State of West Bengal v. Abdul Khaleque Ostagar — 1985 DIGILAW 168 (CAL)

Judgment : Mookerjee, J : Being aggrieved by the awards dated 31st January, 1967 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. 2. In all the four cases the lands in question were acquired under the provisions of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948 for the purpose of settlement of immigrants who had migrated to West Bengal on account of reasons beyond their control. In these cases, both the Collector and the learned Land Acquisition Judge in terms of S. 8 proviso (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 S. 4 of the said Act. In none of the four cases the court below awarded statutory allowance in terms of sub-s.(2) of S. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act because S.8 of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948 made applicable only sub-s. (1) of S. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act in determining the compensation for the Land acquired under the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948. 3. On March 15, 1982, F.A. Nos. 3. 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, Laxminarayan Dutta v. State of West Bengal AIR 1975 Cal 325 and State of West Bengal v. Land Development Bureau 1979 (2) CLJ 169, had contended that proviso (b) to sub-s. (1) of S. 8 and sub-s (2) of S. 8 of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act were discriminatory and, therefore, ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution Therefore, the said provisions were invalid in as far all 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 S, 4 of the Act but also denied statutory allowance under S. 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act upon the market value of lands acquired under the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948. 4. 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 S. 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. 5. During the pendency of these cases Indian Parliament has enacted Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act 68 of 1984). The said Act first received the assent of the President of India on 24th September, 1984 and the amendment Act was published in the Extraordinary Issue of the Gazette of India of the same date. The S. 15(b) of Act 68 of 1984 has amended sub s. (2) of S. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act by increasing the rate of statutory allowance payable to 30%. The S. 15(b) of Act 68 of 1984 has amended sub s. (2) of S. 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 sections of the Land Acquisition Act Section 30 of the said Amendment Act contains the following transitional provisions : (1) The provisions of sub-s. (1 A) of S. 23 of the principal Act as inserted by Clause (a) of S. 15 of the 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 fur 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 s. (2) of S. 23 and S. 28 of the principal Act, as amended by clause (b) of S. 15 and S. 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 30th day of April, 1982 (the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, in the Home of the People) and before the announcement of this Act. (3) The provisions of S. 34 of the principal Act, as amended by S. 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 c0mpensation for such acquisition had not been paid or deposited under S. 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 S. 31, effect on and from the date of taking such possession. 6. Mr. A. N. Baneijee, leaned 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 passed in F. A. Nos. 501 and 502 of 1970. Therefore, we are bound to accept in the said two cases the trial court's fir dings regarding the market value of the acquired lands The respondents have prayed that grounds taken in their respective Memorandum of cross objections may be amended to enable them to claim statutory allowance under S. 23(2) of the Act @ 30% of the market value of the acquired lands in terms of amended S. 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. 7. The respondents are undoubtedly entitled to receive statutory allowance under S.23(2) of the said Act. The question is whether such statutory allowance ought to be awarded according to S. 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 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 the April, 1982 and the appeals are being heard after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. In the instant case, the awards both by the Collector and the learned Land Acquisition Judge were passed before 30th of the April, 1982 and the appeals are being heard after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. Therefore, the present cases are not covered by sub-s. (2) of S. 30 of the said Amendment Act of 1984. According to the cross-objectors, said sub-s. (2) of S. 30 of the Amended Act of 1984 makes the amended S. 23(2) of the principal Act applicable not only to awards of the Collector and the Land Acquisition Judge made between 30th 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 s. (2) of S. 23 of the principal Act shall not 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 S. 30 of the said Amendment Act and in particular sub s. (2) of the said provision. 8. Sub-section (2) of S. 30 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 has made provisions of S. 23(2) and S. 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-s. (2) of S. 30 of the said Act the benefit of enhanced rate of statutory allowance under amended S. 23(2) and also of the enhanced rate of interest under S. 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 S. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against an award 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 de1ivered between the aforesaid two dates in land acquisition proceeding before 30th of April, 1982 and in which awards by the Collector and Land Acquisition Judge were given before 30th of April, 1982. 9. The language used in sub-s. (2) of S. 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 S. 23(2) and S. 28 of the principal Act as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. Sub-section (2) of S. 30 of the Amended Act has provided that amended S. 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, 1989 and 24th September, 1984, are required to apply amended S. 23(2) and S. 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Benefits of enhanced rate of statutory allowance @ 30% and the enhanced rate of interest @ 9% would be payable under the awards made between 30th April, 1982 and the date of the commencement of the Act 68 of 1984. 10. Benefits of enhanced rate of statutory allowance @ 30% and the enhanced rate of interest @ 9% would be payable under the awards made between 30th April, 1982 and the date of the commencement of the Act 68 of 1984. 10. The said words 'in appeal against any such award' in sub-s. (2) of S. 30 of the Amendment Act are significant because they specify the particular appeals to which the provisions of the amended S. 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 S. 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 S. 30 does not however require that in order to apply the benefits of S. 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, S. 30(2) requires payment of statutory allowance at the enhanced rate of 30% and of interest @ 9% under awards passed either by the Collector or by the Land Acquisition Judge between the dates specified therein. 11. Although sub-s. (1) of S. 30 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 has not come up for consideration before us, we may indicate that both sub-ss. (1) and (2) reflect the intention the part of the legislature to extend to awards the benefits of the amended sections mentioned in respective sub sections of S. 30 with effect from the date of intoduction of the Amendment Bill, 1982 in the House of People. (1) and (2) reflect the intention the part of the legislature to extend to awards the benefits of the amended sections mentioned in respective sub sections of S. 30 with effect from the date of intoduction of the Amendment Bill, 1982 in the House of People. Thus, S.30(1)(a) of the amendment Act lays down that in respect of proceedings pending before the Collector on 30th April, 1982, the provisions of S. 23(1A) of the principal Act shall apply to awards passed by him after 30th April, 1982. But when award had been already made before 30th of April, 1982 S. 23(1)(A) of the principal Act would not be attracted. Clause (b) of S. 30(1) of the Amendment Act makes S. 23(1A) of the principal Act applicable in relation to every lard acquisition proceeding commenced after 30th April, 1982 whether or not an award had been made before the commencement of the Act. Similarly, sub-s. (3) of S. 30 of the Amendment Act of 1984 extends benefits of amended S. 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. 12. The learned advocates for the claimants have urged that while sub-s. (1) of S. 30 of the Amendment Act only refers to awards made after 30th April, 1982, the sub-s. (2) of the said S. 30 mentions only awards made by the Collector but also award 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-s. (2) of S. 30 makes amended S. 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-s. (2) of S. 30 of Act 68 of 1984, the award by the learned Land Acquisition Judge and the appeals to the High Court and the Supreme Court. 13. We are unable to accept these contentions. There were altogether different reasons for mentioning in sub-s. (2) of S. 30 of Act 68 of 1984, the award by the learned Land Acquisition Judge and the appeals to the High Court and the Supreme Court. 13. The provisions of S. 28 of the principal Act empowers the court as defined in S. 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-s. (2) of S. 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 S. 23 and 24 of the Act. But primarily sub-ss. (1) and (2) of S. 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 S. 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, 1984. 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. 14. In enacting both sub-ss. (1) and (2) of S. 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, S. 30 of the Amendment Act 1984 gives limited retrospective effect to the amended provisions mentioned in relation to some land acquisition proceedings. 15. Thus, S. 30 of the Amendment Act 1984 gives limited retrospective effect to the amended provisions mentioned in relation to some land acquisition proceedings. 15. Therefore, the period specified in sub-s. (2) of S. 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 Older 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 late of statutory allowance and may also award interest @ 9% upon the enhanced amount of compensation. Any other view regarding S. 30(2) of the amended Act would result in inequity and inconsistent position. We have already mentioned that sub-s. (2) of S. 30 of 1982 does not empower either the High Court or the Supreme Court to award statutory allowance @ 30% in appeals pending on the date of the commencement of the Amendment Act and arising out of proceedings 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 S. 23(2) and S. 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 S. 23(2) and S. 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 (Amendment) Bill, 1982 in the House of People and also to empower the High Court and the Supreme Court to award such enhanced 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 said amended S. 23(2) of the Act and therefore, the High Court and the Supreme Court would remedy the said lacunae. 16. Since after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984 we are disposing of these appeals, sub-s. (2) of S. 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, 1982 and they were not disposed of during the transitional period mentioned in S. 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 S. 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? 17. It is a general principle of the 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 rehearing of the cause and is a continuation of the proceedings. 17. It is a general principle of the 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 rehearing of the cause and is a continuation of the proceedings. It is equally settled law that ordinarily the appellate court will apply the substantive law which was in force at the date of accrual of cause of action for filing of the cause (see Chhote Khan v. Mohammad Obedulla Khan AIR 1953 Nagpur 361 (F. B.) If in the interval 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 v. Subh Karan Das AIR 1941 FC 5. M/s. Raman and Raman Ltd. v. The State of Madras and others AIR 1959 SC 694 and Stare of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Syed Mohammad Saadat Ali Khan AIR 1960 SC 1283 .) 18. 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 S. 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 S. 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 makes his award, he serves notices under S. 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. After making award under S. 11 of the Act the Collector under S. 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 purpose, we need not refer to S. 17 of the said Act which provides for special powers in cases of emergency. Incidentally S. 17 has been also amended by S.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 become the property of the Government without any addition or limitation (see The Fruit & Vegetable Merchants Union v. The Delhi Improvement Trust AI R 1957 SC 344 at page 353). After passing the award possession is taken, title to the land passes to the State and the property acquired become the property of the Government without any addition or limitation (see The Fruit & Vegetable Merchants Union v. The Delhi Improvement Trust AI R 1957 SC 344 at page 353). After taking possession, the State Government cannot withdraw any land from acquisition (vide S. 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act). 19. The Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Khorshed Shapoor Chenai V. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Andhra Pradesh AIR 1980 SC 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 S. 4 of the Act. Further, observations of the court regarding validity of a notice issued under S. 59(a) of the Estate Duty Act when compensation is enhanced in appeal are not relevant for our present purpose. 20. Once possession is taken and the land vests, the interest of the deprived owner in the acquired land is converted into compensation. He becomes entitled to receive compensation awarded. He may choose to apply for reference under S. 18 of the Act for adjudication by the Land Acquisition Judge. When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited before taking possession of the land, the Collector under S. 34 of the principal Act is bound to award interest at the rates specified under S. 34 from the date of asking possession until it has been paid or deposited. Section 20 of the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 has increased the rate of interest from 6 to 9% and has added a proviso at the end of S. 34. In the above view, right to receive compensation which accrues on the date of taking possession of the acquired lands, ought to be determined according to substantive law in force on the date of vesting of the acquired lands. In the absence of retrospective effect being given, amendments in the Law of Compensation made during the pendency of an appeal would not apply to a pending appeal Right to receive compensation is a matter of substantive right. In the absence of retrospective effect being given, amendments in the Law of Compensation made during the pendency of an appeal would not apply to a pending appeal Right to receive compensation is a matter of substantive right. Therefore, such right would be affected by changes of substantive law only when expressly or by necessary implications law provides for its application to cases pending in appeal. We do not find from the language used in S. 15 or 30 of the Act 68 of 1984 any intention an the part of the Legislature to give effect to the provisions of S. 16 of the said Amendment Act to cases where awards were passed before 30th April, 1982 and to the appeals preferred against such awards passed before 30th April, 1982. 21. Mr. Dipankar Gupta, who has appeared as amicus curiae, has drawn our attention to certain passages at pages 361 and 395 of Craies on Statute Law, 6th Edition. A beneficial piece of legislation and also explanatory and declaratory 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 rate of statutory allowance and also a compensatory allowance from the date of the notification under S. 4 till possession is taken or award is made whichever is earlier 22. The two reported decisions in the case of Municipal Council of Sydney v. Margaret Alexandra Troy AIR 1928 P.C 128 in the Case of Joginder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another AIR 1985 SC 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 v. Margaret Alexandra Troy (supra) the 1udicial Committee agreed with the Supreme Court of New South Wales regarding interpretation of S. 17 of the Sydney Corporation Act, 1924 which changed the rate of interest payable on compensation. In the case of Municipal Council of Sydney v. Margaret Alexandra Troy (supra) the 1udicial Committee agreed with the Supreme Court of New South Wales regarding interpretation of S. 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 S. 17 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 Jogendra Singh v. State of Punjab (supra), after the award by the ]earned Land Acquisition fudge, the Haryana Act 8 of 1967 amended Ss. 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 @ 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 Ss. 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 upon the amount of compensation enhanced by the High Court. The following observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) go against the contention 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 arise when the land vests in the State while its quantification may be concluded much later. The said process of quantification may pass through several stages 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. 24. After we reserved our judgments, Mr. The said process of quantification may pass through several stages 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. 24. 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 v. Special Land Acquisition Officer 1985 (1) SCC 582 . The Supreme Court in the said case rejected the appellant's contention that S. 30(2) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act made the amended S. 23(2) of the principal Act applicable to all proceedings which did not become final whether they were pending before the Collector, court, High Court or the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the amended provisions were expressly made applicable by S. 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 accord with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of K. Kamalajammanniavaru v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (supra). 25. 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 S. 23(2) of the Act Therefore, in F.A. Nos. 234 and 235 of 1968 we have not entered into the correctness of the assessment of the market value of the acquired lands. We are grateful to Mr. Dipankar Gupta, who has assisted us as amicus curine. 26 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. We are grateful to Mr. Dipankar Gupta, who has assisted us as amicus curine. 26 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. We accept the findings after remand made by the learned Land Acquisition Judge regarding the market value of the acquired lands and that statutory allowance under S. 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act shall be payable upon the said market value. The awards passed in L.D.P. Case No. 129 and 148 of 1966 are modified accordingly. 27. We allow in part Cross Objections filed by the referring claimants in F.A. Case Nos. 234 and 235 of 1968, modify the awards passed in L.D.P. Case Nos. 240 and 241 of 1968 (V) by directing payment of statutory allowance at the rate of 15% under S. 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act upon the market value of the acquired lands. There will be no order as to costs. Appeals dismissed.