MODI SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS Vs. VIRENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order dated 23/2/1990, a two-Judge bench of this court referred this appeal to be heard and disposed of by a three-Judge bench because of an apparent conflict in some decisions of this court with regard to the competence of a company to file appeal, or to maintain a petition of appeal, for whose benefit, the land may have been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Added thereto was the question of theimpact of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 whereunder enhanced rate of solatium was grantable as also enhanced rate of interest.

(2.) The appellant before us is M/s Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. The land involved in this litigation was acquired for its purposes. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 20/7/1965. At that time, by means of the U. P. Act 22 of 1954, Section 23 (2 of the Act stood omitted with effect from 19-11-1954 as a result of which the State was not obliged to pay any solatium to the owners whose land was involved in acquisition. Notification under Section 6 was issued on 18/11/1965. On 14/12/1965, possession of the land was taken. The award came later on 14/7/1967. The land acquisition references were decided on 29/9/1970. First appeals filed by the landowners in the Allahabad High court in 1974 were decided on 12/9/1985. The High court took into account a twofold change in law. Firstly, it took cognizance of the reinsertion of Section 23 (2 in the act on 31/7/1972 whereby solatium at the rate of 15 per cent became payable on lands acquired. Secondly, the enhanced rate of solatium being at the rate of 30 per cent and enhanced rate of interest being at the rate of 9 per cent was taken into account having been brought under the provisions of the land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. Solatium and interest having been awarded in this manner activated the appellant-Company to move this court by special leave.

(3.) The question of law referred stands answered by a Constitution bench of this court in U. P. Awas Evam vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi. In para 24 of the Report, the bench has summed up their conclusions. Conclusions 6 to 10 are important for our purposes. They are quoted below: