Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
V. Jayashankar And Anr. vs State Through Land Acquisition Officer ... on 10 April, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997(3)ALT731
JUDGMENT D. Reddeppa Reddi, J.
1. This is an appeal filed by the claimants/landholders under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') against the judgment and decree dated 18-7-1986 in OP. No. 30/85 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Siddipet, Medak District. It relates to acquisition of land admeasuring Ac.4-07 guntas situated in Siddipet, Medak District, for the purpose of providing water supply line pursuant to draft notification published in the Gazette on 27-11-1975. After due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer by his award dt. 30-6-1983 determined the compensation at Rs. 800/- per acre. Not satisfied with the said award, the claimants sought for a reference under Section 18 of the Act to a Civil Court. Thereupon, the matter was referred to the Court of Subordinate Judge at Siddipet and registered as O.P. No. 30/85.
2. Before the reference Court, the claimants asked for compensation at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per acre. Their claim was resisted by the Referring Officer. Evidence was adduced by both parties. On behalf of the claimants, the first claimant examined himself as P.W. 1 and got marked Ex. A-l, a photostat copy of the registered sale deed dt. 30-6-1971, under the original of which he sold 6 guntas for a consideration of Rs. 5,800/-, which works out to Rs. 38,500/- per acre. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the Referring Officer. However, Ex.B-1, the award dt. 30-8-1983 was marked on his behalf. On consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence, the reference Court having determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 19,250/- per acre awarded only Rs. 2,000/- per acre on the ground that the claimants claimed compensation before the Land Acquisition Officer only at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per acre. Accordingly, it passed the impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal by the claimants claiming a compensation at the rate of Rs. 19,250/- per acre.
3. The effect of the impugned judgment is that Section 25 of the Act, which was substituted by Section 17 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (for short 'the Amendment Act') which came into force with effect from 24-9-1984 has no retrospective operation. Therefore, the only point that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether Section 25 of the Act is retrospective in operation or not. For better appreciation of the said point it would be profitable to extract the provisions of Section 25 as they stood before and after the amendment.
BEFORE THE AMENDMENT AFTER AMENDMENT SEC.25: RULES AS TO AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION (1) When the applicant has made a claim to compensation, pursuant to any notice given under Section 9, the amount awarded to him by the Court shall not exceed the amount so claimed orbe less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11.
(2) When the applicant has refused to make such claim or has omitted without sufficient reason (to be allowed by the Judge) to make such claim, the amount awarded by the Court shall in nocase exceed the amount awarded by the Collector.
(3) When the applicant has omitted for a sufficient reason (to beallowed by the Judge) to make such claim, the amount awarded to him by the Court shall not be less than, and may exceed, the amount awarded by the Collector.
25. AMOUNT OF COMTENSATION AWARDED BY COURT NOT TO BE LOWER THAN THE AMOUNT AWARDED BY THE COLLECTOR:-
The amount of compensation awarded by the Court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Sec.ll.
4. From the reading of the above, the position is so clear that prior to the amendment there was an embargo on the reference Court not to award compensation more than what was claimed by the claimant before the Collector and less than what was awarded by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act and subsequent to the amendment, there is no embargo on the reference Court to award compensation to the claimant more than what he claimed before the Collector. This view of ours is fortified by a decision of Full Bench of Karnataka High Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer (NHW), Dharwad v. Kallangonda, (F.B.). Therein P.K. Shyamsundar, J. speaking for the Court observed:
"..............Thus we find Section 25 as it now stands totally liberates the claimant from all restraints that held him in check earlier from making a claim before Court for the first time even where he had not made any claim before the Collector and even if he had made some claim the Section in its new orientation gives him full liberty to hike his claim before Court without furnishing any reasons on affording an explanation for making a lower claim before the Collector.'
5. Then, we proceed to consider the point at issue. In this context, it is necessary to refer to Section 30 of the Amendment Act, which deals with transitional provisions. It reads as under:
"30. TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS: (1) The provisions of sub-Section (1-A) of Section 23 of the principal Act, as inserted by Clause (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 any 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 date of commencement of this Act.
(2) The provisions of sub-Section (2) of Section 23 and Section 28 of the principal Act, as amended by Clause (b) of Section 15 and Section 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 principal Act after the 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.
(3) The provisions of Section 34 of the principal Act, as amended by Section 20 of this Act, shall apply and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation to,-
(a) every case in which possession of any land acquired under the principal Act had been taken before the 30th day of April, 1982 (the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, in the House of the People), and the amount of compensation for such acquisition had not been paid or deposited under Section 31 of the principal Act until such date, with effect on and from that date; and
(b) every case in which such possession has been taken on or after that date but before the commencement of this Act without the amount of compensation having been paid or deposited under the said Section 31, with effect on and from the date of taking such possession."
A reading of the above provisions leaves no doubt whatsoever that the Section does not specifically provide for retrospective operation of Section 25. In the case on hand, there is no dispute that the claimant asked for compensation before the Collector only at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per acre and that was prior to the Amendment came into force. However, he put up a claim for compensation before the reference Court at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per acre and by that time the Amendment Act was in force.
6. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals tried to sustain the impugned judgment on the general proposition that every statute is presumed to be prospective and not retrospective unless it is specifically made so or necessary(sic, necessarily) intended. But the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the above proposition has no application to procedural laws. According to him Section 25 of the Act is essentially a procedural provision.
7. An identical issue arose for consideration in Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) v. Kasamani Achamma, 1989 (3) ALT 440. Therein, Justice K. Ramaswamy, before his elevation to the Supreme Court, on an exhaustive survey of law held as under:
"From the light thus shed, I have little hesitation to hold that Section 25 of the principal Act is procedural part; there is no vested right to a procedure; curative acts relating to procedure are always retroactive in its operation; they apply not only to actions already initiated under the principal Act, but also after the Amendment Act came into force to the pending actions in the Civil Court, or in the appellate Court as appeal is a continuation of the original proceeding. The Parliament did not expressly exclude applicability of amended Section 25 to the pending proceedings or appeals.
It declares that "the amount of compensation awarded by the Court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11." The purpose of the law is to serve the needs of the society. The Court in its angulation of the effect of the amendment must be cognizant to the pre-existing state of law, the defects noted by the Legislature in its operation and the remedy provided for. The Parliament removed the fetters in the principal Act on the power of the Court, intended to render justice or undo injustice to the owner of the land unhedged by procedural wrangle. The Court has to search for light to harmonize the results with justice. The Legislature indicated that the Court is free to adopt the light shed by amended Section 25 to by-gone transactions but pending adjudication. The altered procedure is always, thereby, retroactive in its operation. Section 17 of the Amendment Act thereby relieved of the statutory rigour and obliterated the operation of Section 25 of the principal Act, and removed the fetters on the power of the Court to enhance the market value in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act."
The same has been approved by a Division Bench of this Court comprising Y. Bhaskar Rao and B.S. Raikote, JJ by judgment dt. 27-11-1995 in LPA. No. 438/89, holding that "Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act, which deals with procedural aspect, is retrospective in operation." Judicial opinion is heavy for the above proposition with which we entirely agree.
8. The finding of the reference Court that the market value of the acquired land as on the date of publication of the draft notification would be Rs. 19,250/- per acre is based on cogent evidence. We see no reason whatsoever to come to a different conclusion on this aspect.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the appellants/claimants are entitled to market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 19,250/- per acre together with all statutory benefits like additional amount, solatium and interest as provided under the Amendment Act. Needless to say that the amount already paid to them pursuant to the award of the Land Acquisition Officer shall be deducted from the sum directed to be paid hereunder. We direct that the judgment and decree under appeal shall stand accordingly modified.
10. In the result, the appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.