STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. Arman Ali Mondal — 1985 DIGILAW 166 (CAL)

JUDGMENT 1. BEING aggrieved by the awards dated 31st January, 1s67 in L. D. P. Case No. 240 and 241 of 1968 (V) of the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge Calcutta, 24-Parganas, the state of West Bengal preferred Appeal from Original Decree Nos. 234 and 235 of 1968. The State of West Bengal preferred Appeal from Original Decree nos. 501 and 502 of 1970 against the awards dated 24th July, 1967 passed by the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge, alipore in L. D P. Case No. 129 and 148 of 1966. I 2. IN all the four cases the lands in question were acquired under the provisions of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1943 for the purpose of settlement of immigrants who had migrated to West Bengal on account of reasons beyond their control. Ira these cases, both the Collector and the learned Land Acquisition Judge in terras of section 8 provision (b) of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning act, 1948 had determined compensation according to their market value on 31st december, 1946 and not according to the market value of the acquired lands on the date of the notification under section 4 of the said) Act. In none of the four cases the court below awarded statutory allowance in terms of sub-section (2) of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act because section 8 of the West bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948 made applicable only subsection (1) of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act in determining the compensation for the lands acquired under the West Bengal Land Development and planning Act, 1948. On March 15, 1982, F. A. Nos. 501 and 502 of 1970 and the Cross- objections filed by the respondents in these two appeals came up for hearing. The Cross Objectors, relying upon the decision of this court in the case of Monoranjan Routh v. State of West Bengal 76 CWN 971, Lax-minarayan Dutta vs. State of west Bengal AIR 1975 Cal. 325 and State of West bengal vs. Land Development Bureau 1979 (2) CLJ 169, had contended] that proviso (b) to sub-section (1) of section 8 and sub-section (2) of section 8 of (the West bengal Land Development and Planning Act were discriminatory arid, therefore, ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. 325 and State of West bengal vs. Land Development Bureau 1979 (2) CLJ 169, had contended] that proviso (b) to sub-section (1) of section 8 and sub-section (2) of section 8 of (the West bengal Land Development and Planning Act were discriminatory arid, therefore, ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, the said provisions were invalid in as far as they laid down that compensation for land acquired for the purposes of re-settlement of immigrants shall be payable according to the market value of the lands on 31st December, 1946 and not on the date of the Notification under section 4 of the Act but also denied statutory allowance under section 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act upon the market value of lands Enquired under the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1943. 3. THE Division Bench under Order 41 rule 25 of the Code, had remanded the two cases to the trial court for recording a finding about the market value of the acquired lands on the date of the notification under section 4 of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning act, 1948 and also for determining the amount of statutory allowance payable. The trial court has since determined the said additional issues and has returned to this court its findings together with the records of F. A. Nos. 501 and 502 of 1970. 4. DURING the pendency of these cases Indian Parliament has enacted Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984j (Act 68 of 1984). The said Act first revived the assent of the President of India on 20th day of April, 1982 (the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, in the House of the People) and before the announcement of this Act. DURING the pendency of these cases Indian Parliament has enacted Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984j (Act 68 of 1984). The said Act first revived the assent of the President of India on 20th day of April, 1982 (the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, in the House of the People) and before the announcement of this Act. 1)3) the provisions of section 34 of the principal Act, as amended by section 20 of this Act, shall apply and shall be deemed to have applied, also to and in relation to, (a) every case in which possession of any land under the principal Act had been taken before the 30th day of April, 1982 (the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, in the House of the people) and the amount of compensation for such acquisition had not been paid or deposited under section 31 of the principal Act until such date with effect on and from that date; and (b) every case in which such possession had been taken on or after that date but before the commencement of this Act without the amount of compensation having been paid or deposited under the said Section 31, effect on and from the date of taking such possession. Mr. A. N. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant State has submitted that he has been instructed not to press F. A. Nos. 234 and 235 of 1968 and F,a. Nos. 501 and 502 of 1970. The learned advocate for the state has not disputed the correctness of the findings made after remand order under Order 41 Rule 25 of the Code pas-sad in F. A. Nos. 50 and 502 of 1970. Therefore, we are bound to accept in the said two cases the trial court's findings regarding the market value of the 24th September, 1984 and the amendment Act was published in the Extraordinary Issue of the Gazette of India of the same date. The section 15 (b) of act 68 of 1984 has amended sub section (2) of section 23 of the Land Acquisition act by increasing the rate of statutory allowance payable to 30%. The said Act 68 of 1984 has also amended several other section of the Land Acquisition Act. The section 15 (b) of act 68 of 1984 has amended sub section (2) of section 23 of the Land Acquisition act by increasing the rate of statutory allowance payable to 30%. The said Act 68 of 1984 has also amended several other section of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 30 of the said Amendment Act contains the following transitional provisions : (1) The provisions of sub-section (1a) 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 proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the principal act pending on the 30th day of April, 1982' (the date of introduction of the land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill 1982 in the House of the People) in which no award has been made by the Collector before that date; (b) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the principal Act commenced after the date, whether or not an award has been made by the Collector before the commencement of this Act. (2) The provisions of sub-section (2) of section 23 and section 28 of the principal act, as amended by Clause (b) of section 15 and section 18 of this Act, respectively, shall apply, and shall be deemed to have applied, also to and in relation to any awards made by the Collector or Court or to any order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court in appeal against any such award the provisions of the principal Act after the quired lands. The respondents have prayed that grounds taken in their respective Memorandum; of cross objection may be amended to enable them to claim statutory allowance under section 23 (2) of the Act at the rate of 30% of the market value of the acquired lands in terms of amended section 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. 5. THE respondents are undoubtedly entitled to receive statutory allowance under section 23 (2) of the said Act. The question is whether such statutory allowance ought to be awarded according to section 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition acts as amended by Act 68 of 1984. 5. THE respondents are undoubtedly entitled to receive statutory allowance under section 23 (2) of the said Act. The question is whether such statutory allowance ought to be awarded according to section 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition acts as amended by Act 68 of 1984. In the instant case, the awards both by the collector and the learned Land Acquisition Judge were passed before 30th of april, 1982 and by the appeals are being heard after the commencement of the land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. Therefore, the present cases are not covered by sub-section (2) of section 30 of the said Amendment Act of 1984. According to the cross objectors, said sub-section i (2) of section 30 of the amendment Act of 1984 makes the amended section 23 (2) of the principal Act applicable not only to awards of the collector and the land Acquisition Judge made between 3oth day of April, 1982 and the date of commencement of the Act 68 of 1982 but also to all appeals heard and disposed of by the High Court between the said two dates. Therefore, there is no reason why the amended sub-section (2) of section 23 of the Principal Act shall hot be applied while disposing of appeals after the commencement of the said Amendment Act of 1984. In the above view, it would be necessary for us to deal with the scope and effect of the transitional provisions contained in section 30 of the said Amendment Act and in particular sub-section (2) of the said provision. 6. SUB-SECTION (2) of section 30 Of the land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 has made provisions of section] 23 (2)and section 28 of the principal Act as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act of 1984, applicable 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 30th day of April, 1982. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and before the commencement of the amendment Act' The cross Objectors have contended that under sub-section (2) of section 30 of the said Act the benefit of enhanced (rate of statutory allowance under amended section 23 (2) and also of the enhanced rate of interest under section 28 would apply in all the following cases (a) an award of the Collector made between 30th of April, 1982 and commencement of the Amendment Act, (b) award of the Land Acquisition judge made between aforesaid two dates (c) order of the High Court in any appeal under section 54 of be Land acquisition Act against an (award of the Land Acquisition Judge passed both before 30th day of April, 1982 and also after 30th day of April, 1982, (d) the order of the Supreme Court in any appeal delivered between the aforesaid two dates in land acquisition proceeding before 30tbj of April, 1982 and in which award by the collector and the Land Acquisition judge were given before 30th hi april, 1982. The language used in sub-section (2) of section 30 does not support the contention that irrespective of the fact whether the award by the Collector or by the Land Acquisition Judge was made before or after 30th April, 1982, the High Court and the Supreme Court in disposing of all appeals during the period 30th April, 1982 and 24th September, 1984, would be bound to apply the amended section 23 (2) and section 28 of the principal Act as amended by the land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. Sub-section (2) of section 30 of the, Amended Act has provided that amended sections 23 (2) and 28 of the Act would apply and shall deem to have applied to any award by the Collector or by court made after 30th April, 1982 (date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982 in the House of people) and before commencement of the amendment Act. Thus, in all proceedings which were pending on 30th April, 1982 the collector and the Land Acquisition Judge in making their awards between 30th April, 1982 and 24th September, 1984, are required to apply amended section 23 (2) and section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Thus, in all proceedings which were pending on 30th April, 1982 the collector and the Land Acquisition Judge in making their awards between 30th April, 1982 and 24th September, 1984, are required to apply amended section 23 (2) and section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Benefits of enhanced rate of statutory allowance at the rate of 30% and the enhanced rate of interest at the rate of 9% would be payable under the awards made between 30th April, 1982 and the date of the commencement of the Act 68 of 1984. 7. THE said words in appeal against any such award in sub-section (2) of section 30 of the Amendment Act are significant because they specify the particular appeals to which the provisions of the amended sections 23 (2) and 28 of the principal Act would apply. Words; limit the application of said amended sections only to appeals preferred against awards passed between 28th April, 1982 and 24th September, 1984 and not to all appeals irrespective of the question whether the awards appealed against were made before or after 30th april, 1982. Unless the award either by the Collector or by the land Acquisition judge was made after the date of| introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982 in the House of People and before the commencement of the amendment Act, the said amended provisions of sections 23 (2) and 28 of the principal Act would not apply to appeals disposed of after commencement of the Act 68 of 1982. Sub-section (2)of section 30 does not however Require that in order to apply the benefits of section 23 (2) of the amended Principal act, an appeal preferred against an award of the court, passed between 30th of april, 1982 and the date of the commencement of the Act must also be disposed of between the said two dates Whenever an appeal against such awards made between the said two dates is disposed of, the court would apply the amended Principal Act. Thus, section 30 (2) requires payment of statutory allowance at the enhanced rate of 30% and of interest at the rate of 9% under awards passed either by the Collector or by the Land acquisition Judge between the dates specified therein. 8. Thus, section 30 (2) requires payment of statutory allowance at the enhanced rate of 30% and of interest at the rate of 9% under awards passed either by the Collector or by the Land acquisition Judge between the dates specified therein. 8. ALTHOUGH sub-section (1) of section 30 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment)Act 1984 has not come up for consideration before us, we may indicate that both sub-sections (1) and (2) reflect the intention on the part of the legislature to extend to awards the benefits of the amended sections mentioned in respective sub-sections of section 30 with effect from the date of introduction) of the amendment Bill, 1982 in the House of people. Thus, section 30 (1) (a) of the amendment Act lays down that in respect on proceedings pending before the collector on 30th April, 1982, the provisions of section 23 (1 A) of the principal Act shall apply to awards passed by him after 30th of April, 1982, But when award had been already made before 30th of April, 1982 section 23 (1) (A) of the principal Act would not be attracted. Clause (b) of section 30 (1) of the Amendment Act makes section 23 (1a) of the principal Act applicable in relation to every land acquisition proceeding commenced after 30th April, 1982 whether or not an award had been made before the commencement of the Act. Similarly, sub-section (3) of section 30 of the Amendment Act of 1984 extends benefits of amended section 34 of the principal Act in pending proceedings from 4th April, 1982 and when possession is taken after that date but before commencement of the amended Act from the date of taking possession. The learned advocates for the claimants have urged that while sub-section (1) of section 30 of the Amendment Act only refers to awards made after 30th april, 1982, the sub-section (2) of the said section 30 mentions only awards made by the Collector but also award passed by the learned Land Acquisition judge and appeals disposed of by the high Court and the Supreme Court. Therefore according to the learned advocate for the claimants, the sub-section (2) of section 30 makes amended section 23 (2) of the principal Act applicable to all appeals disposed of between the said two specified dates. We are unable to accept these contentions. Therefore according to the learned advocate for the claimants, the sub-section (2) of section 30 makes amended section 23 (2) of the principal Act applicable to all appeals disposed of between the said two specified dates. We are unable to accept these contentions. There were altogether different reasons for mentioning in sub-section (2) of section 30 of Act 68 of 1984 the award by the learned Land Acquisition Judge and appeals to the High Court and the Supreme Court. 9. THE provisions of section 28 of the principal Act empowers the court as denned in section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act to direct the Collector to pay interest on the excess compensation from the date on which the Collector had taken possession to the date of payment of the excess amount into court. Therefore, it was necessary to expressly mention the awards made by the Land acquisition Judge between 30th April, 1982 and 24th September 1984. Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act also set out the matters to be considered in determining compensation by this Court. Sub-section (2) of section 23 enjoins the court to award statutory allowance at the stipulated rate on the market value. No doubt, in determining the amount of compensation the Collector shall also be guided by the provisions contained in sections 23 and 24 of the Act. But primarily sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 23 deal with the matters to be considered by court in determining compensation. For the foregoing reasons, separate provisions were thought necessary for making amended sections 23 (2)and 28 of the Act applicable to awards by the Collector and the Land Acquisition-Court made between 30th April, 1982 and 24th September, 1934. The Collector and the Land Acquisition Judge in making their awards after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 would be bound to apply the law prevailing on the date of making their awards. Presumably, it was thought unnecessary to make any express provision in this behalf. 10. IN enacting both sub-sections (1)and (2) of section 30 of the Amendment act the Legislature had the identical intention of making the amended sections mentioned in the two sub-sections applicable to awards made after 30th April, 1982, i.e., enforce said amended provisions in respect of awards during the said transitional period. 10. IN enacting both sub-sections (1)and (2) of section 30 of the Amendment act the Legislature had the identical intention of making the amended sections mentioned in the two sub-sections applicable to awards made after 30th April, 1982, i.e., enforce said amended provisions in respect of awards during the said transitional period. Thus, section 30 of the Amendment Act 1984 gives limited retrospective effect to the amended provisions mentioned in relation to some land acquisition proceedings. Therefore, the period specified in sub-section (2) of section 30 only qualifies making of the award by the Collector or the court and does not refer to the date of passing of the appellate order by the High Court or the Supreme court. Therefore, the Supreme Court or the High Court may pass appellate orders subsequent to the date of the commencement of the Act. But, in case an appeal arises out of an award made by the Collector or the court between 30th April, 1982 and 24th September, 1984, the High Court or the Supreme court would grant enhanced rate of statutory allowance and may also award interest at the rate of 9% upon the enhanced amount of compensation. Any other view regarding section 30 (2) of the amended act would result in inequity and inconsistent positions. We have already mentioned that sub-section (2) of section 30 of 1982 does not empower either the high Court or the Supreme Court to award statutory allowance. at the rate of 30% in appeals pending on the date of the commencement of the Amendment Act and arising out of proceeding in which awards had been given before 30th April, 1982. In absence of any such provision for retrospective effect being given the appellate court is bound to compute compensation according to the law prevailing on the date of vesting of the Acquired lands, i.e., the date of taking possession and not on the date of final computation. There could never have been the intention of the legislature to provide that the application of amended section 23 (2) and section 28 of the Act to pending proceeding would depend upon the date of disposal of the appeals by the High Court or the Supreme Court. There could never have been the intention of the legislature to provide that the application of amended section 23 (2) and section 28 of the Act to pending proceeding would depend upon the date of disposal of the appeals by the High Court or the Supreme Court. The clear intention of the Legislature was to apply the said two provisions to awards made by the Collector or the court after the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendments Bill, 1982 in the House of People and also to empower the High Court and the Supreme Court to award such enhance statutory allowance and increased interest while disposing of appeals taken from awards made between 30th April. 1982 and 24th September, 1984. Quite conceivably, while making an award after 30th of April, 1982, the Collector or the court might, have omitted to apply the I said amended section 23 (2) of the Act and therefore, the High Court and the Supreme Court would remedy the said lacunae. 11. SINCE after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 we are disposing of these appeals, sub-section (2) of section 30 of the said amended Act in terms is not applicable. In other words, in these cases the awards by the Land Acquisition Judge were passed long before 30th April, 4982 and they were not disposed of during the transitional period mentioned in Section 30 (2) of the Amendment Act 1984. Therefore, different considerations would arise for deciding whether we ought to dispose of these appeals and Cross objections by applying the amended Section 23 (2) of the amended Land Acquisition Act. Are we required to take notice of the changed law regarding the rate of statutory allowance payable and to modify the awards of the Land Acquisition Judge passed before 30th April, 1982? 12. IT is a general principle of law that right of appeal is not a natural or inherent right attaching to litigation. Appeal has been called a creature of the statute. In other sense, appeal is re hearing of the cause and is a continuation of the proceeding. 12. IT is a general principle of law that right of appeal is not a natural or inherent right attaching to litigation. Appeal has been called a creature of the statute. In other sense, appeal is re hearing of the cause and is a continuation of the proceeding. It is equally settled law that ordinarily the appellate court will apply the substantive law which was in force at the date of the accrual of cause of action for filing of the cause see chhote Khan vs. Mohammad Obedulla khan AIR 1953 Nagpur 361 (F.B.)l if in the internal substantive law is retrospectively altered, the appeal court is bound to take the said legislative change into consideration while passing decree in appeal (see Rani Brij Raj Kumari vs. Subh Koran Das AIR 1941 F. C. 5, M\s. Raman and Raman Ltd. vs. The state of Madras and others AIR 1959 S.C. 694 and State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Syed Mohammad Saadat all Khan AIR 1960 S. C. 1283 ). We may briefly consider when does the right to receive compensation accrues in favour of the person interested. After service of notice and making enquiry the Collector under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act makes an award, inter-alia, determining the compensation of the acquired land according to its value on the date of the publication of the Notification under section 4 (1) of the said Act. Such award of the Collector has been described as an offer to the persons interested to pay compensation. After the Collector make his award, he serves notices under section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. After making award under section 11 of the Act the Collector under section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act may take possession of the land which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government free from encumbrances. For our present purposes, we need not refer to section 17 of the said Act which provides for special powers in cases of emergency. Incidentally section 17 has been also amended by section 13 of the Act 68 of 1984. After passing the award possession is taken, title to the land passes to the State and the property acquired becomes the property of the Government without any addition or limitation (see The Fruit and Vegetable Merchants Union vs. The Delhi improvement Trust AIR 1957 S. C. 344 at page 353). After passing the award possession is taken, title to the land passes to the State and the property acquired becomes the property of the Government without any addition or limitation (see The Fruit and Vegetable Merchants Union vs. The Delhi improvement Trust AIR 1957 S. C. 344 at page 353). After taking possession, the State Government cannot withdraw any land from acquisition (vide section 48 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act). 13. THE Supreme Court in the case mrs. Khorshed Shapoor Chenai vs. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Andhra Pradesh AIR 1980 S. C. 775, did not lay down any other principle regarding the date of accrual of the right of the deprived owner to receive compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. Upon acquisition of his land the claimant has a right to receive compensation at the market value of the lands on the date of Notification under section 4 of the act. Further, observations of the court regarding validity of a notice issued under section 59 (a) of the Estate. Duty act when compensation is enhanced in appeal are not relevant for our present purpose. 14. ONCE possession is taken and the land vosts, the interest of the deprived owner in the acquired land is converted into compensation. He becomes entitled act have been applied to pending cases even in the absence of any express retrospective provision in this behalf. But the Amendment Act of 1984 does not [belong to these classes of legislation. The object of the said Amendment Act of 1984 appears, inter-alia, to shorten the time taken in completing land acquisition proceedings and to confer upon persons interested certain additional benefits by way of payment of increased rate of interest on compensation, increased mate of statutory allowance and also a compensatory allowance from the date of the notification under section 4 till possession is taken or award is made whichever is earlier. The two reported decisions in to case of Municipal Council of Sydney vs. Margaret Alexandra Troy AIR 1928 PC. 128 and in the case of Joginder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another AIR 1985 S. C. 382, do. not lay down any contrary proposition regarding the effect of changed law vis-a-vis pending appeals. In the case of Municipal Council of. 128 and in the case of Joginder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another AIR 1985 S. C. 382, do. not lay down any contrary proposition regarding the effect of changed law vis-a-vis pending appeals. In the case of Municipal Council of. Sydney vs. Margaret Alexandra troy (supra), the Judicial Committee agreed with the Supreme Court of New south Wales regarding interpretation of section 17 of the Sydney Corporation act, 1924, which changed the rate of interest payable on compensation. The said provision was held to be a substantive law applicable to proceedings for acquisition of lands started both before or after the date of change. It was held that the plain purpose of section was to bring up the rate of interest which was too low to 6%. Further section 7 of the said Act in question was construed] as laying down a principle standing by itself which was to prevail notwithstanding provisions of any other Act 23, In the case of Joginder Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra), after the award by the learned Land Acquisition judge, the Haryana Act 8 of. 1987 amended sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act raising the rates of interest from 4 to 6%. The Punjab and Haryana high Court by their judgment in appeal awarded interest at the rate of 6% on the amount of compensation determined by the court below, the High court had applied the rate of 4% on the amount of compensation enhanced by it. The State did not prefer any appeal changing the application of the amended sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by the referring claimant and directed payment on interest at the increased rate of 6% also union the amount of compensation enhanced by the High Court. The following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Joginder Singh vs. State of punjab (supra) go against the contentions of the present appellants. The court at page 383 had observed that right to compensation and quantification thereof are two different concepts. The right to compensation arises when the land vests in the State while its quantification may be concluded much later. The said process of quantification may pass through several states from the Land Acquisition Officer to the learned District Judge and thereafter to the High Court. The right to compensation arises when the land vests in the State while its quantification may be concluded much later. The said process of quantification may pass through several states from the Land Acquisition Officer to the learned District Judge and thereafter to the High Court. The effect of compensation being determined later does not mean that right to the amount comes into existence on a later date. 15. AFTER we reserved our judgments mr. Bhabani Prasun Chatterjee, the learned advocate for one of the Cross Objectors, has fairly drawn our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Kamalajammanniavaru vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer 1985 (1) S. C. C. 582. The Supreme Court in the said case rejected the appellant's, contention that section 30 (2) of the land Acquisition (Amendment) Act made the amended section 23 (2) of the principal Act applicable to all proceedings which did not become final whether they were pending before the Collector's court, High Court or the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the amended provisions were expressly made applicable by section 30 (2) to awards made by the Collector or the court between April 30, 1982 and September 24, 1984, a natural corollary was that the new provision should apply to orders made by the High Court or by the Supreme Court in appeals against such awards, i. e., awards made between April 30, 1982 and September 24, 1984. The above decision is binding upon us and the views expressed by us in the present cases are fully in according with the law laid down by the supreme Court in the case of K. Kamalajammanniavaru vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (supra ). 16. THE respondents in F. A. Nos. 234 and 235 of 1968 have not taken any ground in their Cross Objections regarding the correctness of the market value of the acquired lands and their sole ground was that they ought to be awarded statutory allowance under section 23 (2)of the Act. Therefore, in F. A. Nos. 534 and 235 of 1968 we have not entered into the correctness of the assessment of the market value of the acquired 'tends. We are grateful to Mr. Dipankar Gupta, who has assisted us as amicus curiae. We accordingly dismiss the four appeals for non-prosecution. We allow the Cross Objections filed by the referring claimants in F. A. Nos. 534 and 235 of 1968 we have not entered into the correctness of the assessment of the market value of the acquired 'tends. We are grateful to Mr. Dipankar Gupta, who has assisted us as amicus curiae. We accordingly dismiss the four appeals for non-prosecution. We allow the Cross Objections filed by the referring claimants in F. A. Nos. 501 and 502 of 1970.