Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bikramjit Singh vs Deputy Commissioner Sirsa And Another on 14 October, 2009
Author: Ajay Kumar Mittal
Bench: Ajay Kumar Mittal
CR No. 641 of 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No. 641 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 14.10.2009
Bikramjit Singh
....Petitioner.
Versus
Deputy Commissioner Sirsa and another
...Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
PRESENT: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate.
Mr. Ashish Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
This order shall dispose of a bunch of 12 petitions bearing Civil Revision Nos. 641, 642, 684 to 687, 890, 903, 954, 955, 1282 and 1286 of 2009 as common questions of law and facts arise therein as the same were filed by the landowners when they were denied by the executing court the benefits available to them under the provisions of Section 23 (2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "the Act"). For brevity, the facts are being taken from Civil Revision No. 641 of 2009, which are as under:-
The State of Haryana vide notifications dated 14.4.1976 issued under Section 4 of the Act followed by declaration dated 12.4.1978 under Section 6 thereof acquired the land measuring 205 CR No. 641 of 2009 -2- acres 5 kanals and 15 marlas situated within the revenue estate of Kherpur on the out-skirts of Sirsa Town, for construction of the Mini Secretariat, Police Lines and the Housing Board Colony etc. The Land Acquisition Collector, Sirsa, vide award dated 15.9.1978 assessed the market value of the Gair Mumkin and Barani land at Rs.6300/- per acre and that of the canal irrigated and Chahi land at Rs.7450/- per acre.
The claimants-landowners feeling dissatisfied with the same, sought references under Section 18 of the Act and the reference court vide its award dated 22.3.1983 divided the acquired land into two categories, i.e. 'most preferential area' and 'second rate area' and had assessed the market value of the said categories of land at the rate of Rs.144/- per marla, i.e. Rs.5.76 per square yard, and Rs.80/- per marla, i.e. Rs.3.20 per square yard, respectively. Besides the aforesaid compensation, the claimants were held entitled to the benefits of solatium at the rate of 15% of the enhanced market value and interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the compensation from the date of taking the possession till the payment or deposit thereof. The claimants thereafter approached this Court for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the reference court by way of RFA No. 961 of 1983. This Court vide judgment dated 17.10.1984 (Annexure P-1) assessed the market value of the two blocks at the rate of Rs.450/- and Rs.155/- per marla, respectively, besides the solatium and interest at the same rate on the enhanced amount of the compensation. Still feeling aggrieved, the claimants-landowners filed Letters Patent Appeal and the LPA Bench vide judgment dated 30.5.1997 (Annexure P-2) decided the appeal maintaining the rate of the acquired land as assessed by the Single CR No. 641 of 2009 -3- Bench of this Court in RFA No. 961 of 1983, but holding the claimants entitled to the statutory benefits under Sections 23 (2) and 28 of the amended Act. However, it was held that they were not entitled to the benefit as envisaged under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act. It was thereafter that the petitioners approached the executing court.
The executing court while rejecting the calculations given by the landowners had denied the benefit of the amended provisions of Section 23 (2) and 28 of the Act to the landowners/ claimants from the date of taking possession of the acquired land on the ground that they were entitled to the benefit of the amended provisions only from the date when these were inserted in the Act, i.e. after the year 1984, despite the fact that the possession of the acquired land was taken earlier. Hence, these revision petitions.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their able assistance. I find merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that where the award was passed by the Collector before the date of introduction of Bill, i.e. 30.4.1982 and the civil court made an award between 30.4.1982 and 24.9.1984, or thereafter, the landowners were entitled to the benefit of the amended provisions of Sections 23 (2) and 28 of the Act from the date of taking possession and not from the date of passing of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (in short the "amendment Act"). Learned counsel also submitted that once the landowners were held entitled to the provisions of the amended Act, then the said provision shall be applicable from the date when the CR No. 641 of 2009 -4- possession was taken in view of the expression "shall be deemed to have applied" used in Section 30 (2) of the amendment Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Apex Court judgment in K.S. Paripoornan (II) v. State of Kerala and others, (1995) 1 SCC 367 and of this Court in Sham Sarup and another v. State of Haryana and others, RFA No. 284 of 1990 decided on 29.7.2009 in support of his submissions.
Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, controverted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and supported the order passed by the executing court.
The benefits available under Sections 23 (2) and 28 of the amended Act can be taken up together as the same are to be answered in the light of Section 30 (2) of the amendment Act of 1984. By the said amendment in sub-section (2) of Section 23, solatium was increased and the rate of interest prescribed in Section 28 was enhanced. It would be advantageous to refer to Sections 15 (b); 18 and 30 (2) of the amendment Act of 1984 which read thus:-
"15. Amendment of section 23.- In section 23 of the principal Act,-
(a) XX XX XX
(b) In sub-section (2), for the words "fifteen per
centum", the words "thirty per centum" shall be substituted."
"18. Amendment of section 28.- In section 28 of the principal Act,-
(a) for the words "six per centum", the words "nine CR No. 641 of 2009 -5- per centum", shall be substituted;
(b) the following proviso shall be inserted at the end, namely:-
Provided that the award of the Court may also direct that where such excess or any part thereof is paid into Court after the date of expiry of a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into Court before the date of such expiry."
"30. Transitional provisions:
(1) XX XX XX
(2) The provisions of sub-sec. (2) of S.23 of the
principal Act, as Amended by Cl. (b) of S. 15 and S. 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."
Solatium is awarded under Section 23 (2) of the Act. CR No. 641 of 2009 -6- Before the Amendment Act, the sub-section provided for solatium at the rate of 15% of the market value. Section 15 (b) of the amendment Act enhanced the rate of solatium payable under Section 23 (2) of the Act from 15% to 30%. Section 30 (2) of the amendment Act specifies the category of cases to which the amended rate of solatium is attracted. Solatium is integral part of the compensation and, therefore, landowners are entitled to interest on solatium also.
Section 18 of the said Act enhanced the rate of interest payable under Section 28 of the Act from 6% to 9% per annum and added a proviso whereby the Court may also direct that where such excess or any part thereof is paid into Court after the date of expiry of a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of 15% per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into Court before the date of such expiry.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Sections 23 (2) and 28 of the amended Act. The core issue that arises in these revision petitions is as to whether the landowners are entitled to the benefit of the amended provisions of Sections 23 (2) and 28 of the Act from the date when the same were inserted in the Act, i.e. the year 1984, or from the date of taking possession of the acquired land by the Collector. In other words, the question would be - whether the claimants are entitled to interest under Section 28 of the amended Act from the date of taking possession till the amended provisions were inserted in the Act?
CR No. 641 of 2009 -7-
A plain reading of Section 30 (2) clearly shows that the provisions of Sections 23 (2) and 28 of the principal Act as amended by the amendment Act of 1984 shall apply and shall be deemed to have applied in respect of award made by the Collector or the Court or any order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court in appeal between 30.4.1982 and 24.9.1984 as well. The amendment Act has not been made generally retrospective with effect from any particular date but the specific language used in the provision is to be assigned proper meaning thereto. The words "shall apply and shall be deemed to have applied" in Section 30 (2) of the amendment Act has to be given the meaning which the Parliament intended it to be given. The expression "shall be deemed to have applied" connotes only one interpretation that once the landowner is held entitled to the amended provisions of Section 28 of the Principal Act, then it shall be deemed to have applied to the case of the claimants and it cannot be said that the claimants are not entitled to interest upto the date of coming into force of the amendment Act. In other words, when landowner is entitled to the benefit of provisions of Sections 23 (2) and 28 of the amended Act, the necessary corollary would be that he would be entitled to interest in terms of Section 28 from the date of taking possession from him by the Land Acquisition Collector. It would not be justified to give any other meaning to the aforesaid expression and would be against the intention of the Parliament to enact the provision.
The Apex Court in K.S. Paripoornan (II)'s case (supra), wherein answer to the aforesaid issue stands concluded, has held that where civil court makes an award between 30.4.1982 and 24.9.1984, or CR No. 641 of 2009 -8- thereafter, Section 30 (2) is applicable and, therefore, benefit of amended provisions of Section 23 (2) and Section 28 of the Act is available to the claimant-landowners. In the case before the Apex Court, the possession of the land was taken on 15.1.1981 and 13.3.1981 and the enhanced amount of compensation was deposited on 20.10.1986 and 3.12.1986. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the landowners shall be entitled to enhanced interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the dates of taking possession, namely, 15.1.1981 and 11.3.1981 for one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the date of the deposit made by the Collector on 20.10.1986 and 3.12.1986. The landowners were held entitled to interest as per the amendment Act of 1984 at the enhanced rates for the aforesaid period. The observations made in para 5, read as under:-
"5. Therefore, if the sum which, in the opinion of the court, the Collector ought to have awarded as compensation, is in excess of the sum which the Collector did award as compensation, the court shall direct the Collector to pay interest on such excess at the rate of 9% per annum from the date on which the Collector took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into the court. By operation of the proviso, if such excess or any part thereof is paid into the court after the date of expiry of a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of 15% per annum shall be CR No. 641 of 2009 -9- payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into the court before the date of such expiry. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to the enhanced interest @ 9% from the date of taking possession, namely, 15.1.1981 and 11.3.1981 respectively for one year and thereafter @ 15% till the date of the deposit made by the Collector. Admittedly, the deposit of the enhanced compensation was made on 20.10.1986 and 3.12.1986. Therefore, the interest shall be calculated at the enhanced rates for the aforesaid period."
In view of the above, it is held that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of amended Section 28 of the Act from the date of taking possession of the land. Accordingly, the revision petitions are allowed and the order dated 8.1.2009 impugned herein passed by the executing court is set aside. The matter is remitted to the executing court to proceed further in accordance with law and the observations made herein.
The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the executing court on 1.12.2009.
October 14, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
gbs JUDGE
CR No. 641 of 2009 -10-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 642 of 2009 Date of Decision: 14.10.2009 Brahamjit Singh ....Petitioner.
Versus Deputy Commissioner Sirsa and another ...Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashish Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
This revision petition is allowed. For reasons, see the order of even date passed in Civil Revision No. 641 of 2009 (Bikramjit Singh v. Deputy Commissioner Sirsa and another).
October 14, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
gbs JUDGE
CR No. 641 of 2009 -11-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 684 of 2009 Date of Decision: 14.10.2009 Amrit Pal Singh ....Petitioner.
Versus Deputy Commissioner Sirsa and another ...Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashish Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
This revision petition is allowed. For reasons, see the order of even date passed in Civil Revision No. 641 of 2009 (Bikramjit Singh v. Deputy Commissioner Sirsa and another).
October 14, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
gbs JUDGE
CR No. 641 of 2009 -12-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 685 of 2009 Date of Decision: 14.10.2009 Sarabjit Singh ....Petitioner.
Versus Deputy Commissioner Sirsa and another ...Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashish Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
This revision petition is allowed. For reasons, see the order of even date passed in Civil Revision No. 641 of 2009 (Bikramjit Singh v. Deputy Commissioner Sirsa and another).
October 14, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
gbs JUDGE
CR No. 641 of 2009 -13-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 686 of 2009 Date of Decision: 14.10.2009 Hardayal Singh ....Petitioner.
Versus Deputy Commissioner Sirsa and another ...Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashish Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
This revision petition is allowed. For reasons, see the order of even date passed in Civil Revision No. 641 of 2009 (Bikramjit Singh v. Deputy Commissioner Sirsa and another).
October 14, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
gbs JUDGE
CR No. 641 of 2009 -14-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 687 of 2009 Date of Decision: 14.10.2009 Charanjit Singh ....Petitioner.
Versus Deputy Commissioner Sirsa and another ...Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashish Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
This revision petition is allowed. For reasons, see the order of even date passed in Civil Revision No. 641 of 2009 (Bikramjit Singh v. Deputy Commissioner Sirsa and another).
October 14, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
gbs JUDGE
CR No. 641 of 2009 -15-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 890 of 2009 Date of Decision: 14.10.2009 Raj Kumar and others ....Petitioners.
Versus Deputy Commissioner Sirsa and another ...Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Ashish Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
This revision petition is allowed. For reasons, see the order of even date passed in Civil Revision No. 641 of 2009 (Bikramjit Singh v. Deputy Commissioner Sirsa and another).
October 14, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
gbs JUDGE
CR No. 641 of 2009 -16-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 903 of 2009 Date of Decision: 14.10.2009 Inder Kaur ....Petitioner.
Versus Deputy Commissioner Sirsa and another ...Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashish Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
This revision petition is allowed. For reasons, see the order of even date passed in Civil Revision No. 641 of 2009 (Bikramjit Singh v. Deputy Commissioner Sirsa and another).
October 14, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
gbs JUDGE
CR No. 641 of 2009 -17-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 954 of 2009 Date of Decision: 14.10.2009 Paramjit Singh and others ....Petitioners.
Versus Deputy Commissioner Sirsa and another ...Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Ashish Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
This revision petition is allowed. For reasons, see the order of even date passed in Civil Revision No. 641 of 2009 (Bikramjit Singh v. Deputy Commissioner Sirsa and another).
October 14, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
gbs JUDGE
CR No. 641 of 2009 -18-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 955 of 2009 Date of Decision: 14.10.2009 Amarpal Singh and others ....Petitioners.
Versus Deputy Commissioner Sirsa and others ...Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Ashish Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
This revision petition is allowed. For reasons, see the order of even date passed in Civil Revision No. 641 of 2009 (Bikramjit Singh v. Deputy Commissioner Sirsa and another).
October 14, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
gbs JUDGE
CR No. 641 of 2009 -19-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 1282 of 2009 Date of Decision: 14.10.2009 Gurdeep Singh and others ....Petitioners.
Versus Deputy Commissioner Sirsa and another ...Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Ashish Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
This revision petition is allowed. For reasons, see the order of even date passed in Civil Revision No. 641 of 2009 (Bikramjit Singh v. Deputy Commissioner Sirsa and another).
October 14, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
gbs JUDGE
CR No. 641 of 2009 -20-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 1286 of 2009 Date of Decision: 14.10.2009 Sukhwinder Kaur and others ....Petitioners.
Versus Deputy Commissioner Sirsa and another ...Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Ashish Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
This revision petition is allowed. For reasons, see the order of even date passed in Civil Revision No. 641 of 2009 (Bikramjit Singh v. Deputy Commissioner Sirsa and another).
October 14, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE