9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 1092X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arh. Accordingly a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 28-5-1976. Invoking the urgency clause under Section 17(1) possession of the land was taken on 28-8-1976. Award was made by the said Special Land Acquisition Officer on 27-12-1977. By this he awarded the market value of the land, as agricultural land @ Rs. 5159/- per acre, having 'Parata' rate of Rs. 4.43 per acre. The respondent-land owner preferred reference under Section 18 which concluded by an award dated 28-2-1981 under which market value @ Rs. 3/- per square yard was fixed with solatium at 15% and interest at 6% per annum. Aggrieved by this the appellant filed an appeal in the High Court for restoration of the order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer while respondent-land owner preferred cross-objection for further enhancement of the compensation. The appellant raised three questions before the High Court. (1) The reference application moved by the respondent-land owners was beyond the period of limitation. (2) The reference application moved under Section 18 of the Act was non-maintainable as several persons, having separate and distinct interest, had jo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt so claimed by the land owners and no to be less than the amount awarded by the Collector. This very clearly limits awarding of compensation within the amount claimed. On the facts of the present case it is not in dispute the award itself was given on 27-12-1977 and even proceeding pursuant to referring order, was concluded on 28-2-1981, i.e., much prior to the aforesaid Amending Act. Thus, on the facts of this case it is unamended Section 25 to be applicable and not the amended section. In view of this the peripheral limitation on the court awarding the compensation, would equally apply to the High Court exercising its power as the first appellate court. The case of Gobardhan Mahto v. State of Bihar AIR 1979 SC 1246 , was also a case in which unamended Section 25 was applicable. The Court held: The short answer to this contention is to be found in the provisions of Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act. By Sub-section 1 of that section, when an applicant makes a claim to compensation pursuant to a notice given to him under Section 9 the amount awarded to him by the court shall not exceed the amount so claimed. By Sub-section 2 of Section 25, when the applicant has refused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed interest as per amended section @ 9% per annum from the date on which possession of land was taken to the date of payment of such excess amount in Court. It further held, if this excess amount is paid after the expiry of a period of one year the interest admissible to land owners would be @ 15% per annum. The High Court relied on the cases of this Court in Bhag Singh and Ors. v. Union Territory of Chandigarh AIR 1985 SC 1576 , and in Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh (Dead) by LRs. etc. [1989] 178 ITR 548(SC) . It further held, in view of the decision in Union of India and Anr. v. Zora Singh and Ors. (1992) 1 SCC 673 , the appellant is not entitled to the additional benefit under Section 23(I-A). 12. In Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh (Dead) by LRs. etc. [1989] 178 ITR 548(SC) , this Court was considering Sections 30(2) and 15 whether claimant was entitled for the increase in solatium to 30% which was enhanced from 15% through the aforesaid Amending Act. It was held that this amending provision would only be applicable to the awards given by the Collector or Court between 30th April, 1982 and 24th September, 1984. The benefit of amended provisions would not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... retrospective if it operates on cases or facts the sense that it affects, even if for the future only, the character or consequences of transactions previously entered into or of other past conduct. 14. He also referred to Jose Da Costa and Anr. v. Bascora Sadasiva Sinai Narcornim and Ors. AIR 1975 SC 1843 . In para 31 it held that procedural right is declaratory in nature and is restrictive in operation while substantive right is prospective unless the legislature intends otherwise is well settled. The question is, whether Section 25 of the Act, would be said to be procedural right and not substantive right. In support, submission is, looking to the scheme of the Act the proceeding Sections 23 and 24 merely refers how compensation to be determined and what matters to be neglected in determining compensation in the background, Section 25 is merely procedural. We have no hesitation to reject such a submission. Section 25 deals with amount of compensation to be awarded by the Court. It mandates the Court that such compensation shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11. Awarding of compensation, curtailing, restricting or adding light to the compen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... square yard, therefore, the High Court has no jurisdiction to award @ Rs. 9/- per square yard. We have considered this submission. We do not find any merit in this review petition. 17. Award being in this case between the dates 30th April, 1982 and 24th September, 1984 and as per the Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh (Dead) by LRs. etc. (Supra), the amended provisions would be applicable under which there is no restriction that award could only be upto the amount claimed by the claimant. Hence High Court order granting compensation more than what is claimed cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to the provisions of the Act. Hence the review itself, as is confined for the aforesaid reasons, has no merit. 18. The faint submission was also made that example relied by the High Court for enhancing the compensation being agreement to sale should not have been relied. Firstly, we would not like to enter into this question as scope of review was not to re-assess or reappraise the evidence which was considered by the High Court and finally dismissed by this Court. Even otherwise while fixing the market value, in totality of circumstances if any rate is specified in a docum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
