K S PARIPOORNAN II Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Notification under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961 Act 21 of 1962 was published in the State Gazette on March 21, 1979. The Collector under Section 11 thereof passed his award on December 30, 1980. Thereafter, possession of some land was taken on January 15, 1991 and the balance land on March 13, 1981. The compensation was deposited on August 10, 1981. On a reference u/s. 18 the Civil Court enhanced the compensation at Rs. 5,000/- per cent in its award and decree dated February 28, 1965. The enhanced conpensation was deposited on October 20, 1986 and December 3, 1986 respectively. The High Court on appeal, while confirming the enhanced compensation granted by the Civil Court disallowed interest under Sections 28 and 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984, for short 'the Amendment Act'. By operation of the Amendment Act which has come into force on September 24, 1984 repealed the Kerala Act and thereby Central Act 1 of 1894 became applicable as amended by the Amendment Act. Section 15(b) and Section 18 of the Amendment Act amended Section 28 and Section 23(2) of the Central Act 1 of 1894. The High Court, relying upon sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the transitory provision of the amendment Act was held that since the Award was made prior to the Amendment Act had come into force, the appellant is entitled to the interest under Section 30 of the Kerala Act at the rate of 4%. The question, therefore, is whether the appellant is entitled to the enhanced interest as envisaged under Section 28 as amended under Section 18 of the Amendment Act.

(3.) It is contended for the State by Shri A. S. Nambiar, the learned senior counsel that in Union of India v. Raghubir Singh (dead) by LRs., (1989) 2 SCC 754 this Court had given restricted interpretation to Section 30(2) of the transitory provision holding that if the award has been made between April 30, 1982 and September 24, 1984, the claimant would be entitled to the benefit of the enhanced solatium under Section 23(2) of the Principal Act. On the parity of the ratio therein by operation of sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the transitory provision of the Amendment which includes Section 28 also, the ratio therein equally be applicable to the facts of these cases. Since the award was made by the Court after the Act has come into force the, appellant is not entitled to the enhanced interest under the amended Section 28 of the Principal Act. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel. Sec. 30(2):