Gujarat High Court
Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Shanaji Nathaji Thakor (Decd.) By His ... on 4 February, 1995
Equivalent citations: (1996)2GLR455
JUDGMENT J.N. Bhatt, J.
1. In this group of five Appeals from Order, common questions have arisen. Therefore, upon a request, the entire group is being disposed of by this common judgment. This group of Appeals from Order is directed against the common judgment and order passed on 9-4-1987 by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol, in group of Civil Misc. Applications which were preferred for review by the respondents-herein-original claimants.
2. The review applications filed by the claimants were with regard to the amount of solatium and interest which was awarded to the claimants as per the award of the trial Court in compensation cases on 30-6-1984 under the Land Acquisition Act.
3. The respondents-original claimants were the owners of agricultural land at Chandkheda of Gandhinagar district. Their land came to be acquired by the present appellant-Special Land Acquisition Officer by common award dated 29-3-1979. The claimants were awarded amount of Rs. 8/- and Rs. 11/- per sq.mt. by the Land Acquisition Officer. The claimants being aggrieved by the said award, had challenged the same before the District Court at Narol, by way of Reference. The District Court at Narol awarded an amount of Rs. 20/- per sq.mt.
4. The claimants preferred review applications in view of the provisions of Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (LXVIII of 1984) which came into force from 24-9-1984, giving retrospective effect from 30-4-1982. The Amendment Act came into force from 24-9-1984 and the award had become final before that date. Therefore, the claimants preferred review applications claiming benefit of the Amendment Act. According to the case of the claimants, they are entitled to enhanced claim of solatium and interest in view of the Amendment Act as the awards of Courts fell between 30-4-1982 and 30-6-1984.
5. After hearing the parties and considering the facts and circumstances, the review applications came to be allowed by the trial Court holding that the claimants are entitled to the benefit of Section 23(1-A) introduced in view of the Amendment Act, by passing a common judgment and order on 9-4-1987 which is under challenge in this group of appeals.
6. By the common judgment, all the review applications Nos. 110 to 122 of 1987 came to be allowed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol holding that the claimants are entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum for one year from the date of taking over possession and interest at the rate of 15% per annum for the subsequent period on the amount of additional compensation to them, till the date of deposit in the Court. The trial Court also held that the claimants are also entitled to 30% solatium instead of amount of 15% on the compensation awarded in respect of the land acquired. The claimants are also found entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount of additional compensation awarded by the Court for the period starting on and from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, like that, 12-12-1974 till the date of award passed by the Collector on 29-9-1978. Thus, the awards came to be modified by virtue of passing of order on 9-4-1987 by the trial Court allowing the review applications of the claimants.
7. There is no dispute about the fact that the notification under Section 4 came to be issued on 12-12-1974 and the award was passed by the Collector on 29-9-1978. The amendment in Land Acquisition Act introducing Section 23(1-A) as well as Section 30 in view of the Amendment Act of 1984 came to be inserted by virtue of the Amendment Act, 1984. It is, therefore, not in dispute that the awards were passed by the Collector before the amendment of the said provisions.
8. Being aggrieved by the common judgment and order recorded by the trial Court by allowing review applications on 9-4-1987, the appellant has come up before this Court challenging its legality and validity. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has placed reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala in support of these appeals. In the aforesaid decision, the larger Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court has held that:
(1) Section 23(1A) deals with substantive rights and must be construed accordingly and it applies to pending proceedings initiated prior to the commencement of the Amending Act on 24-9-1984.
(2) That Parliament has provided in Section 30(1) of the Amending Act which is to be treated an integral part of Section 23(1A).
(3) But thereby, Section 23(1A) does not apply to all proceedings pending in the Reference Court on 24-9-1984 irrespective of the date on which award was made by the Collector.
(4) That it applies only to those pending proceedings which are specifically mentioned in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 30(1).
(5) That Section 30(1) covers under Clause (a) proceedings commenced prior to 30-4-1982 and where no award had been made by the Collector till that date and where (i) the award was made prior to 24-9-1984; and (ii) award was made after 24-9-1984.
(6) That under Clause (b) of Section 30(1) are covered proceedings commenced after 30-4-1982 and where (i) award was made prior to 24-9-1984; and (ii) award was made after 24-9-1984.
9. In view of the aforesaid decision, it is, therefore, contended that cases pending before the Reference Court on 24-9-1984 where the award was made by the Collector prior to 30-4-1982 are not covered by Section 23(1A) and, therefore, the impugned common judgment and award passed in five review applications Nos. 112 of 1987, 113 of 1987, 114 of 1987, 118 of 1987 and 122 of 1987 on 9-4-1987 is illegal and invalid. It is very clear from the record that the notification under Section 4 was issued on 12-12-1974 and the award was declared by the Collector on 29-9-1978. In view of the larger Bench decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in K.S. Paripoornan case (supra) in respect of acquisition proceedings initiated prior to the date of commencement of the Amending Act 68 of 1984, payment of additional amount under Section 23(1A) will be restricted to the matters referred in Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the said Amending Act. It is obvious from the record that review applications preferred by the claimants before the trial Court do not fell within the aforesaid provisions. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in finding that the impugned common judgment and order allowing the review applications recorded on 9-4-1987 by the learned Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol is illegal and contrary to the aforesaid decision of the Honourable Supreme Court. Therefore, the impugned common judgment and order must be set aside by allowing this group of five appeals. Accordingly, these five appeals are allowed quashing the impugned common judgment and order allowing the review applications. There shall be no order as to costs in each one of them. (As do not survive in view of the order passed in this group of appeals.).