9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Retrospective vs. Prospective Application of the Amendment in the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act regarding the rate of interest. Detailed Analysis: Retrospective vs. Prospective Application of the Amendment The primary legal question addressed by the Full Bench was whether the amendment to the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, introduced by Act No. XXXIV of 1960, which changed the rate of interest from 6% to 4%, was to be applied retrospectively or prospectively. Common Ground and Context It was undisputed that the lands in question were acquired, and the awards by the Collector were given before the amendment came into force. Additionally, references to the District Judge for enhancing compensation were made before the amendment. The District Judge's orders, which included granting interest at 6% per annum, were passed after the amendment came into force. Arguments and Contentions The Advocate General argued that since the District Judge passed his orders after the amendment was in force, he should have granted interest at the amended rate of 4% per annum. The respondents contended that the amendment should be prospective, as there was no express or implied indication in the language of the amendment that it was to apply retrospectively. They also argued that section 28 was mandatory, conferring a duty on the court to grant interest, thus creating a vested right that could not be taken away by a retrospective amendment. Analysis of Section 28 The court reviewed various authorities and concluded that there were two sets of opinions regarding whether section 28 was mandatory or directory. The court favored the view that section 28 was mandatory, meaning the court had a duty to grant interest at the specified rate. This interpretation was supported by the statutory language and the scheme of the Act, which aimed to provide fair compensation, including interest, to landowners. Legal Principles and Precedents The court emphasized well-settled principles of statutory interpretation, noting that the use of the word "may" in a statute does not necessarily indicate discretion and can imply a mandatory duty, especially when coupled with an obligation. The court cited several Supreme Court decisions supporting this interpretation. Vested Rights and Retrospective Legislation The court held that the right to receive interest at 6% per annum was a vested right that accrued when the land was acquired and the award made. Such a right could not be impaired by a retrospective amendment unless explicitly stated. The amendment did not contain any language indicating retrospective application. Supporting Judgments The court referenced several judgments, including decisions from the Privy Council and the Supreme Court, which supported the view that amendments affecting substantive rights should not be applied retrospectively unless clearly intended by the legislature. The court also referred to a Privy Council decision where a similar issue was decided, holding that the rate of interest should be determined based on the law in force at the time of acquisition. Conclusion The court concluded that the amendment to section 28 by Act No. XXXIV of 1960 was prospective in nature and did not apply to proceedings that were pending before the amendment came into force. Therefore, the rate of interest to be awarded should be 6% per annum, as per the provisions of section 28 before the amendment. The cases were remanded back to the division bench for hearing in accordance with this interpretation of the law.
|
