Union of India and another vs Pritam Singh

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.—The appellants have filed this Regular First Appeal against the award dated 29.3.1990 passed by Additional

District Judge, Gurdaspur.

Vide notification dated 2.12.1977 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), a big chunk of

land situated in village Bhatotarwan, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur, was acquired for a public purpose, namely for defence purpose. With

regard to the acquired land, an award was passed on 23.10.1983 by the Land Acquisition Collector. However, in the said award no

compensation was determined for the fruit bearing trees standing on the acquired land. When the issue regarding nondetermination of

compensation for fruit bearing trees was raised in the Punjab Vidhan Sabha, then a supplementary award with regard to the fruit bearing trees was

made by the Special Land Acquisition Collector on 15.9.1986. In the said supplementary award, the Special Land Acquisition Collector

determined the market value of the fruit bearing trees on the basis of the report of the Horticulture Expert published in the year 1966. The said

valuation of the trees was made on the basis of the rate prevailing in the year 1966, however, the acquisition in question took place in the year

1977.

Feeling dissatisfied against the aforesaid supplementary award, the claimantlandowner sought reference under Section 18 of the Act for

enhancement of the market value of the fruit bearing trees as assessed by the Special Land Acquisition Collector. The Reference Court, vide its

award dated 29.3.1990, enhanced the market value of the fruit bearing trees by 133% over the value assessed by the Special Land Acquisition

Collector. The said increase was given on the basis of difference in the whole sale price index between the years 1966 and 1977. The Reference

Court also awarded solatium to the claimantlandowner at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year from the date

of taking possession and at the rate of 15% per annum for the subsequent period till realisation. The benefit of additional amount at the rate of 12%

under Section 23(1A) of the Act was not awarded.

Against the aforesaid award, the Union of India and another have filed the instant appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the increase of 133% made by the Reference Court on the market value of the fruit bearing

trees, assessed by the Special Land Acquisition Collector, is totally arbitrary. I do not find any force in this contention, as this Court in RFA Nos.

3041 and 3042 of 1989, Union of India and another v. Vakil Singh and another, decided on November 19, 2003 and RFA Nos. 427 and 428 of

1989, Union of India and others v. Sadhu Singh, decided on December 3, 2003, has already affirmed the similar award of giving 133% increase

on account of difference of the whole sale price index between the years 1966 and 1977. Learned counsel for the appellants could not dispute that

this aspect of the matter is covered by the aforesaid judgment of this Court. Hence, the finding of the Reference Court regarding determination of

the value of the fruit bearing trees is confirmed.

However, learned counsel for the claimantlandowner submitted that since the supplementary award was made on 15.9.1986, therefore, the

Reference Court has illegally declined the benefit of additional amount at the rate of 12% as provided under Section 23(1A) of the Act to the

claimantlandowner. He further submitted that in view of the transitional provision contained in Section 30(1)(a) of the Land Acquisition

(Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act No. 68 of 1984) and in view of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Raghubir

Singh, 1989(1) RRR 552 (SC) : 1989(2) SCC 754 and K.S. Paripoornam (II) v. State of Kerala and others, 1995(1) RRR 40 (SC) : 1995(1)

SCC 367, the claimantlandowner is entitled for this statutory benefit.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that neither any appeal nor any crossobjection has been filed by the claimant

landowner claiming the benefit of additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Amended Act, therefore, he cannot be granted this benefit.

Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the claimant landowner is not entitled for the additional amount under Section 23(1A) of

the Act as the main award in this case was passed on 23.10.1979 and merely because the supplementary award was passed in the year 1986, he

cannot be granted the benefit of additional amount.

I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case.

The question which arises for determination is whether the claimant landowner is entitled for the benefit of additional amount at the rate of 12%

under Section 23(1A) of the Act. Undisputedly, in this case the supplementary award by the Special Land Acquisition Collector was made on

15.9.1986 and the impugned award was passed by the Reference Court on 29.3.1990. The transitional provision of the Amended Act provides as

under :

Transitional provision (1) The provisions of subsection (1 A) of Section 23 of the Principal Act, as inserted by Cl. (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 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 that 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 commencement of this Act.

(2) The provisions of subsection (2) of Sections 23 and 28 of the principal Act, as amended by cl. (b) of Sections 15 and 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 Union of India later than 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.

The aforesaid provision has been interpreted by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Raghubir Singh and K.S. Paripoornam (II) v.

State of Kerala and others (supra). In view of these judgments the claimantlandowner is entitled to the benefit of additional amount under Section

23(1A) of the act as this case is covered by clause (a) of Section 30(1). So far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellants with regard

to the nonfiling of any appeal or crossobjection by the claimantlandowner claiming statutory benefit of additional amount under the amended

provisions of the Act is concerned, I do not find any force in the same, because, in my opinion, this relief can be granted to the claimantlandowner

while disposing of the appeal filed by the Union of India against the award of the Reference Court. This Court has already decided the similar

controversy in RFA No. 1530 of 1984, Union of India v. Bhan Singh and others, 2004(1) RCR(Civil) 526 (P&H), decided on August 13, 2003,

by following two decisions of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Shri Narain Dass Jain (Since deceased) by Legal Representatives v. The Agra Nagar

Mahapalika, Agra, 1991(1) RRR 466 (SC) : 1991 LACC 199 and Shree Vijay Cotton and Oil Mills Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, 1991(1) RRR 266

(SC) : AIR 1991 SC 656. This Court held as under :

....The statutory benefits like solatium and interest provided under the Act are mandatory. These benefits have to be provided by the civil Court

on the enhanced amount of compensation, determined by the Court. Under the Act, no discretion has been provided to the Court in this regard.

Every claimant/landowner is entitled for the statutory benefits on the enhanced amount of compensation. It is the bounden duty of the Court to

grant these benefits to the landowners. If the aforesaid benefit has not been granted to the landowner/claimant by the civil Court while determining

the market value under Section 23 of the Act, these benefits can be granted to the landowner/claimant at the time of hearing of the appeal against

the said award under Section 54 of the Act, even though the said appeal was not filed by the claimant/landowner and even no crossobjection has

been filed by the landowner/claimant in the appeal filed by the State or the Union of India. This view of mine is fully supported by the Hon''ble

Supreme Court in Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, K.S. Paripoornam (II) and Shree Vijay Cotton and Oil Mills Ltd. cases (supra).

In view of the aforesaid provision and the decisions, in my opinion, the claimantlandowner is entitled for the benefit of additional amount at the

rate of 12% under Section 23(1A) of the Act on the amount of compensation assessed for the fruit bearing trees standing on the acquired land.

This benefit cannot be denied to the claimantlandowner on the amount of compensation assessed for the fruit bearing trees standing on the acquired

land on the ground that the award qua the acquired land was made on 23.10.1983. This date of the award, vide which the market value of the land

was assessed, is not relevant at all, because the claimantlandowner is not claiming the benefit of the amended provisions of the Act on the

compensation assessed for the land. He is claiming this benefit only on the amount of compensation assessed for the fruit bearing trees, for which

supplementary award by the Special Land Acquisition Collector was made on 15.9.1986. Thus, the claimantlandowner is entitled for all the

statutory benefits of the amended provisions of the Act.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, Regular First Appeal filed by the Union of India and another is dismissed. However, the claimantlandowner

shall also be entitled for additional amount at the rate of 12% on the amount of compensation assessed for the fruit bearing trees standing on his

acquired land under Section 23(1A) of the Act.

No order as to costs.