Som Nath vs State of Haryana and another

I.S. Tiwana, J.—What needs to be settled in these eightythree Civil Misc. Applications (detailed in Annexure `A'' to this judgment) before us on a reference is as to whether the petitionerclaimants whose respective regular first appeals fixing the market value of their acquired lands were finally disposed of by this Court during the period April 30, 1982 to September 24, 1984, are entitled to the benefits conferred by sections 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) as amended by Act No. 68 of 1984, published on September 24, 1984. Vide these judgements solatium and interest had been allowed to these claimants @ 15% and 6% respectively on the enhanced amount of compensation in terms of the abovenoted provisions as these stood then. When the matter was argued before me in Single Bench, I was tentatively of the view that the enforcement of the latter mentioned Act with effect from September 24, 1984 would not rob the earlier judgments or decrees of their finality. But since the matter was of considerable importance. I referred it to a larger Bench and that is how it is before us now. The relevant provisions of Act No. 68 of 1984, which governs the situation, is subsection (2) of section 30 which reads as follows :

"30 (2) The provisions of subsection (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, 1982, in the House of the People) and before the commencement of this Act."

Since the reference made by me, the matter in issue has authoritatively been settled by their Lordships of the Supreme Court by their judgment in Civil Appeal Nos. 151923 of 1985 (Bhag Singh and others v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, 1985 PLJ 496 : 1987 R.R.R. 473 : 1986 R.R.R. 606), wherein it has been ruled that :

"The object of Parliament clearly was that the amended provisions of section 23 subsection (2) and section 28 should be applicable in determination of compensation where proceedings before the Collector or the Court or the High Court or the Supreme Court were pending on April 30, 1982 or were commenced after that date, even if such proceedings had finally terminated before the enactment of the Amending Act and no proceedings were pending before the Collector or the Court or the High Court or the Supreme Court at the date of enactment of the Amending Act. If the proceedings had not finally concluded before the enactment of the Amending Act and were pending on that date or were started subsequently, whether before the Collector or the Court or the High Court or the Supreme Court, the amended provisions of section 23 subsection (2) and section 28 would apply on their own terms in determining compensation. But by virtue of section 30 subsection (2), the amended provisions of section 23 sub section (2) and section 28 were made applicable also where the proceedings were pending on 30th April, 1982 or were commenced after that date even though they might have finally come to an end before the enactment of the Amending Act. Of course, if the proceedings had finally terminated on or before 30th April, 1982, the amended provisions of section 23 subsection (2) and section 28 could not possibly be intended to apply to the determination made in such proceedings. This was clearly the intendment of parliament in enacting section 30, subsection (2)."

Thus, it manifest that the petitioners are entitled to the benefits of the amended sections 23(2) and 28 of the Act even though their appeals stood finally disposed of before the coming into force of Act No. 68 of 1984. A similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in CM No. 1238 of 1984 in RFA No. 10 of 1972 (Ranjit v. Union of India and others) decided on December 18, 1984. So far as the question as to through which forum the petitioners can avail of this benefit at this stage is concerned it is conceded by Mr. Sibal, learned Advocate General, Haryana, that this Court is the only forum available to the petitioners as neither the executing Court nor the Land Acquisition Collector can of its/his own go behind the judgments which have already been passed by this Court.

In the light of the above, we accept these applications and amend the respective judgments and decrees and order that instead of 15% solatium and 6 interest as awarded earlier, the claimants would be paid solatium and interest in the light of the amended sections 23(2) and 28 of the Act. For clarity''s sake it may be mentioned that they would be paid solatium at the rate of 30% on the market value of the acquired land as determined by the Court and interest at the rate of 9% for the first year from the date of their dispossession by the Land Acquisition Collector and at the rate of 15% thereafter till the date of actual payment of the enhanced amount of compensation. These payments, however, would be subject to what has already been paid, if any, to the claimants by way of interest or solatium on the enhanced amount of compensation. We pass no order as to costs.