9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 1324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act, the Civil Court determined the market value of the acquired land at ₹ 75,000/- per acre, but granted compensation @ ₹ 30.000/- per acre in view of Section 25 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment in the year 1984 and as the owners had claimed @ ₹ 30,000/- per acre. On appeal being carried, the learned Single Judge also came to the conclusion that the market value of the land would be ₹ 75,000/- per acre, but did not enhance the compensation in view of the un-amended provisions of Section 25 of the Act and in view of the fact that the owners had claimed only ₹ 30,000/- per acre before the Land Acquisition Officer. The matter being carried to the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal, the Division Bench came to the conclusion that Section 25 being procedural in nature and the amendment having been made while the appeal was pending, the amended provisions of Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act would apply and since under the amended provisions, there is no bar for awarding compensation more than the amount claimed by the claimants and the only embargo being that the amount shall not be awarded less than the amount awarded by the Coll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the claimants is indicative of the legislative intent. That being the position and the Court having determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. one lakh per acre, there is no justification to deny that amount to the claimants, since under Article 31 of the Constitution, no person can be deprived of his property, save by the authority of law. Mr. Rao further submitted that the unamended provisions of Section 25 is ultra vires and such a prayer has been made in the writ petition filed by the claimants under Article 32 of the Constitution. Mr. Rao lastly submitted that in the peculiar facts of this case, even if this Court may declare the law and point out the error in the Division Bench Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, yet ends of justice would not require interference with the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Taherakhatoon vs. Salambin Mohammad, 1999(2) S.C.C. 635. Before embarking upon an inquiry as to the correctness of the contentions raised, it would be appropriate to notice the provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he notice under Section 9(1) must state the necessary particulars, as provided under sub-section (2) of said Section and the Collector then serves notice on the occupier of the land as well as on all such persons known or believed to be interested therein or would be entitled to act for persons so interested, or agents authorised to receive service on their behalf within the revenue district in which the land is situate. In case the person interested resides elsewhere and has no such agent, the notice is required to be sent to him by post in a letter addressed to him at his last known address, under sub- section (4) of Section 9. Section 11 confers power on the Collector to hold an inquiry with regard to the measurements made as well as inquiry to the valuation of the land on the date of Notification under Section 4(1) and thereafter it shall make an Award under his hand. Such Award of the Collector is required to be filed in the Collector's Office and under law is held to be final and conclusive evidence, as between the Collector and the persons interested on the question of true area and value of the land and apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tition under Article 32 can be entertained for deciding the validity of un-amended provisions of Section 25? So far as the first question is concerned, on a plain reading of the same, it is difficult for us to hold that it is procedural in nature. On the other hand, it unequivocally limits the power of the Court on a reference being made to award compensation, more than the amount claimed by the claimants and less than the amount awarded by the Collector. In other words, the substantive right of a claimant who has made a claim to the compensation, pursuant to a notice under Section 9, cannot be more than the amount claimed and under any circumstances, would not be less than the amount which the Land Acquisition Collector has awarded under Section 11, since that award of the Collector is the offer that is made to the claimant. In course of the arguments, Mr. Rao, the learned counsel for the claimants submitted before us that sub-section (5) of Section 25, as it stood prior to its amendment gives sufficient power to the reference Court to entertain a claim if the claimant had omitted to make such claim pursuant to notice issued under Section 9 and determine the compensation on tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 82 was introduced in Parliament on 30th of April, 1982 and came into operation with effect from 24th of September, 1984. Under the amendment in question, the provisions of Section 23(2) dealing with solatium was amended and Section 30(2) of the amended Act provided that the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Principal Act as amended by clause (b) of Section 15 shall apply and shall be deemed to have applied, also to and in relation to any award made by the Collector or Court or to any order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court in appeal against any such award under the provisions of the principal Act, after the 30th April, 1982 and before the commencement of the Act. It is because of the aforesaid provision, the question cropped up as to whether in respect of an award passed by the Collector between the two dates, the amended provision will have an application or not and that question has been answered by this Court in the Constitution Bench decision in Union of India and anr. Vs. Raghubir Singh, 1989(2) S.C.C. 754. Sub-section (2) of Section 30 has at all no reference to the provisions of Section 25 of the Act. In that view of the matter, question of applicabi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the amount claimed by the claimants. Not only the language of the Statute was clear and unambiguous, but also the question was not res- integra, in view of the decision of this Court in Dadoo Yogendrenath Singh vs. The Collector, AIR 1977 SC 1128. Until the statutory rigour contained in sub-section (1) of Section 25 stood obliterated by the amended provisions of Section 25 and until all restraints and embargoes placed for the Court stood totally liberated, the reference Court had no jurisdiction to award the amount in excess of the amount claimed by the claimant. Such being the position of law, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the submission of Mr. Rao to hold that it would not be in the interest of justice to interfere with the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. In our considered opinion, the High Court had no jurisdiction on the law as it stood, to award any amount in excess of the amount claimed and in the case in hand in excess of ₹ 30,000/- per acre and, therefore, the principles enunciated in the decision of this Court in Teherakhatoon vs. Salambin Mohammad, 1999(2) S.C.C. 635, cannot be applied to the case in hand. So ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
