Mansukhlal Popatlal Kanakhra vs State of Gujarat and Another

S.B. Majmudar, J.—In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner whose land came to be acquired under notification u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act by the respondent-State, has made a grievance that the compensation which he has got should be enhanced by paying him 30% solatium and 15% interest as per the provisions of Sections 28 and 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. As Amended by Act 68 of 1984.

These proceedings have a chequered history, and therefore, it would be necessary to give a few introductory facts. The petitioner''s land alongwith lands of others were sought to be acquired by issuance of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 4 notification is dated 18-2-1971 Section 6 notification is dated 31-12-1971. The petitioner in compensation proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer claimed compensation by raising his demand pursuant to notice u/s 9. Thereafter, award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 15-7-1974. The petitioner was not satisfied with that award. He, therefore, got a reference made. The said reference came to be decided on 19-11-1977 by the District Court, Jamnagar awarding enhanced compensation. The District Court, Jamnagar while enhancing compensation, granted 15% solatium on the enhanced amount and interest at 6% on the additional amount. The State of Gujarat being dissatisfied by the award, filed number of appeals in this Court being First Appeal No. 311 of 1977 and group. As claimant was one of the respondents, he also was served with notice of the concerned appeal in the group. Other claimants filed their cross objections to the said appeals, but so far as the petitioner is concerned, by some mischance, he failed to file cross-objections. The Division Bench of this Court decided the appeals and cross-objections by a common judgment on 22-10-1980. The said appeals were dismissed but cross-objections of the claimants were partly allowed and further compensation was awarded to the claimants. Unfortunately for the petitioner, as no cross-objections were filed by him, in his case, enhanced compensation was not given. He, therefore, felt aggrieved and filed review petition in this Court. However, this Court rejected the review petition on 29-4-1982 subject to recommendation to the Government that because of mischance, the petitioner has failed to file cross-objections and High Court could not give him more compensation but the Government in its discretion may give some enhanced compensation as granted to other claimants covered by the same notification and same decision of the High Court. Pursuant to these observations in the review petition, the petitioner want by way of representation to the State Government but his representation was rejected. He therefore, filed Special Civil Application No. 4153 of 1983 in this Court. A Division Bench of this Court heard that petition on merits and allowed the same by decision dated 10-12-1984 directing the respondents to give the same benefit to the petitioner as was made available by the judgment of the High Court in First Appeal No. 311 of 1977 and group, meaning thereby, whatever additional compensation was made available to the concerned claimants in the group of matters by the High Court decision dated 22-10-1980, was required to be made available to the petitioner also. It is not in dispute that in the light of the decision in Special Civil Application No. 4153 of 1983, enhanced compensation has been paid to the petitioner. However, in the judgment of this Court in First Appeal No. 311 of 1977 and group, 15% solatium was granted and 41/2% interest was awarded. Naturally, therefore, the respondent gave to the petitioner the solatium at the same rate and also interest at the rate of 41/2%. It is thereafter that the petitioner has filed the present petition on the ground that as per Amending Act 68 of 1984, the petitioner is entitled to 30% solatium on the enhanced compensation and interest at the rate of 9%.

This contention is raised by placing reliance on amended Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act of the Amending Act. It is submitted that the petitioner''s claim for compensation was pending since 1983 and it came to be decided by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 4153 of 1983 on 10-12-1984, and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of this amended provision as brought on the statute book by Land Acquisition (Amending) Act, 68 of 1984. It is not possible to agree with this contention. The petitioner''s case would have stood on a firmer footing if earlier decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Mohinder Singh and Another, had survived because in that case, three learned Judges of the Supreme Court had clearly taken the view that benefit of amended provisions of Act 68 of 1984 will be available in those cases where matters were pending either in the High Court or the Supreme Court at some stage. However, these decision has been expressly overruled by the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. Raghubir Singh (Dead) by Lrs. Etc., Five learned Judges of the Constitution Bench in that case have taken the view that benefit of the Amended Act as per Section 30(2) of Act No. 68 of 1984 will be available in respect of award made by the Collector or of Court rendered between 30-4-1982 and 24-9-1984. Likewise, the benefit of the enhanced solatium is extended by Section 30(2) to the case of an award made by the Court between 30-4-1982 and 24-9-1984, even though it be upon reference from an award made before 30-4-1982. It has in terms been held, overruling the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in K. Kamalajammanniavaru (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, and State of Punjab Vs. Mohinder Singh and Another, that benefit of the amended provisions will not be available to those cases which are not decided between 30-4-1982 and 24-9-1984. It has been further held that "if the Parliament had intended that the benefit of enhanced solatium should be extended to all pending proceedings it would have said so in clear language. On the contrary, the term in which Section 30(2) is couched indicate a limited extension of the benefit. The Amendment Act has not been made generally retrospective with effect from any particular date, and such retrospectivity as appears is restricted to certain areas covered by the parent Act and must be discovered from the specific terms of the provision concerned. Similarly, it was never intended to define the scope of the enhanced solatium on the mere accident of the disposal of a case in appeal on a certain date."

The learned Advocate for the petitioner tried to distinguish the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court on the ground that the said decision has only held that benefit of enhanced solatium u/s 30(2) would not be available to those cases which are decided prior to 30-4-1982. But in his case, the claim is also for enhanced interest at the rate of 9% and even if case of solatium is not considered, atleast case for enhanced interest should be considered by us de hors the said decision of the Supreme Court.

It is not possible to agree with this contention. The sequence of events clearly indicates that the compensation proceedings were terminated in this case as for back as on 22-10-1980. Subsequent attempts made by the petitioner by way of review petition or writ petition cannot be said to be any pending appellate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act under the provision of Section 54 of the said Act. Consequently, so far as the petitioner is concerned, and acquisition proceedings at the stage even upto the High Court stood terminated on 22-10-1980. It is true that the Constitutional Bench had ruled on the aspect of enhanced solatium under the Amending Act. But the same reasoning would ipso facto apply to cases for enhanced interest based on the same set of amending provisions under Act 68 of 1984. It has in terms been held that Amending Act has not been made generally retrospective save and except to the extent indicated in the Act itself. Section 30(2) of the Amending Act 68 of 1984 covers not only solatium but also interest. Section 30 of the Amending Act 68 of 1984 read as under:

(1) The provisions of Sub-section (1 A) of Section 23 of the principal Act, as inserted by Clause (a) of Section 15 of this Act, shall apply, and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation to:

(a) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the principal Act pending on the 30th day of April 1982 the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill 1982, in the House of the People, in which no award has been made by the Collector before the date;

(b) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the principal Act commenced after that date, whether or not an award has been made by the Collector before the date of commencement of this Act.

(2) The provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 23 and Section 28 of the principal Act, as amended by Clause (b) of Section 15 and Section 18 of this Act respectively, 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 day of April 1982 the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill in the House of the People and before the commencement of this Act.

A mere look at Section 30(2) of the Amending Act shows that the Legislature has given the same treatment to the question of enhanced solatium u/s 23(2) and enhanced interest u/s 28. Section 30(2) has laid down that provisions of Section 23 and Section 28 of the principal Act shall apply and shall be deemed to have applied also to and in relation to any award made by the Collector or Court or any order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court in appeal against any such award under the provisions of the principal Act after 30-4-1982 and before the commencement of the Amending Act. Therefore, it is not possible to agree with the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the Constitution Bench decision will apply only to the question of enhanced solatium u/s 23(2) and will not apply to the question of enhanced interest u/s 28. Entire Section 30(2) has been interpreted by the Supreme Court and it has been held that benefit of this provision will not be available for matters which are decided even in appeals prior to 30-4-1982. On the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the appeals u/s 54 were decided by the Court on 22-10-1980 and those proceedings have become final. Consequently, benefit of Section 30(2) of the Amending Act 68 of 1984 even from the point of view of grant of enhanced interest u/s 28 as amended will not be applicable to the petitioner''s case and he will have to rest content with the interest as awarded to by him the High Court in First Appeal No. 311 of 1977 and group as read with decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 4153 of 1983.

It was lastly contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the High Court had erred in granting 4 1/2% interest to the petitioner by its decision dated 22-10-1980. It is too late in the day for the petitioner to submit that the decision of the High Court dated 22-10-1980 was in any way erroneous. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner had himself moved review petition against that decision and he failed on 29-4-1982. Consequently, such a question cannot be reopened after almost 10 years at this late stage. It may be noted that in the subsequent writ petition which the petitioner filed being Special Civil Application No. 4153 of 1983, the Division Bench while allowing the writ petition on 10-12-1984, ruled that the petitioner will get the same benefit which other claimants got as per the decision of the High Court in the group of matters viz. First Appeal No. 311 of 1977 and other. If all these claimants have been awarded 41/2% interest, the petitioner cannot get more than 4 1/1%. That award therefore, has become final and cannot be reopened.

Consequently there is no substance in any of the contentions canvassed in this petition. The petition is, therefore, summarily rejected.