9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (8) TMI 373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as issued by the State of Punjab under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) stating that a large chunk of land admeasuring 10768 Bighas 18 Biswas was likely to be needed for the purpose of establishment of a cantonment within the revenue estate of Bhatinda. This notification was followed by another notification issued by the State of PunJab under- section 6 of the Act declaring that the entire area admeasuring 10768 Bighas 18 Biswas was needed for the establishment of a cantonment. The Land Acquisition Collector thereafter issued a notice under-section 9 of the Act and required persons interested in the land forming the subject matter of the declaration to submit their claims for compensation for acquisition of their interest in the land. The claims submitted by various claimants including the appellants in the present appeal were considered by the Land Acquisition Collector and he made an award on 11th June 1975 dividing the land acquired into three belts and awarding compensation at varying rates according to the belt in which a particular piece of land was situated. The appellants and other claimants being aggrieved by the award made b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, were entitled to enhanced compensation and the case of the appellants stood on the same footing, the appellant should have been given an opportunity of paying up the deficit court fee so that, like other claimants, they could also get enhanced compensation at the same rate as the others. The learned single Judge and the Division Bench should not have, in our opinion, adopted a technical approach and denied the benefit of enhanced compensation to the appellants merely because they had not initially paid the proper amount of court fee. It must be remembered that this was not a dispute between two private citizens where it would be quite just and legitimate to confine the claimant to the claim made by him and not to award him any higher amount than that claimed though even in such a case there may be situations where an amount higher than that claimed can be awarded to the claimant as for instance where an amount is claimed as due at the foot of an account. Here was a claim made by the appellants against the State Government for compensation for acquisition of their land and under the law, the State was bound to pay to the appellants compensatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er to adjudicate upon the validity of this contention to refer to a few relevant provisions of the Act as it stood prior to its amendment by the Amending Act. Section 23 sub- section (2) of the unamended Act provided inter alia as follows:- 23 (2) In addition to the market value of the land as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of fifteen per centum on such market value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. Section 28 of the unamended Act provided for payment of interest on excess compensation in the following terms: If the sum which, in the opinion of the Court, the Collector ought to have, awarded as compensation is in excess of the sum which the Collector did awarded as compensation, the award of the Court may direct that the Collector shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of six per centum per annum from then date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Court. The Act was amended by the Amending Act h effect from 24th September 1984. Section 15 clause (b) of the Amending Act reads as follows : 15. In section 23 of the Principal Act : (a) ....................... ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision was not cited before the Bench of three Judges in Mohinder Singh's case and moreover there is no discussion of the provision enacted in Section 30 sub-section (2) and hence we have to consider for ourselves which decision, on a true interpretation of the language of Section 30 sub-section (2) represents the correct view. We may first consider what would be the position if Section 30 sub-section (2) were not enacted and the amendments in Section 23 sub-section (2) and Section 28 were effective only from the date on which they were made, namely 24th September 1984 when the Amending Act received the assent of the President and was brought into force. If at the date of the commencement of the Amending Act, any proceedings for determination of compensation were pending before the Collector under Section 11 of the Act or before the Court on a reference under Section 18 of the Act, the amended Section 23 sub-section (2) and Section 28 would admittedly be applicable to such proceedings. This much indeed was conceded by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and even in Kamalajammanniavaru case (supra) it was accepted to be the correct position. Chinnappa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion would have to take into account the amended provisions in Section 23 sub- section (2) and Section 28, because when the Supreme Court decides the appeal and determines the amount of compensation, it would have to comply with the mandate contained in Section 23 sub-section (2) and Section 28 and that mandate would be as found in the amended provisions of Section 23 Sub-Section (2) and Section 28. Thus the amended provisions of Section 23 sub-section (2) and Section 28 would apply in determination of the amount of compensation where proceedings are either pending at the date of commencement of the amending Act or are filed subsequent to the date, whether before the Collector or before the Court or before the High Court or the Supreme Court. Now, as we have already pointed out above, the Amending Act came into force with effect from 24th September 1984 but the Bill which ultimately became the Amending Act was introduced in Parliament on 30th April 1982. Parliament obviously desired that the amended provisions of Section 23 sub-section (2) and Section 28 should be given effect from the date of introduction of the Bill in Parliament and therefore enacted Section 30 sub-section (2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficant that the adverbial phrase after the 30th day of April 1982 and before the commencement of this Act governs not only the words 'any award made by the Collector or court but also the words any order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court in appeal against any such award The amended provisions Of Section 23 sub-section (2) and Section 28 are applicable not only in relation to an award made by the Collector or court after 30th April 1982 and before the commencement of the amending Act but also in relation to an order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court in appeal between 30th April 1982 and the commencement of the Amending Act. The appeal in which the order is passed by the High Court or Supreme Court may be against an award made by the Collector or court prior to 30th April 1982 or subsequent to that date. The only requirement is that the order must have been passed by the High Court or Supreme Court in appeal against such award, after 30th April 1982 but before the commencement of the amending Act. If it was the intention of Parliament to confine the applicability of the provisions Of the amended section 23 sub-section (2) and section 28 only to an award made b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... compensation pending on 30th April 1982 or filed subsequent to that date, whether before the Collector or before the court or the High Court or the Supreme Court, even if they have finally terminated before the enactment of the Amending Act. It would not be a correct interpretation of Section 30 sub-section (2) to say that the provisions of the amended section 2 sub-section (2) and Section 28 would be applicable in relation to an order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court only if the order is passed in appeal against an award made by the Collector or Court between 30th April 1982 and the commencement of the Amending Act. Even if an award is made by the Collector or court on or before 30th April 1982 and an appeal against such award is pending before the High Court or the Supreme Court on 30th April 1982 or is filed subsequent to that date, the provisions of the amended Section 23 sub-section (2) and Section 23 would be applicable in relation to an order passed in such appeal by the High Court or the Supreme Court, we accordingly affirm the view taken by the Bench of three Judges in Mohinder Singh's case (supra) and express our respectful disagreement with the view taken by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
