Substantive compensation ceiling under land acquisition law applied prospectively, barring retrospective use of the amended provision.

Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act was held to be substantive because it limited the reference court's power to award compensation beyond the claimant's claim and below the Collector's award. The amended Section 25 was held not to operate retrospectively in the absence of express language, so the unamended provision governed acquisitions and awards made before the amendment. The earlier contrary view was said to rest on a misplaced reliance on a different constitutional ruling. Applying the unamended ceiling, the High Court's enhancement of compensation could not stand, and the Article 32 challenge to a provision no longer in force was not entertainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act is substantive or procedural in nature; (ii) whether the amended Section 25 applies retrospectively to acquisitions and awards made before the amendment; (iii) whether the earlier decision applying the amended provision was correctly decided; (iv) whether the High Court's enhancement of compensation could be interfered with in exercise of appellate jurisdiction; and (v) whether the challenge to the unamended provision under Article 32 was maintainable.

Issue (i): Whether Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act is substantive or procedural in nature.

Analysis: The provision did not merely regulate procedure. It restricted the power of the reference court by limiting compensation to the amount claimed and preventing an award below the Collector's award. Such a restriction affected the claimant's entitlement to compensation and therefore governed substantive rights rather than procedure.

Conclusion: Section 25 is substantive in nature, not procedural.

Issue (ii): Whether the amended Section 25 applies retrospectively to acquisitions and awards made before the amendment.

Analysis: A substantive amendment is not retrospective unless the statute expressly so provides. The amended Section 25 contained no indication of retrospective operation. The special retrospective mechanism in the amendment related to a different provision and did not extend to Section 25. Accordingly, the governing law remained the unamended provision for acquisitions and awards made before the amendment came into force.

Conclusion: The amended Section 25 does not apply retrospectively to the present acquisition.

Issue (iii): Whether the earlier decision applying the amended provision was correctly decided.

Analysis: The earlier decision had treated the amendment as applicable by relying on a constitutional bench ruling dealing with a different statutory provision. Since that ruling did not concern Section 25, the reliance was misplaced. The earlier view that the amended Section 25 governed the issue was therefore inconsistent with the correct legal position.

Conclusion: The earlier decision was not correctly decided to that extent.

Issue (iv): Whether the High Court's enhancement of compensation could be interfered with in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

Analysis: On the date of acquisition, the unamended Section 25 controlled the reference court's power. The court could not award compensation above the amount claimed by the claimant. Since the claim was limited to Rs. 30,000 per acre, the High Court had no authority to enhance the compensation beyond that ceiling, and no equitable ground could override the statutory restriction.

Conclusion: The High Court's enhancement of compensation could not stand.

Issue (v): Whether the challenge to the unamended provision under Article 32 was maintainable.

Analysis: The unamended provision had ceased to operate from the date of amendment. A challenge to the validity of a provision that was no longer on the statute book could not be entertained in the circumstances of the case.

Conclusion: The Article 32 petition was not entertainable.

Final Conclusion: The statutory ceiling in the unamended compensation provision governed the case, the amended regime had no retrospective application, and the claimants were entitled only to the amount originally claimed before the land acquisition authorities.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory provision that limits the quantum of compensation awardable by a reference court creates a substantive right and, absent express retrospective language, an amendment removing that limitation operates only prospectively.

---