K. KAMALA JAMMANNIAVARU (DEAD) BY LRS.

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

AND VICE VERSA.

February 14, 1985

[0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND SABY ASACHI MUi.HARJI, JJ.)

Land Acquisition A.ct, 1894, Sect!on 23 & Lani Acquisition (Anindrnentl Act, 1984 Sections 15 (b) and 30(2).

Solatium of ithirty per centu111'-Er:tltlement of-When arises-Awads

l, '

made after April 30, 1982 and appeals arising from SUt..h awards. "- ...

The Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 by' IS(b) amended s. 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to provide that in sub-section

(2) of section 23 for the words Hfifteen per centum'', the words "thirty per ccnturnu shall be substituted.

Sectio:1 ~0(2) of the Amendment Act p:ovided that the increased solatium was to be applicJble "in relation to 1 any award made by the Collector or Court or to any order p1ssed by the High Court or Supreme Court in appeal against any such award under tbe provisions of the Principal Act after the 30th day of April, 1982 (the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (An1endment) Bill, 1982, ia th~ House of the People) and before tho commencement of this Act/'

The lands of the appellant-claimant were acquired pursuant to notifications issued under s. 4(1) Land Acquisilion ActJ 1894 on November 28,

1951.

Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, Civil Judge and lhc High Court, appeals were filed to this Court for enhancement.

The State filed appeals for reduction of F the compensation.

It was contended on behJ If of the appellant-claimant that s. 30(2) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 made the amended s. 3 3(2) which increased the solatium to "thirty per centumH applicable to all proceedings in regard to compensation which had not beccme fi11..:1.l whether they b~ pending before the Collector, Court, High CourtJ or Supreme Court.

Dismis..; ing the Appeals,

HELD : The Parliament did not intend and could not have intended ff that v.-hatevcr be the date of th(! awari; j h0weyer ancient it m11.y be~ solatiym

,.(-

K. K. JAMMANNIAVARU \'.LAND ACQ~. OFFICER (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 915

would sta11d enhanced to 'thirty per cen1um' if an appeal happene::d by chance or &ccid.::ot to b:: pe11dina: on April 30, 198~. [t was not the contention or Parlitiment to rewa1d those who kept alive the Ji1ir:1tion even after sevral years.

If it wa!l the intenti0n of P .rliarnent to make the amended s. 23(2) applicable to all proceediac, rclatin1 to compensation \\.herevcr they may be pending, tho word' ''after the 30th d., y of April 1982 (the dnte of introduction of the Land A.;,:quisitio11 (Am:ndrnent) Bill, 1982 in the H<:.use of the People) and before the comn1!ncen1ent of this Act" in s. 30(2) would bcomJ meaningless.

It is clear th:.1.t l' rliament WJnted the amended s. 23(?) to have very limited rctropcctiviiy. It made the provison applicable to awards made after April 30 1 1982 and berore September

24, 191..4 also and further to app.:a1s to the High Court as well i'lS Supreme Crnrt ari•ing from such award•. [917CE]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal N0s. 2:96 of 1970, & 2712 and 2714 of 1972

On appeal by Certificate from the Judgment and Decree dated 12.3.1970 of tho High Court of the Mysore at Bangalore in MF.

Appeals No. 155 & 168 of 1965.

K.N. Bhat and Miss Madhumulchandani for the appellant, in C.A. No. 2196 & Respondent CAs. No. 2713-14.

K. Rajendra Choudhary for the Respondent in CA No. 2196 & Appellants in CAs. 2713-14.

The Judgment of the Court was deliv<red by

CHINN AP PA REDDY, J.

In respect of acquisition of land pursuant to notifications issued under s. 4( l) of the Land Acquisition Act on November 28, 1957, compensation of Rs. 5250 for the land in S. No. 83 and compensation at the rate of Rs. 800 per acre for the land in S. No. 74 was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.

On a reference under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Civil Judge enhanced the comensation to Rs. 1\000 for the land in S. No. 83 and Rs. 14,250 for the fond in S. No. ~4. The High Court, on appeal, further enhanced the compensation to Rs. 8000 per acre for the land in S. No. 83 and Rs. 2500/- per acre for the land in S. No.

74. The claimant has filed Civil Appeal No. 2196 of 19'0 to enhance the compensation and the State of Karnataka has perferred Civil Appoal Nos. 2713 and 2714 of 1972 to reduce the rnme. We are unable to find any questioL of principle involved in any of the appeals and ccordinllir we have no option bt1t to dismiss t4em,

SUPREME COURT REPORT8

[1985] 2 S.C.R.

However, in the appeal filed by the the claimant, Shri K.N.

Bhat, learned coun•el, urged that in view of the Land Acquisition Amendment Act. 1984, his client is entitled to be paid solotium of 30% of the compensation instead of the 15~ to which he had been held entitled by the lower courts under the unamended Act. He relied upon sec. 15(b) and sec. 30(2) of the 1984 Amendment Act which are in the following terms :-

"15. In Section 23 of the Principal Act,-

(a) ·············· ............... ···········••············

(b) in sub-section (2) for the words "fifteen per centum",

the words "thirty per centum" shall be substituted." ···················.········································· ··························· ...

"30. (l) ...

(2) The provisions of sub-section (2) of section 23 and section 28 of the Principal Act as amended by clause (b) of section 15 a•d section 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 after the 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,"

Shri Bhat's submission was that s. 30(2) of Amendment Act made the amended s. 23(2) which increased the solatium to thirty per centum applicable to all proceedings in regard to compensation which had not become final whether they be pending before the Collector, Court, High Court or Supreme Court. We are unable to agree with Shri Bhat's submission. It is worth while remembering at this juncture that awards made by the Collector under s. 11 and by the Court on reference under s. 18 only are described as awards in the Land Acquisition Act, while further appeals are provided to the High Court and the Suprenie"Court. The news. 23(2), of course,

necessarilyapplies to awards made by the Collector or Court after the commencement of the Act, that is after September 9, 1984 which was tile date on which tile act reeived tbat assent of the Prsident.

• >

IC. IC. JAMMANNIAVARU v. LANDACQN. OFFICER (Chlnnappa Reddy, J.) 917

The Bill which ultimately became the Amendment Act was introduced into Parliment on April 30, 1982. Parliment obviously desired to give effect to the amended s. 23(2) from the date of introduction of the Bill. So the amended provision was expressly made applicable by s. 30(2) to awards made by the Collector or Court between April 30, 1982 and September 24, 1984 also.

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, that is, awards made between April 30, 1982 and September 24, 1984.

Parliment did not intend and could not have intended that whatever be the date of the award, however ancient it may be, solatium would stand enhanced to 'thirty per centum' if an appeal happend by chance or accident to pending an April 30, !982. Surely it was not the intention of Parliament to reward those who kept alive the litigation of Parliament to make the amended s. 23(2) applicable to all proceedings relating to compensation wherever they be pending, the words after the 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" ins. 30(2) and would become meaningless. It is clear that Parliament wanted the amended s.23(2) to have very limited retrospectivity. It made the provision applicalole to awards made after April 30, 1982 and before September 24, 1984 also and further to appeals to the High Court as the Supreme Court arising from such awards. In this view we see no force in the submission of Shri Bbat. All the appeals are dismissed.

No costs.

N.V.K, Appeals dismissed.