals from them). Section 23(1A) applies only if proceedings were pending before the Collector on 30-04-1982 without an award, or if acquisition started after that date (Section 30(1)). On the facts here, the claimant could not get Section 23(1A).

CASE_TITLE: Union of India v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama (1990) PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Section 23(1A), Section 23(2), solatium, Land Acquisition Act 1984, Section 30(1), Section 30(2) SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: retrospective effect, transitional provisions, market value date, Section 4(1) notification, Dabolim NAS PUBLISH_DATE: 2025-10-31 AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi LOCATION: India Slug: union-of-india-v-filip-tiago-de-gama-of-vedem-vasco-de-gama

```

Issues

Does Section 23(2)
When does Section 23(1A) (additional amount) apply during acquisition proceedings?

Rules

If a statute changes rights, it usually has transitional clauses. If not, courts infer Parliament’s intent from context.

Where literal reading causes absurdity or breaks the scheme, courts choose a purpose-led reading.

Under Section 23(1), market value is fixed at the Section 4(1) notification date—never any other date.

Key transitional windows: 30-04-1982 → 24-09-1984 (Section 30(2) for solatium) and pending-on 30-04-1982 or commenced after (Section 30(1) for Section 23(1A)).

Facts (Timeline)

26 Oct 1967: State issued Section 4(1) notification to acquire respondent’s land for Naval Air Station, Dabolim.

5 Mar 1969: Collector’s award: ₹0.40/sq m + 15% solatium.

28 May 1985: Reference Court enhanced to ₹3/sq m + 15% solatium + 6% interest.

Appeal: Claimant sought more; High Court allowed 30% solatium and additional amounts.

Challenge: Union of India disputed the Section 23(1A) and 23(2) grants.

Arguments

Respondent/Claimant

Entitled to 30% solatium and 23(1A) additional amount after 24-09-1984.

Purpose of 1984 Act was to raise compensation fairly; should apply to ongoing matters.

Union of India

No automatic retrospectivity for 23(2); only as per Section 30(2).

23(1A) applies only if pending before Collector on 30-04-1982 or if begun after that date (Section 30(1)).

Market value date fixed at Section 4(1) notification.

Judgment

The Supreme Court gave limited retrospectivity to Section 23(2) via Section 30(2). Awards by the Collector or Court between 30-04-1982 and 24-09-1984, and appeals from such awards, get the higher solatium.

Section 23(1A): The extra amount applies only if proceedings were pending before the Collector on 30-04-1982 without an award (Section 30(1)(a)), or if acquisition commenced after 30-04-1982 (Section 30(1)(b)).

Here, Section 4(1) notice was in 1967 and the Collector’s award was in 1969. So, on 30-04-1982, nothing was pending before the Collector. Therefore, 23(1A) was not available. The appeal succeeded in part: the grant under Section 23(1A) was deleted; other reliefs stood.

Ratio

No blanket retrospectivity: Section 23(2) applies retroactively only through Section 30(2).

23(1A) gatekeeping: Applies when pending on 30-04-1982 without Collector’s award, or where acquisition started after that date.

Valuation date fixed: Market value is tied to the Section 4(1) notification date.

Why It Matters

The decision sets a clear timeline test for enhanced compensation under the 1984 Act. It prevents confusion about which awards get 30% solatium and when the additional amount is due. It also protects certainty by anchoring valuation to the Section 4(1) date.

Key Takeaways

Section 23(2) benefits flow only via Section 30(2) and the 1982–1984 window.

Section 23(1A) needs a pending-before-Collector status on 30-04-1982 or commencement after that date.

Market value = Section 4(1) date—always.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “3 Windows for 23” → 23(2) via 30(2) (1982-84), 23(1A) via 30(1) (pending or post-1982).

Check the window: Is the award in 1982–1984? → 23(2) may apply.

Check the status: Pending before Collector on 30-04-1982 or started after? → 23(1A) may apply.

Fix the date: Value the land on the Section 4(1) date.

IRAC Outline

Issue Rule Application Conclusion

Do Sections 23(2) and 23(1A) apply to this award? 23(2) applies via 30(2) (1982–84 awards/appeals). 23(1A) applies via 30(1) (pending on 30-04-1982 or started after). Notification in 1967; Collector’s award in 1969; not in the 1982–84 window, and not pending on 30-04-1982. 23(1A) disallowed; limited 23(2) rule clarified; valuation fixed at Section 4(1) date.

Glossary

Solatium
Extra amount over market value to soften compulsory acquisition.

Transitional Clause
A provision telling how new rules apply to old or ongoing cases.

Section 4(1) Date
The notification date; used to fix market value for compensation.

FAQs

Whether the higher solatium and the additional amount under the 1984 Act applied to awards given after 24-09-1984 when acquisition began earlier.

Not by itself. It works retroactively only through Section 30(2) for awards in 1982–1984 (and appeals from them).

If the case was pending before the Collector on 30-04-1982 without an award, or if acquisition started after that date.

The Section 4(1) notification date—always. No other date can be used to compute market value.

The appeal was allowed in part. The extra amount under Section 23(1A) was removed; other parts of the High Court’s order remained.

Related Cases

Transitional Application

Cases clarifying how amended provisions apply to ongoing or past acquisitions.

Compensation & Solatium

Decisions on solatium rates, additional amounts, and valuation dates.

Reviewed by The Law Easy

Land Acquisition Compensation Supreme Court

Issue	Rule	Application	Conclusion
Do Sections 23(2) and 23(1A) apply to this award?	23(2) applies via 30(2) (1982–84 awards/appeals). 23(1A) applies via 30(1) (pending on 30-04-1982 or started after).	Notification in 1967; Collector’s award in 1969; not in the 1982–84 window, and not pending on 30-04-1982.	23(1A) disallowed; limited 23(2) rule clarified; valuation fixed at Section 4(1) date.