1989 (5) TMI 54 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether, Under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the claimants are entitled to solatium at 30 per cent. of the market value irrespective of the dates oil which the acquisition proceedings were initiated or the dates on which the award had been passed ? Held that - What Parliament intends to say is that the benefit of section 30(2) will be available to an award by the Collector or the court made between the aforesaid two dates or to an appellate order of the High Court or of the Supreme Court which arises out of an award of the Collector or the court made between the said two dates. The word or is used with reference to the stage at which the proceeding rests at the time when the benefit under section 30(2) is sought to be extended. If the proceeding has terminated with the award of the Collector or of the court made between the aforesaid two dates, the benefit of section 30(2) will be applied to such award made between the aforesaid two dates. If the proceeding has passed to the stage of appeal before the High Court or the Supreme Court, it is at that stage that the benefit of section 30(2) will be applied. But, in every case, the award of the Collector or of the court must have been made between April 30, 1982 and September 24, 1984.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reference to a larger Bench.
2. Interpretation of Section 30(2) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984.
3. Binding precedent and judicial hierarchy.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Reference to a Larger Bench:
The preliminary objection raised by Shri B. R. L. Iyengar questioned the validity of referring the cases to a larger Bench merely because a Bench of two judges doubted the correctness of a view taken by a Bench of three judges. The court emphasized the hierarchical character of the judicial system in India, where the doctrine of binding precedent is a cardinal feature. It is crucial for the law declared by the Supreme Court to be certain, clear, and consistent to promote certainty and consistency in judicial decisions. The court concluded that there was sufficient justification for referring the cases to a larger Bench for reconsideration of the question decided in K. Kamalajammanniavaru and Bhag Singh. The preliminary objection was overruled.

2. Interpretation of Section 30(2) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984:
The central question was whether claimants are entitled to solatium at 30% of the market value irrespective of the dates on which the acquisition proceedings were initiated or the dates on which the award had been passed. Section 30(2) of the Amendment Act specifies the category of cases to which the amended rate of solatium is attracted. The court interpreted that the benefit of the enhanced solatium is intended for awards made by the Collector or court between April 30, 1982, and September 24, 1984. It also extends to appeals against such awards decided by the High Court and the Supreme Court, regardless of whether the decisions were rendered before or after September 24, 1984. The court preferred the interpretation in K. Kamalajammanniavaru over Bhag Singh, emphasizing that the words "any such award" refer specifically to awards made within the specified date range. The court found substance in the contention that if Parliament had intended to extend the benefit to all pending proceedings, it would have done so in clear language. The interpretation of Section 30(2) in Bhag Singh was overruled, and the interpretation in K. Kamalajammanniavaru was upheld.

3. Binding Precedent and Judicial Hierarchy:
The court discussed the importance of the doctrine of binding precedent in promoting certainty and consistency in judicial decisions. It highlighted that a Division Bench of two judges is bound by the law laid down by a Division Bench of a larger number of judges. The court reaffirmed that a pronouncement of law by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court is binding on a Division Bench of the same or smaller number of judges. It emphasized that decisions of the Supreme Court should ideally be rendered by Division Benches of at least three judges to ensure certainty and authority. The court overruled the view in Javed Ahmed Abdul Hamid Pawala that questioned the validity of a Division Bench of three judges overruling a Division Bench of two judges. The principle that a Division Bench of a larger number of judges should be preferred over a smaller number was reaffirmed.

Conclusion:
The reference to a larger Bench was valid, and the interpretation of Section 30(2) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, was clarified to apply to awards made by the Collector or court between April 30, 1982, and September 24, 1984, or to appeals against such awards. The doctrine of binding precedent and judicial hierarchy was reaffirmed, emphasizing the importance of consistency and certainty in the law declared by the Supreme Court. The cases were to be listed before a Division Bench of three judges for hearing on the merits of other points raised.