Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1255 (PNJ)

Punjab State v. Raksha Devi

2005-12-09

NIRMAL YADAV

body2005
Judgment Nirmal Yadav, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the State of Punjab through Collector, Hoshiarpur, challenging the order dated 29.11.1986 passed by Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur. 2. The short question raised in the present appeal is - whether the claimant-respondents are entitled to the benefit of the amended provisions of Section 23(I-A) of the Land Acquisition Act or not? 3. The facts, in brief, are that building (shop-cum-residential house) of claimants-respondents was acquired vide gazette notification, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) published on 21.3.1981, The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award No.39 dated 21.1,1982 granted Rs.44300/- as compensation for the shop-cum-residential building. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimant made a reference to the Court of District Judge for enhancement of compensation. The Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur vide order dated 29.11.1986 allowed the reference and held the claimant to be entitled to Rs. 40,583/- being value of the property, share in the well and electric installation. She has also been held entitled to the amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on the market value of the property with effect from 21.3.1981 to 21.1.1982, the date of her dispossession. She has further been held entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% on the market value of the building and interest at the rate of 9% on the enhanced rate of compensation on the market price of the acquired building from the date of taking possession till the date of payment of such excess amount. 4. The State of Punjab has challenged the award to the extent of the benefit granted to the claimants under the amended provisions of Section 23(1-A) of the Act. 5. Since no one put in appearance on behalf of the respondents in spite of the case having been called out on numerous occasions on 25.11.2005, the arguments advanced by the State Counsel were head and order was kept reserved. 6. The learned State counsel argued that the claimant is not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 23(1-A) of the Act as the award in the present case has been passed on 21.1.1982 i.e. well before the date of proposed Amending Act i.e. 30.4.1982. 6. The learned State counsel argued that the claimant is not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 23(1-A) of the Act as the award in the present case has been passed on 21.1.1982 i.e. well before the date of proposed Amending Act i.e. 30.4.1982. In this behalf, she placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K.S. Paripooran Singh v. State ofv Kerala, 1995(1) R.R.R. 40 (S.C.) and a judgment of this Court in Punjab State and Ors. v. Gopi Chand, 2004(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 679. 7. The Apex Court in K.S. Paripoornans case (supra) has observed as under :- ...We find no merit in this contention. If was open to Parliament to apply the provisions of Section 23(1-A) only to awards whether of the Collector or the Court made after the commencement of the amending Act.... Merely because Parliament has decided to give a limited retrospectively so as to cover awards that were made by the Collector during the period from April 30, 1982, when the original Bill was introduced in Lok Sabha till the date of the commencement of the amending Act would not result in the said provisions being infected with the vice of arbitrariness. The choice of April 30, 1982, the date on which the original Bill was introduced in Parliament, cannot be said to be arbitrary and confining the ambit of retrospectivity so as to exclude awards made by Collector prior to April 30, 1982 would not render the provisions of Section 30(1) of the amending Act unconstitutional. The question of expanding the field of retrospectivity so as to cover all the awards made by the Collector prior to the commencement of the amending Act irrespective of the date when they were made, therefore does not arise. 8. In view of the reasons mentioned above, it can well be concluded that in respect of the acquisition proceedings initiated prior to the date of commencement of the Amending Act, the payment of additional amounts payable under Section 23(1-A) of the Act, is to be restricted to the case referred to in Clause (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Amending Act. Since the Land Acquisition Collectors award is dated 21.1.1982 which precedes 30.4.1982, i.e., the date the Land Acquisition Act introducing Section 23(1-A) of the Act was proposed, the claimants would not be entitled to the benefit provided under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. 9. In this view of the matter, the order of the Additional District Judge i.e. the reference Court, in so far as it relates to grant of benefit of amended provisions of Section 23(1-A) of the Act, deserves to be set aside. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The claimants shall not be entitled to the benefit of the amended provisions of Section 23(1-A) of the Act.