TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (11) TMI 268
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issions made before us. 2. This appeal, arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 14297 of 1990 by Special Leave, is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1251 of 1987. The other appeals before us are connected appeals filed by the Union of India or the claimants. The respondent was the owner of a piece of land in one of the villages in District Bhatinda in Punjab. Land admeasuring 74375 acres situated in various villages in Bhatinda District including the land of the respondent was acquired by the appellants under the said Act. 3. The Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the said Act were published on May 10, 1979 and March 27, 1981, respectively. The Special Land Collector made and declared his award of compensation in respect of the acquisition of the said land and several other plots of land on March 31, 1981. Being aggrieved by the said award, the respondent and other landowners filed Reference applications under Section 18 of the said Act which were decided by the learned District Judge concerned in 1985 and 1986. The land acquired was classified into various grades and compensation awarded accordi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngs for determination of compensation were decided after September 24, 1984, and since the Regular First Appeal in respect of the proceedings for determination of the compensation was decided after September 24, 1984, the Court while adjudicating upon the amount of compensation payable to the claimant was bound to grant the additional amount in terms of Section 23(1-A) of the said Act. The Division Bench in its impugned judgment gave to the claimant the benefit of the added amount referred to in Section 23(1-A) of the said Act. The same submissions have been made on behalf of the respective parties before us. 6. Before discussing the submissions of the respective parties, it would not be out of place to set out the relevant provisions of the said Act. 7. The said Act, namely. The Land Acquisition Land. The term 'Award' has not been defined in the said Act. Sub-clause (d) of Section 3, the definition section, define the expression 'Court' as follows: (d) the expression 'Court' means a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, unless the appropriate Government has appointed, as it is hereby empowered to do, a special judicial officer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. 8. By the said Amendment Act of 1984 the expression "thirty per centum" was substituted in place of the expression "fifteen per centum" in Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the said Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 23 now runs as follows: (2) In addition to the market-value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of thirty per centum on such marker-value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. These amendments were effected in the Land Acquisition Act (the said Act) by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, ("the Amendment Act of 1984") as set out earlier. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 30 of the Amendment Act of 1984 run as follows: 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 proceedings for the acquisition of any land under the principal Act pending on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... claim the additional amount calculated as set out in the said sub-section in the circumstances set out therein. Similarly, Sub-section (2) of Section 23 also confers a substantive right on the claimant to a higher solatium. Under the well-settled rules of interpretation, the said provisions of the said Act, being substantive in nature, can have only prospective application unless the language in which the provisions are couched, read in the context, shows that the intention of the legislature was to give retrospective effect to them. The language of Sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 shows that a duty is cast on the court to award an amount calculated as stated therein in addition to the market value of the land acquired for the period commencing from the date of the publication of Section 4 of the Notification to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession, whichever is earlier. 11. The expression "award" used in Section 23(1-A) suggests that the intention of the legislature was to make the provisions of the said sub-section applicable to cases where the Collector had yet to make his award or the Trial Court hearing the Reference under Section 18 of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by Section 3(d) as the principal court of original jurisdiction, except in the circumstances set out in the said sub-section, which would be the court having jurisdiction to decide the reference under Section 18 of the said Act. There, is therefore, no warrant to read in the place of the word "Court" in Section 23(1-A) the word "Collector". Moreover, the decision of such a court determining compensation is regarded as an award under the said Act. In the light of these provisions, there is no warrant to give an unduly restricted meaning to Section 23(1-A) of the said Act, as pointed out above. 14. Coming now to the decisions cited before us we find that in the case before the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Jaiwant Laxman P. Sardesai and etc. v. Government of Goa, Daman and Diu and Anr. etc. (supra) the facts were that the Notification under Section 4 of the said Act was published on October 3, 1969, in the Government Gazette of the Government of Goa. The Notification under Section 6 was published on June 10, 1971. The Land Acquisition Officer declared his award on August 2, 1972. All these events undoubtedly occurred prior to April 30, 1982. However, on a Reference made....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a of Vedem Vasco De Gama (supra) strongly relied upon by the appellants is concerned, we find that in that case the Land Acquisition Officer made his award determining the compensation on March 5, 1969. On a reference under Section 18 the Civil Court made its award on May 28, 1985, that is, even after September 24, 1984, when the Amendment Act of 1984 came into effect. The view taken by the Division Bench is that, as the Collector had made his award before April 30, 1982, then the additional amount referred to in Section 23(1-A) could not be awarded. This view has been taken on the basis that Sub-section (1)(b) of Section 30 of the said Act provides that the provisions of Section 23(1-A) shall be applicable to every acquisition proceeding commenced after April 30, 1982, irrespective of the fact whether the Collector has made the award on or before September 24, 1984, and that Sub-section (1) of Section 30 does not refer to court award and the court award is used only in Sub-section (2) of Section 30. (See para 21 of the said report). We find that on the plain language of Section 23(1-A) itself, which we have set out earlier, the duty was cast on the Court to award an additional amo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by Section 30(2) in respect of an award made by the Collector between April 30, 1982, and September 24, 1984. Likewise the benefit of the enhanced solatium is extended by Section 30(2) to the case of an award made by the Court between April 30, 1982, and September 24, 1984, even though it be upon reference from an award made before April 30, 1982. The Court went on to point out that (p. 780): Section 30(2) of the Amendment Act extends the benefit of the enhanced solatium to cases where the award by the Collector or by the Court is made between April 30, 1982, and September 24, 1984, or to appeals against such awards decided by the High Court and the Supreme Court whether the decisions of the High Court or the Supreme Court are rendered before September 24, 1984, or after that date. All that is material is that the award by the (emphasis supplied) Collector or by the Court should have been made between April 30, 1982, and September 24, 1984. We find ourselves in agreement with the conclusion reached by this Court in K. Kamalajammanniavaru v. Special Land Acquisition Officer [1985]2SCR914 and find ourselves unable to agree with the view taken in Bhag Singh v. Union Terri....