R.F.A. No. 548 of 1988 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 548 of 1988 Date of decision: September 12, 2008 The State of Punjab .. Appellant v. Hari Dass (deceased) through his L.Rs. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Manohar Lall, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the appellant. Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Advocate for the respondents. Rajesh Bindal J. The appellant is in appeal before this Court against the award of the learned Court below, whereby on account of acquisition of house on the land acquired by the State, a sum of Rs. 66,718/- was granted as compensation and Rs. 1,900/- was granted on account of loss of business and rental income. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 19.3.1981, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Punjab acquired the land in question situated in Village Dholbaha for the construction of Dholbaha Dam Reservior. The same was followed by notification dated 6.7.1981 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide his award dated 21.1.1982, awarded compensation of Rs. 55,725/- for the house situated on the acquired land and Rs. 1,000/- towards loss of business, making a total of Rs. 56,725/-. The learned Additional District Judge, on reference under Section 18 of the Act, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 66,718/- for the acquisition of house of the land owner. In addition to this, benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act in the form of 12% of the market value of the land from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act to the date of award or the date of dispossession, whichever was earlier, was also granted. Learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab submitted that enhancement of compensation by the learned Court below from Rs. 56,725/- Rs. 66,718/- on account of the super structure in the form of shops and residence on the acquired land was not called for in view of the evidence on record and the claim set up by the land owner. He further submitted that the Court below has gone wrong in awarding benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act in the form of 12% of R.F.A. No. 548 of 1988 [ 2] the market value. On the other hand, learned counsel for the landowner submitted that as against the claim of Rs. 82,598.57 on account of acquisition of the super structure on the acquired land, he was merely granted Rs. 55,725/- by the learned Collector and it was only in reference that a small enhancement was made and the compensation was assessed at Rs. 66,718/-. Though even that compensation was not in terms of the costs incurred by the landowner on the construction, but still feeling satisfied with the same he did not file any appeal. Otherwise, on the basis of the evidence on record, the enhancement could very well be sought. He further referred to the order passed by the learned Court below where the entire evidence led by the landowner with regard to cost of construction has been considered threadbare for arriving at a figure of Rs. 66,718/-. As regards the loss on account of business and rental income, the submission is that merely Rs. 1,000/- was granted by the Collector, which was enhanced to Rs. 1,900/-. However, as regards the award of 12% of the market value under Section 23(1-A) of the Act is concerned, he does not dispute that in terms of the legal position, the landowner was not entitled to that benefit. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From a perusal of the award, it is clear that as against the claim of Rs. 82,598.57 on account of value of the property acquired, as proved on record vide Ex. P.3, the Collector had awarded merely Rs. 55,725/- on the basis of the report of the Sub Divisional Officer. No dispute as such was found at the site as regards the covered area is concerned. However, finding miscalculation in the report of the Sub Divisional Officer with regard to certain areas and also calculation on account of premium and other similar heads under which the compensation was assessed, finally a sum of Rs. 66,718/- was found to be the appropriate value of the property acquired which cannot be said to be on higher side. The conclusion arrived at by the learned Court below in the award is justifiable which I fully endorse. Similarly, on account of business and the rental income, a sum of Rs. 1,900/- has been granted as against Rs. 1,000/- granted by the Collector. The claim set up by the land owner was that he was running business and was also earning rent out of the shops constructed. The amount of compensation even on that count, as has been assessed by the learned Court below, does not call for any interference. Accordingly, on these two counts, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. R.F.A. No. 548 of 1988 [ 3] As far as claim regarding benefit of the amended provisions of Section 23(1-A) of the Act is concerned, it is evident from the record that award in the present case was passed by the Collector on 21.1.1982, well before the date of proposed amendment, i.e., 30.4.1982. The issue with regard to entitlement of benefits of Section 23(1-A) of the Act came up for consideration in K. S. Paripornan v. State of Kerala and others, JT 1994(6) SC 182, wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court observed as under: “...... We find no merit in this contention. It 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 retrospectivity 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. For the reasons aforementioned it must be concluded that in respect of acquisition proceedings initiated prior to date of commencement of the Amending Act the payment of the additional amount payable under Section 23(1-A) of the Act will be restricted to matters referred to in Clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Amending Act. Zora Singh (supra) insofar as it holds that the said amount is payable in all cases where the reference was pending before the reference Court on September 24, 1984 irrespective of the date on which the award was made by the Collector, does not lay down the correct law.” Since the Collector's award dated 21.1.1982 precedes 30.4.1982, i.e., the date when the original bill for amending the provisions of the Act so as to R.F.A. No. 548 of 1988 [ 4] introduce Section 23(1-A) of the Act was proposed, the land owner would not be entitled to the benefit conceived of under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. Accordingly, the order passed by the Reference Court allowing the benefit of the amended provisions of Section 23(1-A) of the Act to the land owner is hereby set aside. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is partly allowed. As far as amount of compensation is concerned, the impugned award is upheld, whereas the same is set aside as far as benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act is concerned. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 12.9.2008 mk