Punjab-Haryana High Court
The State Of Punjab Through Collector vs Khushi Ram Son Of Shankar Dass Son Of Jai ... on 22 October, 2013
Author: K.Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.1415 of 1989 (O&M)
Date of decision: 22.10.2013
The State of Punjab through Collector, Amritsar, and another.
....Petitioners.
versus
Khushi Ram son of Shankar Dass son of Jai Chand, resident of
Sultanwind, Tehsil and District Amritsar, now represented by Rup
Lal, Charan Dass, Tilak Raj and Raj Kumar sons of Khushi Ram
deceased LRs of the deceased.
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Present: Mr. Ranbir Singh Pathania, DAG, Punjab.
None for the respondents.
----
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? No.
2. To be referred to the reporters or not ?No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No.
----
K.Kannan, J.
1. The civil revision is against the order allowing the petition under Sections 152-153 CPC amending the decree and judgment to provide for the benefit of Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act after the award was passed on 04.03.1987. The Collector had passed an award on 28.03.1981 and under a reference to the High Court, the Court passed the award without providing for the benefit of Section 23(1-A) of the Act.
Kumar Sanjeev2013.10.23 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No.1415 of 1989 (O&M) -2-
2. The issue before me is whether the Court could amend the decree and judgment treating the alleged lapse on his part as merely accidental and fit for amendment of the decree.
3. Section 23(1-A) was introduced by the Amending Act 68 of 84 providing for the benefit for pending proceedings on or after 30.04.1982. The benefit was available for a provision for interest at 12% on the market value from the date of publication of notice under Section 4 to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession. The date of notification for acquisition in this case was on 15.12.1977. The issue was directly answered by a 5-Member Bench of the Supreme Court in a case in K.S.Paripoornan Versus State of Kerela-1994(5) SCC 593. The Court held that Section 23(1-A) does not apply to all proceedings pending in the Reference Court on 24.09.1984 irrespective of the date on which the award was made by the Collector. It applied only to those pending proceedings which had been specially mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 30(1). Clause (a) covered proceedings commenced prior to 30.04.1982, clause (b) deals with proceedings which commenced after 30.04.1082. By virtue of clause (a) Section 23(1-A) has been made applicable to proceedings which had commenced prior to 30.04.1982 if no award had been made by the collector in those proceedings before 30.04.2012. It covers (i) proceedings which were pending before the Collector on 30.04.2012 Kumar Sanjeev 2013.10.23 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No.1415 of 1989 (O&M) -3- wherein award was made after 30.04.2012 but before the date of the commencement of the Amending Act, and (ii) such proceedings wherein award was made by the collector after the date of the commencement of the Amending Act. Similarly 30(1)(b) covers (i) proceedings which had commenced after 30.04.1982 wherein award was made prior to the commencement of the Amending Act, and (ii) such proceedings wherein award was made after the commencement of the Amending Act. It would thus appear that both the clauses (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of Section 30 cover proceedings to which the provisions of Section 23(1-A) have been made made applicable by virtue of Section 30(1). It is wrong to maintain that Section 23 (1-A) was intended to have application to all proceedings which were pending before the civil court on the date of the commencement of the Amending Act. Consequently, the cases pending before the Reference Court on 24.09.1984 as in this case and where an award of the collector was made prior to 30.04.1982 were not covered by Section 23(1-A).
4. In terms of the above said judgment in K.S.Paripoornan (supra), there is no scope for grant of benefit under Section 23(1-A). The award could not be amended in the manner done. The impugned order is set aside and the civil revision is allowed.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 22.10.2013 sanjeev Kumar Sanjeev 2013.10.23 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh