L.P.A. No.2514 of 2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 07.01.2009 Food Corporation of India and others .....Appellants versus Sucha Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL. Present : Mr.Dinesh Nagar, Advocate, for appellants. Mr.Sanjeev K.Arora, Advocate, for respondents. Mr.Manoj Bajaj, Sr.DAG, Punjab. -.- UMA NATH SINGH, J. This judgment shall also dispose of the connected L.P.A. No.2515 of 2001, as both these appeals filed by the Food Corporation of India and others impugn the judgment passed by a learned Single Judge dated 1.9.2000, in C.M.No.2873-CI of 1993 in C.M.No.2117-CI of 1989 and C.M.No.2643-CI of 1993 in C.M.No.2137-CI of 1989, holding the respondents to be entitled to get benefits under the provisions of Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, on the ground that the award of the Collector was passed on 5.5.1982 and as on 30.4.1982, there was no award by the Collector. The provisions of sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, as inserted by clause (a ) of Section 15 of Act No.68 of 1984 is to 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 L.P.A. No.2514 of 2001 2 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. We have carefully gone through the judgment and find that the learned Single Judge has noticed each and every aspect of the case, so also the applicability of the aforesaid provisions. Needless to say that the award was passed on 5.5.1982, obviously after 30.4.1982 and the learned Reference Court passed the judgment on 30.4.1984 i.e. 2 years after the cut off date i.e. 30.4.1982. Moreover, the amending Act No.68 of 1984 was introduced as a beneficial piece of legislation, therefore, it had created statutory right in favour of the respondents which also gets support from the fact that some identically situated other land owners have already got these benefits in some Regular First Appeals. Thus, both these Letters Patent Appeals are dismissed and the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is affirmed. (UMA NATH SINGH) JUDGE 07-01-2009 (A.N.JINDAL) Mohinder JUDGE Whether this judgment be referred to Reporter or not ? YES/NO