Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 526 (PNJ)

Union of India v. Kishan Singh

2004-05-05

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2004
JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - The appellants have filed this Regular First Appeal against the award dated 7.10.1989 passed by Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur. 2. Vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to be the Act), which was published in the Punjab Government Gazette dated 16.9.1977, a big chunk of land situated in village Baghar, Tehsil Pathankot, was acquired for a public purpose, namely for defence purpose. With regard to the acquired land, an award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector. However, in the said award no compensation was determined for the fruit bearing trees standing on the acquired land. When the issue regarding non-determination of compensation for fruit bearing trees was raised in the Punjab Vidhan Sabha, then a supplementary award with regard to the fruit bearing trees was made by the Special Land Acquisition Collector vide letter dated 13.9.1988. In the said supplementary award, the Special Land Acquisition Collector determined the market value of the fruit bearing trees on the basis of the report of the Horticulture Expert published in the year 1966. The said valuation of the trees was made on the basis of the rate prevailing in the year 1966, however, the acquisition in question took place in the year 1977. 3. Feeling dis-satisfied against the aforesaid supplementary award, the claimant-land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the market value of the fruit bearing trees by 133% over the value assessed by the Special Land Acquisition Collector. The said increase was given on the basis of difference in the whole sale price index between the year 1966 and 1977. However, the reference Court awarded solatium to the claimant-land owner at the rate of 15% and interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year from the date of taking possession and at the rate of 15% per annum for the subsequent years till the date of payment of amount awarded. The benefit of additional amount at the rate of 12% under Section 23(1-A) of the Act was also not awarded. 4. Against the aforesaid award, the Union of India and another have filed the instant appeal. 5. The benefit of additional amount at the rate of 12% under Section 23(1-A) of the Act was also not awarded. 4. Against the aforesaid award, the Union of India and another have filed the instant appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the increase of 133% made by the Reference Court on the market value of the fruit bearing trees, assessed by the Special Land Acquisition Collector, is totally arbitrary. I do not find any force in this contention, as this Court in RFAs No. 3041 and 1989 (Union of India and another v. Vakil Singh and another) decided on November 19, 2003 and RFAs No. 427 and 428 of 1989 (Union of India and others v. Sadhu Singh) decided on December 3, 2003, has already affirmed the similar award of giving 133% increase on account of difference of the whole sale price index between the year 1966 and 1977. Learned counsel for the appellants could not dispute that this aspect of the matter is covered by the aforesaid judgment of this Court. Hence, the finding of the Reference Court regarding determination of the value of the fruit bearing trees is confirmed. 6. However, learned counsel for the claimants-land owners submitted that since the supplementary award was made in the year 1988, therefore, the Reference Court has illegally declined the benefit of solatium at the rate of 30% and additional amount at the rate of 12% as provided under Sections 23(2) and 23(1-A) respectively, of the Act. He further submitted that in view of the transitional provision contained in Section 30(1)(a) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act No. 68 of 1984) and in view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, 1989(2) SCC 754 and K.S. Paripoornam (II) v. State of Kerala and others, 1995(1) SCC 367, the claimants-land owners are entitled for all the statutory benefits under the provisions of the Amended Act. 7. On the other and, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that neither any appeal nor any cross-objection has been filed by the claimants-land owners claiming the benefits of amended provisions of the Act, therefore, they cannot be granted these benefits. 7. On the other and, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that neither any appeal nor any cross-objection has been filed by the claimants-land owners claiming the benefits of amended provisions of the Act, therefore, they cannot be granted these benefits. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the claimants-land owners are not entitled for the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act as the main award in this case was passed prior to the cut off date i.e. 30.4.1982 and merely because the supplementary award was passed in the year 1988, they cannot be granted the benefit of additional amount. 8. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case. 9. The question which arises for determination is whether the claimants-land owners are entitled for the benefits of enhanced solatium at the rate of 30% and additional amount at the rate of 12%. Undisputedly, in this case, the supplementary award by the Special Land Acquisition Collector was made in the year 1988 and the impugned award was passed by the Reference Court on 7.10.1989. Counsel for the Union of India has not disputed the claim of land owners about awarding of solatium at the rate of 30% under Section 23(2) of the Act. He only submitted that the claimants-land owners are not entitled for additional amount at the rate of 12% under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. I do not find any force in this contention of the learned counsel for the Union of India. The transitional provision of the Amended Act provides as under :- 30. Transitional provision - (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 proceeding for the acquisition of 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 that 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 Sections 23 and 28 of the principal Act, as amended by Clause (b) of Sections 15 and 18 of this Act respectively, shall apply, and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation 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 later than 30th day of April, 1982 (the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, in the House of the People) and before the commencement of this Act." 10. The aforesaid provision has been interpreted by the Honble Apex Court in Union of India v. Raghubir Singh and K.S. Paripoornam (II) v. State of Kerala and others (supra). In view of these judgments, the claimants-land owners are entitled to the benefit of additional amount under Section 28(1-A) of the Act as this case is covered by clause (a) of Section 30(1). So far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellants with regard to the non-filing of any appeal or cross-objection by the claimants-land owners claiming statutory benefit under the amended provisions of the Act is concerned, I do not find any force in the same, because, in my opinion, these reliefs can be granted to the claimants-land owners, while disposing of the appeal filed by the Union of India against the award of the Reference Court. This Court has already decided the similar controversy in RFA No. 1530 of 1984, Union of India v. Bhan Singh and others, 2004(1) RCR(Civil) 526 (P&H), decided on August 13, 2003, by following two decisions of the Honble Apex Court in Shri Narain Dass Jain (Since deceased) by Legal Representatives v. The Agra Nagar Mahapalika, Agra, 1991 LACC 199 and Shree Vijay Cotton and Oil Mills Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1991 SC 656. This Court held as under :- ".... The statutory benefits like solatium and interest provided under the Act are mandatory. These benefits have to be provided by the Civil Court on the enhanced amount of compensation, determined by the Court. Under the Act, no discretion has been provided to the Court in this regard. Every claimant/land owner is entitled for the statutory benefits on the enhanced amount of compensation. These benefits have to be provided by the Civil Court on the enhanced amount of compensation, determined by the Court. Under the Act, no discretion has been provided to the Court in this regard. Every claimant/land owner is entitled for the statutory benefits on the enhanced amount of compensation. It is the bounden duty of the Court to grant these benefits to the land owners. If the aforesaid benefit has not been granted to the land owner/claimant by the Civil Court while determining the market value under Section 23 of the Act, these benefits can be granted to the land owner/claimant at the time of hearing of the appeal against the said award under Section 54 of the Act, even though the said appeal was not filed by the claimant/land owner and even no cross-objection has been filed by the land owner/claimant in the appeal filed by the State or the Union of India. This view of mine is fully supported by the Honble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, K.S. Paripoornam (II) and Shree Vijay Cotton and Oil Mills Ltd. cases (supra)." 11. In view of the aforesaid provision and the decisions, in my opinion, the claimants-land owners are also entitled for the benefit of solatium at the rate of 30% and additional amount at the rate of 12% under Sections 23(2) and 23(1-A), respectively, of the Act on the amount of compensation assessed for the fruit bearing trees standing of the acquired land. These benefits cannot be denied to the claimants-land owners on the amount of compensation assessed for the fruit bearing trees standing on the acquired land on the ground that the award qua the acquired land was made prior to the cut off date. The date of the award, vide which the market value of the land was assessed, is not relevant at all, because the claimants-land owners are not claiming the benefits of the amended provisions of the Act on the compensation assessed for the land. They are claiming these benefits only on the amount of compensation assessed for the fruit bearing trees, for which supplementary award by the Special Land Acquisition Collector was made in the year 1988. Thus, the claimants-land owners are entitled for all the statutory benefits of the amended provisions of the Act. 12. They are claiming these benefits only on the amount of compensation assessed for the fruit bearing trees, for which supplementary award by the Special Land Acquisition Collector was made in the year 1988. Thus, the claimants-land owners are entitled for all the statutory benefits of the amended provisions of the Act. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, Regular First Appeal filed by the Union of India and another is dismissed. However, the claimants-land owners shall also be entitled for the solatium at the rate of 30% under Section 23(2) and additional amount at the rate of 12% on the amount of compensation assessed for the fruit bearing trees standing on their acquired land under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. 13. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.