Judgment Case ID: 6602

Judgment:
ivil Appeal Nos. 1894	 1895 & 1896 of 1990. From the Judgment and Order dated 9.2.1989 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil W.P. Nos. 1778	 1776 & 1777 of 1989. 528 Balbir Singh Wasu	 N.S. Das Bahl for the Appellant. Har Dev Singh and Ms. Madhu Moolchandani for the Re spondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KASLIWAL	 J. Special leave granted. All these petitions by Special leave are disposed of by one single order as identical questions of law are involved and they are directed against the similar order of the High Court dated 9th February	 1989. Short controversy raised in these cases is regarding the grant of benefits under amended Sections 23(1 A)	 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act	 1894 as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act	 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act). The President Land Acquisition Tribu nal	 Hoshiarpur (District Court) initially granted solatium at 15% on the compensation and interest at 6% per annum on the additional amount of compensation till the date of payment. The claimants 'submitted an application for modifi cation of the award as regards solatium and interest in view of the Amending Act which came into force on 24th September	 1984. The Land Acquisition Tribunal granted benefit of the Amending Act and modified the award by passing the following operative order which is subject matter of challenge in Special Leave Petition No. 9434 of 1989. Similar orders have been passed in other two cases also. "Accordingly	 I modify the award to the extent that solatium shah be payable at the rate of 30% instead of 15% granted earlier. Similarly	 interest at the rate of 12% per annum is granted from the date of notification under Section 42 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act	 1922	 till the date of award of the Collector	 the date of possession of the land which ever is earlier. Further interest is awarded at the rate of 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of delivery of possession till the expiry of one year. Thereaf ter interest is awarded at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of expiry of period of one year till payment. The applicant shall be entitled to recover the solatium and interest as per the modification indicated above ' '. 529 Aggrieved against the above order	 the Hoshiarpur Im provement Trust has come before this Court. In order to decide the controversy	 it would be neces sary to mention some important dates in each of the above cases. In Special Leave Petition No. 9434 of 1989 the award was given by the Land Acquisition Collector on 6th January	 1979. On a reference the award was given by the President Land Acquisition Tribunal	 Hoshiarpur on 28th March	 1983. The award was modified by the President Land Acquisition Tribunal by order dated 29th August	 1988. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the Improvement Trust on 9th February	 1989. In Special Leave Petition No. 9521 of 1989 the award was given by the Land Acquisition Collector on 30th April	 1982. On a reference the award was given by the President Land Acquisition Tribunal	 Hoshiarpur on 29th August	 1985. The President Land Acquisition Tribunal modified the award by order dated 29th August	 1988. The Writ Petition filed by the Improvement Trust was dismissed by the High Court on 9th February	 1989. In Special Leave Petition No. 10 130 of 1989 the award was given by the Land Acquisition Collector on 30th April	 1982. On a reference the award was given by the President Land Acquisition Tribunal	 Hoshiarpur on 29th August	 1985. The award was modified by the President Land Acquisition Tribunal by order dated 14th September	 1988. Writ Petition filed by the Improvement Trust was dismissed by the High Court on 9th February	 1989. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Improvement Trust contended that no benefit could have been given under Section 23(1 A) which was inserted by the Amending Act. It was contended that in a recent decision given by this Court in Union of India & Ors. vs Mr. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama	 JT it has been held that the additional amount under Sec. 23(1 A) can only be allowed in those cases where proceedings for the acquisition of any land under the Principal Act were pending on the 30th day of April	 1982 (the date of introduction of the Land Acquisi tion (Amendment) Bill 1982 in the House of People)	 in which no award has been made by the Collector before that date. If the Collector has made the award before that date then	 the additional amount cannot be awarded. Thus it was contended that the additional benefit of interest 530 at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of notification till the award made by the Collector or the date of taking over possession which ever is earlier	 is liable to be set aside. In order to appreciate the argument advanced by the Learned counsel appearing for the Improvement Trust	 it would be necessary to give a background of some important events and decisions having a bearing on the question. The Land Acquisition Act	 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act) was sought to be amended and in this regard on 30th April	 1982	 the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill	 1982 was introduced in Parliament. On 24th September	 1984 it became law as the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act	 68 of 1984	 when it received assent of the President. Before the amendment	 Section 23(2) of the Principal Act provided for solatium at 15% on the market value	 in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. After amendment by Act 68 of 1984 solatium was raised to 30% on the market value under Section 23(2). A Constitution Bench in Union of India & Another vs Raghubir Singh (dead) by L.rs. ; 	 	 overruled; Bhag Singh vs Union Territory of Chandi garh; 	 and State of Punjab vs Mohinder Singh	 held that the higher solatium at the rate of 30% would be given in cases of awards made by the Collector or the Court between 30th April	 1982 and 24th September	 1934. In the cases before us the claimants have been rightly held entitled to solatium at 30% applying the ratio in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs Raghubir Singh	 (supra). So far as the award of interest at the rate of 9% for the first year from the date of taking possession and 15% for the subsequent years is concerned	 the claimants have been rightly held entitled to the same under Section 28 as stood amended by the Amending Act. Now	 the only controversy which remains to be considered is with regard to the additional benefit allowed by way of rate of interest at 12% per annum from the date of notifica tion issued under Section 42 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act	 1922	 till the date of award of the Collector or the date of possession of the land which ever is earlier. It is important to note that in the case of Union of India vs Raghubir Singh	 (supra) the above question was neither called for consideration nor decided. In Union of India & Ors. vs Mr. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama	 (supra) the above question directly came up for considera tion before this Court. It was held that the above benefit has been provided under the amended Sections 23(i A) & 23(2). 531 The Legislature has given new starting point for operation of Section 23(1 A) for certain cases and it would be deter mined from Section 30(1)(a	) & (b) of the Transitional Provisions which read as follows: Section 30: Transitional Provisions: (1) The provision of Sub section (1 A) of Section 23 of the Principal Act	 as inserted by clause (a) of Section 16 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 any land under the Principal Act pending on the 30th day of April	 1982 (the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amend ment) 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 date of commencement of this Act". It was observed in the above case that Section 30(1)(a) provides that additional amount provided under Sec. 23(1)(a) shall be applicable to acquisition proceedings pending before the Collector as on 30th April	 1982 in which he has not made the award before that date. If the Collector has made the award before that date then that additional amount cannot be awarded. We agree with the view taken in the above case. Thus applying the above principle in the cases in hand before us it would be clear that in Special Leave Petition No. 9434 of 1989 the award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector on 6th January	 1979 i.e. long before 30th April	 1982 and as such the claimant in the above case is not entitled to the benefit of Section 23(1 A) as inserted in the Principle Act by the Amending Act. So far as the other two Special Leave Petitions	 namely	 9521/89 and 10130/89 are concerned	 the awards have been made by the Land Acqui sition Collector on 30th April	 1982 itself but not before that date. Section 30 the Transitional Provisions clearly provide that the provisions of Subsection (1 A) of Section 23 of the Principle Act	 as inserted by Clause (a) of Sec tion 16 of this Act shall apply to every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the Principle Act pending on 30th day of April	 1982 in which no award has been made by the Collector before 532 that date. In the above two cases the award has not been made by the Collector before 30th day of April	 1982 but made on 30th April	 1982 itself and as such the claimants in these two cases become entitled to the benefit of Section 23(1 A). As a result of the above discussion the civil appeals in S.L.P. (C) Nos. 952 1 of 1989 & 10 130 of 1989 stand dis missed. So far as appeal in Special Leave Petition No. 9434 of 1989 is concerned	 it is allowed in part and the order of the High Court as well as that of the President Land Acqui sition Tribunal is modified only to the extent that interest shall be allowed at the rate of 6% per annum instead of 12% per annum from the date of Notification under Section 42 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act	 till the date of award of the Collector or the date of possession of the land which ever is earlier. So far as other additional benefits granted by the President Land Acquisition Tribunal are concerned	 the same would remain in tact. In the facts and circum stances of the case there would be no order as to costs. T.N.A. Appeal allowed partly.

Summary:
The lands of the respondents were acquired for a scheme of the Appellant Improvement Trust. The awards for compensa tion were made by the Collector on 6th January	 1979 and 30th April	 1982 and the reference was disposed of by the Land Acquisition Tribunal by its award dated 28th March	 1983 and 29th August	 1985 by granting solatium @ 15% on compensation and interest @ 6% on excess compensation. In view of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act	 1984 the landowner claimants made an application to the Tribunal seeking enhanced solatium and interest under the amended provisions of Land Acquisition Act	 1894. The Tribunal allowed the application by granting higher solatium	 addi tional benefit of interest and interest on excess compensa tion. The writ petitions filed by the Appellant Improvement Trust against the decision of the Tribunal were dismissed. Hence these appeals by the Improvement Trust. Allowing the appeal in part (C.A. No. 1894 of 1990) and dismissing the connected appeals	 this Court	 HELD: 1. The benefit of higher solatium @ 30% under section 527 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act	 1894 is applicable to cases of awards made by the Collector or the Court between 30th April	 1982 and 24th September	 1984. In the instant case since the awards were made between the aforesaid dates the claimants have been rightly held entitled to enhanced solatium. [530E] Union of India vs Raghubir Singh	 ; 	 fol lowed. Section 30(1)(a) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act	 1984 clearly provides that the additional amount of interest provided under Section 23(1 A) of the Land Acquisi tion Act	 1894 shall be applicable to acquisition proceed ings pending before the Collector as on 30th April	 1982 in which he has not made the award before that date. If the Collector has made the award before that date then addition al amount Cannot be awarded. [531E] 2.1 The claimant in the Appeal (No. 1894 of 1990) is not entitled to additional benefit of interest under Section 23(1 A) because the award in this case was made long before 30th April	 1982. But the claimant in the connected appeals are entitled to this benefit since in their cases the awards were made on 30th April	 1982 itself. [531F; 532A] Union of India vs Raghubir Singh	 	 explained and held inapplicable. Union of India vs Filip Tiago De Gama	 J.T. 1989 4 S.C. 529	 followed. The award of interest on excess compensation is valid since the claimants were entitled to the same under section 28 as it stood amended by the Amending Act. [530F] 4. The order of the High Court and the Land Acquisition Tribunal in Civil Appeal No. 1894 of 1990 is therefore modified	 only to the extent that interest shah be allowed at the rate of 6% per annum instead of 12% per annum. The other additional benefits granted by the Tribunal shall remain in tact. [532B C]