Interpretation of Land Acquisition Act Amendment: Enhanced compensation allowed for pending proceedings

The Court interpreted Section 30(2) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, holding that amended provisions should apply to pending compensation proceedings. It ruled that appellants must be given the chance to pay deficit court fees for enhanced compensation. The Court also found the amended provisions on solatium and interest rates applicable, awarding 30% solatium and 9% interest. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the Division Bench's refusal of enhanced compensation. Appellants were directed to pay the deficit court fee within two months, with each party bearing its own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 30 sub-section (2) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984.
2. Entitlement to enhanced compensation despite non-payment of deficit court fee.
3. Applicability of amended provisions regarding solatium and interest rates.

Summary:

1. Interpretation of Section 30 sub-section (2) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984:
The primary issue in this appeal is the interpretation of Section 30 sub-section (2) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. The Court examined divergent views from previous judgments to arrive at a proper interpretation. The Court concluded that the amended provisions of Section 23 sub-section (2) and Section 28 should apply to all proceedings relating to compensation pending on 30th April 1982 or filed subsequent to that date, whether before the Collector, the Court, the High Court, or the Supreme Court, even if they had finally terminated before the enactment of the Amending Act. This interpretation was affirmed by the Bench of three Judges in the case of State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh & Anr, and the Court expressed respectful disagreement with the contrary view taken by a Bench of two Judges in Kamalajammanniavaru v. Special Land Acquisition Officer.

2. Entitlement to Enhanced Compensation Despite Non-Payment of Deficit Court Fee:
The Court held that the appellants should have been given an opportunity to pay the deficit court fee to receive the enhanced compensation awarded by the learned single Judge and the Division Bench. The Court emphasized that a technical approach should not have been adopted to deny the appellants the benefit of enhanced compensation. The State Government is bound to pay compensation based on the market value of the land acquired, and denying this would be unjust. The Court directed that the appellants be allowed to pay the deficit court fee and receive compensation at the higher rate determined by the Division Bench.

3. Applicability of Amended Provisions Regarding Solatium and Interest Rates:
The appellants contended that they were entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation, as per the amended provisions of Section 23 sub-section (2) and Section 28. The Court agreed, stating that the amended provisions should apply to the present case. The Court directed that the appellants be paid solatium calculated at the rate of 30% on the enhanced compensation and interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of possession up to one year, and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the order of the Division Bench was set aside in so far as it refused to grant enhanced compensation due to non-payment of deficit court fee. The appellants were directed to pay the deficit court fee within two months, and a final order would be drawn up in their favor upon payment. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs throughout.

---