1991 (12) TMI 292 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Retroactivity of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 68 of 1984.
2. Applicability of Section 23(1-A) of the Amendment Act.
3. Interpretation of Section 30 of the Amendment Act.
4. Conflict with the decision in Zora Singh's case.
5. Jurisdiction and role of the civil court, High Court, and Supreme Court in awarding compensation.
6. Impact of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961, and its relation to the Central Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Retroactivity of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 68 of 1984:
The judgment discusses the retroactivity of certain provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by the 1984 Amendment Act. The court acknowledges the conflict of opinion regarding the retroactivity of these provisions. Specifically, the court examines whether the provisions of Section 23(1-A) and the amended Section 23(2) apply retrospectively to cases where the land acquisition proceedings were initiated before the Amendment Act came into force.

2. Applicability of Section 23(1-A) of the Amendment Act:
The judgment addresses whether claimants are entitled to the benefits of Section 23(1-A) of the Amendment Act. The court notes that the award by the Collector in this case was made prior to 30-4-1982, and the decision of the civil court on reference under Section 18 was made after the Amendment Act came into force. The court concludes that the benefit of Section 23(1-A) is not available to the claimants in this case because the proceedings and the award by the Collector were completed before the specified date.

3. Interpretation of Section 30 of the Amendment Act:
Section 30 of the Amendment Act provides transitional provisions with limited retrospective effect. The court explains that Section 30(1) applies to two situations: (i) proceedings pending on 30-4-1982 where no award was made by the Collector before that date, and (ii) proceedings commenced after 30-4-1982, regardless of whether an award was made before the commencement of the Amendment Act. The court finds that the present case does not fall within these situations, and therefore, the benefit of Section 23(1-A) is not applicable.

4. Conflict with the decision in Zora Singh's case:
The court refers to the decision in Zora Singh's case, where it was held that the benefit of Section 23(1-A) is available to all cases where the civil court makes its award after the Amendment Act came into force, irrespective of the date of the Collector's award. The court expresses respectful disagreement with this view, stating that it does not align with the language and intention of the Amendment Act. The court emphasizes that the retrospective application of Section 23(1-A) is limited to the situations specified in Section 30(1) of the Amendment Act.

5. Jurisdiction and role of the civil court, High Court, and Supreme Court in awarding compensation:
The judgment clarifies that the expression "court" in Section 23(1-A) refers not only to the civil court on reference under Section 18 but also to the High Court and Supreme Court on appeal. The court explains that the principles and benefits provided in Section 23 apply equally to the Collector, civil court, High Court, and Supreme Court. The court disagrees with the view that the civil court can award the benefit of Section 23(1-A) in every case decided after the Amendment Act came into force, regardless of the date of the Collector's award.

6. Impact of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961, and its relation to the Central Act:
The court addresses the contention that the provisions of the Central Act cannot have retrospective effect in the State of Kerala, where the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961, was in force until 24-9-1984. The court rejects this contention, stating that the Central Act, as amended, applies retrospectively as specified in the Amendment Act. The court refers to the decision in Kanthimathy Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala, which held that the effect of the amendment of Section 1(2) of the Principal Act is the same as the repeal of the Kerala Act.

Conclusion:
The court concludes that the matter requires reconsideration by a larger bench, particularly regarding the correctness of the decision in Zora Singh's case. The papers are to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.