State of Punjab vs Hukam Singh

G.S. Singhvi, J.

The only point which arises for adjudication in this appeal is whether the provisions of Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') can be applied qua an award made before 30.4.1982.

The facts necessary for deciding the case are that the land measuring 57 Bighas situated in the revenue estate of Nabha, which included the respondents'' land, was acquired by the Government of Punjab in 1978 for extension of New Grain Market, Nabha. Possession of the acquired land was taken on 30.1.1978. The Land Acquisition Collector gave his award on 27.3.1978. He assessed the market value of the land of Rs. 25,000/ per acre. The reference application filed by the landowners was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Patiala. However, in the Regular First Appeal No. 19 of 1983 filed by them the learned Single Judge fixed the market price of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 1,000/ per Marla. Simultaneously, he ordered payment of 30% solatium with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of taking of possession till the expiry of one year and at the rate of 15% per annum for the subsequent period till the date of actual payment. The learned Single Judge further held that the claimants would be entitled to additional amount of 12% per annum from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act.

We have heard Shri Rupinder Khosla and have perused the record.

Although, in the impugned judgment reference has not been made to the provisions of Sections 23(1A) of the Act, a bare reading of the operative portion of the same shows that the learned Single Judge has extended the benefit of that provision to the respondents and, in our opinion, Shri Khosla is right in his submission that the direction given by the learned Single Judge for award of solatium and interest on the entire amount of compensation is liable to be set aside in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court in K.S. Paripoornman v. State of Kerala and others, 1995 LACC 346 : 1995(1) RRR 40 (SC), Union of India v. Filip Tiago De Gama, 1990 LACC 219 : 1990(2) RRR 146 (SC), Land Acquisition Officer, Punjab v. Anudeep Kaur, 1997(1) LACC 553, State of MP etc. v. Harishankar Goel and Anr., 1996 LACC 615 SC, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Ganga Sahai, 1997(1) LACC 266 : 1997(1) RCR(Civil) 50 (SC), State of Bihar v. Ratan Lal Sahu, 1997(1) LACC 266 SC, Mahant Sher Singh v. Haryana State, 1998(1) LACC 123 : 1998(1) RCR(Civil) 221 (P&H)(DB) and The Union of India v. Banta Singh, 1998(1) LACC 213 : 1997(4) RCR(Civil) 551 (P&H)(DB).

For the reason aforestated, we allow the appeal and set aside the direction given by the learned Single Judge for payment of solatium and compensation but at the same time we direct that the respondents shall be entitled to the benefit of Section 23(1A) of the Act qua the amount of enhanced compensation awarded by the learned Single Judge.