9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (12) TMI 292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onding to Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894) was issued on 21-3-1978. Declaration under Section 6 was made on 15-5-1979. The Land Acquisition Officer (Collector) passed the award on 30-12-1980 and possession of acquired lands taken some time in 1981. The claimants were not satisfied with the award. They asked for a reference under Section 18 which was made. The civil Court gave its decision on 28-2-1985, enhancing the compensation. 3. The Land Acquisition Amendment Bill, which was later enacted into Amendment Act 68 of 84, was introduced in Parliament on 30-4-1982. The Amendment Act came into force with effect from 24-9-1984. For the present purpose it is sufficient to notice only two provisions of the Amendment Act. By Section 15 of the Amendment Act, Sub-section (I-A) was introduced in Section 23. It reads: Section 23(I-A)-In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, Sub-section (1), in respect of such land to the date of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Act, shall apply, and shall be deemed to have applied, also to and in relation to. (a) every case in which possession of any land acquired under the principal Act had been taken before the 30th day of April, 1982 (the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, in the House of the People), and the amount of compensation for such acquisition had not been paid or deposited under Section 31 of the principal Act until such date, with effect on and from that date; and (b) every case in which such possession had been taken on or after that date but before the commencement of this Act without the amount of compensation having been paid or deposited under the said Section 31, with effect on and from the date of taking such possession. 6. The question mat arises in this batch of SLPs is whether the claimants are entitled to the benefit of Section 23(I-A)? It is relevant to recall that the award of the Collector in this case was made on 30-12-1980, i.e., prior to 30-4-1982 and the decision of the civil Court on reference under Section 18 is dated 28-2-1985, i.e., subsequent to the coming into force of the Act. 7. Subsection (1) of Section 30 of the Am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce under Section 18) can award the amount provided by the said Sub-section in every case decided by it, after the coming into force of the said Sub-section, irrespective of any other circumstance. In other words, whether the proceedings for acquisition have begun before or after 30-4-1982 and whether the award of the Collector is made before or after 30-4-1982, the civil Court (on reference under Section 18) can award the said benefit so long as its decision is rendered after the commencement of the Amendment Act (24-9-1984). The said decision is thus based upon the language of 23(I-A) itself and is unrelated to and is independent of the limited retrospectivity given to the said Sub-section by Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Amendment Act. The correctness of this reasoning is questioned by Shri T.S. Krishnamurthy Iyer, me learned Counsel for the State of Kerala. Shri Poti, learned Counsel for the claimants--land holders however supported its reasoning. We have heard both the counsel at some length and are of the respectful opinion that the view expressed by the Bench does not appear to be in accordance with the language and intention of the Amendment Act. 9. Now one can hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be awarded for land acquired under the Act is the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. That the provisions aforesaid are substantive provisions and as amended would apply prospectively is also the dictum in Zora Singh's case (supra). On that basis Section 23(I-A) can be visualized as if a super-structure on the structuring of Section 23(1), which in turn rests on the twin pillars of Sections 11 and 15 which in turn rests on the notification under Section 4 of the Act as its foundation, the date of publication of which is the foundation stone. The legislature having designed the horizontal growth in such manner, the collective scheme which has been made operational prospectively on 24-9-1984 and onwards becomes plain because that is the date on which the amendment comes into effect. When we import this understanding to the scheme of things it becomes evident that a Court when applying Sub-section I-A of Section 23 would do so only if it has in hand an acquisition based upon a notification under Section 4 of the Act issued on 24-9-1984 or thereafter and not to any such notification issued earlier to that date. Same would be the role of the Collector at his end whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amifications and thus would require reconsideration. 11. Further, in our opinion, the use of the word 'Court' in Sub-section I-A of Section 23 is of no significance in the context. For that matter each of the Sub-sections in Section 23 use the said expression. The expression 'Court' in the context refers not only to civil Court (on reference under Section 18) but also to High Court and Supreme Court on appeal. Suppose in a given case, solatium is not awarded or is awarded at a lesser rate, the High Court on appeal can award the same. Similarly, the principles enumerate in Sub-section (1) are of equal application to the High Court and Supreme Court on appeal. If so, logically it should follow--applying the principle of the said decision--that even the High Court/Supreme Court can also award the said benefit, if they decide the matter on or after 24-9-1984. Indeed Section 23 is of equal application to Collector. It cannot certainly be contended that the principles contained in and the benefits conferred by Section 23 are not applicable to and cannot be awarded by the Collector. The fact that Section 23 occurs in part III (Reference to Court and Procedure thereof) i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he principle cannot be different, merely because the amendment either confers new benefits or enhances the existing benefits. The Parliament, by enacting Section 30(1) of the Amendment Act has made its intention clear, as to what extent the said provision shall have retrospective operation. We cannot add to it. We must look only to Section 30(1) to determine the ambit and reach of the retrospectively of Section 23(1-A). In our respectful opinion, the language of Sub-section (1-A) is not sufficient to, nor does it warrant, infer another dimension of retrospectively to it. 13. The opinion expressed by us was also the opinion of a Bench of two Judges of this Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Fillip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama (1990)1SCC277 which has of course been over-ruled in Zora Singh's case (supra). The facts in Fillip Tiago's case (supra) are also similar to the facts in 'fords Singh's case (supra) and the facts of the case before us. There too, award of the Collector was made prior to 30-4-1982 and the decision of the civil Court on reference under Section 18 rendered subsequent to 14-9-1984, that is on 28th May, 1985. Question arose, whether in su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on (2) of Section 23 of the Principal Act lead the Court to award enhanced solatium and enhanced interest as provided by Sub-clause (b) of Section 15 and Section 18 of the Amendment Act, but that field is totally a separate field and cannot have any bearing to the controversy in hand. It is to be remembered that the provisions in the Parent Act remain good unless amended or altered at a later stage. The transitional provisions in the Amendment Act, on the other hand, cover matters which are in the pipeline and are in transit till reaching their destination. On clearance of the transitional load the transitional provisions exhaust themselves having outlived their utility. This in our view is also an aid which could go towards re-consideration of the ratio in Zora Singh's case (supra). 16. Mr. Krishnamurthy Iyer, learned Counsel for the Suite of Kerala raised yet another contention which we must deal with. It is this: In the State of Kerala, the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961 (which had received the assent of the President) was in force until 24.9.1984 when the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was extended to that State by virtue of the Amendment effected in Section 1(2) of the L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
