Prospective operation of land acquisition interest amendment preserves vested compensation rights in pending proceedings.

The amendment to section 28 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act reducing interest from six per cent to four per cent was treated as prospective only because the interest component formed a substantive part of the owner's compensation right. The reduced rate was not read as applying to pending acquisition proceedings or to land already acquired before commencement, as the amending Act contained no express or implied indication of retrospective effect. Section 28 was construed as mandatory, and the owner's entitlement to interest accrued when possession was taken and the award was made. Existing vested rights could not be curtailed without clear words, so interest remained payable at the pre-amendment six per cent rate.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amendment to section 28 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act reducing interest from six per cent to four per cent operated retrospectively or prospectively, and whether the owner had a vested statutory right to interest at the pre-amendment rate in pending acquisition proceedings.

Analysis: The rate of interest under section 28 was treated as a substantive incident of the owner's compensation right, not a mere procedural matter. The language of the amending Act contained no express or implied indication that the reduced rate was to apply to proceedings already pending or to land acquired before the amendment. Section 28 was construed as mandatory rather than directory, so the owner's right to interest accrued when possession was taken and the award was made. Since the amendment would curtail an existing vested right, strong words would have been required to make it retrospective, and none were found. The scheme of the Act, including the parallel duty to pay interest under section 35 and the statutory entitlement to solatium and compensation, supported the conclusion that interest was part of the substantive protection afforded to the owner.

Conclusion: The amendment was held to be prospective only and did not apply to pending proceedings or to acquisitions completed before its commencement; interest remained payable at six per cent under section 28 as it stood before amendment.

---