Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust v. President Land Acquisition Tribunal and Others.

KASLIW AL, J. Special leave granted. All these petitions by Special leave are disposed of by one single order as identical questions of law are involved and they are directed against the similar order of the High Court dated 9th February, 1989. Short controversy raised in these cases is regarding the grant of benefits under amended Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amend­ ment) Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act). The D President Land Acquisition Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (District Court) initially granted solatium at 15% on the compensation and interest at 6% per annum on the additional amount of compensation till the date of payment. The claimants submitted an application for modification of the award as regards solatium and interest in view of the Amending Act which came into force on 24th September, 1984. The Land Acquisition Tribunal granted benefit of the Amending Act and modified the award by passing the following operative order which is subject matter of challenge in Special Leave Petition No. 9434 of 1989. Similar orders have been passed in other two cases also. "Accordingly, I modify the award to the extent that solatium shall be payable at the rate of 30% instead of 15% granted earlier. Similarly, interest at the rate of 12% per annum is granted from the date of notification under Sec­ tion 42 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, till the date of award of the Collector, the date of possession of the land which ever is earlier. Further interest is awarded at the rate of 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of delivery of possession till the expiry of one year. Thereafter interest is awarded at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of expiry of period of one year till payment. The applicant shall be entitled to recover the solatium and interest as per the modification indica\ed above". - H.J.T. v. LAND ACQUISITION [KASLIWAJ., J.] 529 Aggrieved against the above order, the Hoshiarpur Improve· ment Trust has come before this Court. In order to decide the controversy, it would be necessary to mention some important dates in each of the above cases. In Special Leave Petition No. 9434 of 1989 the award was given by the Land Acquisition Collector on 6th January, 1979. On a refe­ rence the award was given by the President Land Acquisition Tri­ bunal, Hoshiarpur on 28th March, 1983. The award was modified by the President Land Acquisition Tribunal by order dated 29th August, 1988. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the Improvement Trust on 9th February, 1989. In Special Leave Petition No. 9521of1989 the award was given by the Land Acquisition Collector on 30th April, 1982. On a reference the award was given by the President L~nd Acquisition Tribunal, Hoshiarpur on 29th August, 1985. The President Lano Acquisition Tribunal modified the award by order dated 29th August, 1988. The Writ Petition filed by the Improvement Trust was dismissed by the High Court on 9th February, 1989. In Special Leave Petitiion No. 10130 of 1989 the award was given by the Land Acquisition Collector on 30th April, 1982. On a reference the award was given by the President Land Acquisition Tribunal, E Hoshiarpur on 29th August, 1985. The award was modified by the President Land Acquisition Tribunal by order dated 14th September, 1988. Writ Petition filed by the Improvement Trust was dismissed by the High Court on 9th February, 1989. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Improvement Trust F contended that no benefit could have b~en given under Section 23(1-A) which was inserted by the Amendjng Act. It was contended that in a recent decision given by this Court iJl. Union of India & Ors, v. Mr. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama, IT 1989 4 SC 529 it has been held that the additional amount under Sec. 23(1-A) can only be allowed in those cases where proceedings for the acquisition of G any land under the Principal Act were pending on the 30th day of April, 1982 (the date of introduction of the .l.,and Acquisition (Amend­ ment) Bill 1982 in the House of People), in which no award has been made by the Collector before that date. If the Collector has made the .award before that date then, the additional amount cannot be awarded. Thus it was contended that the additional benefit of interest H 530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990) 2 S.C.R. at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of notification till the A award made by the Collector or the date of taking over possession which ever is earlier, is liable to be set aside. · In order to appreciate the argument advanced by the Learned counsel appearing for the Improvement Trust, it would be necessary 'to B give a background of some important events and decisions having a bearing on the question. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act) was sought to be amended and in this regard on 30th April, 1982, the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982 was introduced in Parliament. On 24th September, 1984 it became law as the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 68 of 1984, when it received assent of the President. Before the amendment, Sec- C tion 23(2) of the Principal Act provided for solatium at 15% on the market value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisi­ tion. After amendment by Act 68 of 1984 solatium was raised to 30% on the market value under Section 23(2). A Constitution Bench in Union of India & Another v. Raghubir Singh (dead) by L.rs. etc., D [ 1989] 2 SCC 754, overruled; Bhag Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, [1985) 3 SCC 737 and State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh, [ 1986] 1 sec 365 held that the higher solatium at the rate of 30% would be given in cases of awards made by the Collector or the Court between 30th April, 1982 and 24th September, 1934. In the cases before us the claimants have been rightly held entitled to solatium at E 30% applying the ratio in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Raghubir Singh, (supra). So far as the award of interest at the rate of 9% for the first year from the date of taking possession and 15% for the subsequent years is concerned, the claimants have been rightly held entitled to the same F under Section 28 as stood amended by the Amending Act. Now, the only controversy which remains to be considered is with regard to the additional benefit allowed by way of rate of interest at 12% per annum from the date of notification issued under Section 42 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, till the date of award G of the Collector or the date of possession of the land which ever is earlier. It is important to note that in the case of Uniun of India v. Raghubir Singh, (supra) the above question was neither called for consideration nor decided. In Union of India & Ors. v. Mr. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama, (supra) the above question directly came up for consideration before this Court. It was held that H the above benefit has been provided under the amended Sections 23( 1-A) & 23(2). -. >--·-- H.!.T. v. LAND ACQUISITION IKASLIWAL, J.} 531 The Legislature has given new starting point for operation A of Section 23(1-A) for certain cases and it would be __ _.....__~ determind from Section 3U(l)(a) & (b) of the Transitional Provisions which read as follows: · Section 30: Transitional Provisions: (1) The provision of Sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 of the ~ Principal Act, as inserted by clause (a) of Section 16 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 c Principal Act pending on the 30th day of April, 1982 (the date of introduction of th-e 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 D principal Act commenced after that date, whether or not an award has been made by the Collector before the date of com- mencement of this Act". It was observed in the above case that Section 30(l)(a) provides that additional amount provided under Sec. 23(l)(a) shall be applic- able to acquisition proceedings pending before the C~llector as on 30th April, 1982 in which he has not made the award before that date. If the Collector has made the award before that date then that addi- tional amount cannot be awarded. We agree with the view taken in the ..>-- above case. Thus applying the above principle in the cases in hand before us it would be clear that in Special Leave Petition No. 9434 of F ' 1989 the award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector on 6th )... January, 1979 i.e. Jong before 30th April, 1982 and as such the clai-I mant in the above case is not entitled to the benefit of Section 23(1-A) as inserted in the Principle Act by the Amending Act. So far as the other two Special Leave Petitions, namely, 9521/89 and 10130/89 are concerned, the awards have been made by the Land Acquisition Col- G Jector on 30th April, 1982 itself but not before that date. Section 30 the Transitional Provisions clearly provide that the provisions of Sub-, section (1-A) of Section 23 of the Principle Act, as inserted by Clause ~ (a) of Section 16 of this Act shall apply to every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the Principle Act pending on 30th day of April, 1982 in which no award has been made by the Collector before H A that date. In the above two cases the award has not been made by the Collector before 30th day of April, 1982 but made on 30th April, 1982 itself and as such the claimants in these two cases become entitled to the benefit of Section 23(1-A). As a result of the above discussion the civil appeals in S.L.P. (C) B Nos. 9521of1989 & 10130 of 1989 stand dismissed. So far as appeal in Special Leave Petition No. 9434 of 1989 is concerned, it is allowed in part and the order of the High Court as well as that of the President Land Acquisition Tribunal is modified only to the extent that interest shall be allowed at the rate of 6% per annum instead of 12% per annum from the date of Notification under Section 42 of the Punjab c Town Improvement Act, till the date of award of the Collector or the date of possession of the land which ever is earlier. So far as other additional benefits granted by the President Land Acquisition Tri­ bunal are concerned, the same would remain in-tact. In the facts and circumstances of the case there would be no order as to costs. T.N.A. Appeal allowed partly. - ----·--