BHARTU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The land of the applicants including other land of village Badli was acquired under Land Acquisition Act The L.A. Collector by his award No. 35/81-82 dt. 10.11.1981 offered compensation to the applicants @ Rs. 2,000.00 per bigha. On reference u/s 18 of the Act the market Value of the land of the applicants was determined @ Rs. 2,500.00 per bigha by the award made on 30.4.1984 by Additional District Judge. By judgment and decree dt. 23.3.1987 passed by this Court the market value of the acquired land of I the applicants was determined at Rs. 7,000.00 per bigha and the appeal was accordingly allowed. However, it was directed that the appellants will be paid solatium and interest in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, prior to its amendment by L.A. (Amendment) Act 1984; but, if and when judgment is delivered by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in the matter in which judgment has been reserved, and if the appellants are found entitled to an increase in the amounts of solatium and interest, and the additional amount granted by the newly added S. 23 (1-A), they will be entitled to receive the same in accordance with law.

(2.) By this application appellants seek amendment of judgment and decree dt. 23.3.1987 and pray that the appellants be allowed solatium, interest and additional amount u/s 23 (1-A), as permissible under L.A. (Amendment) Act 1984. The appellants submit that in this case the award'by learned ADJ was made on 30.4.84 i.e. after 30.4.82 and as such they are entitled to all the benefits as permissible under the amended Act and accordingly, there is no need to wait for the judgment to be delivered by the Constitution pencil of the Supreme Court. Reliance is placed on a D.B. judgment to which one of us (Y.K. Sabharwal, J.) was a party in Giani Ram vs. U.O.I. (R.F.A. 240/83 D./18.12.87) In Giani Ram's case after considering the variousJudgments of the Supreme Court it was held that in cases wherd award either by the Collector or by We ADJ is made after 30.4.82, the claimant would be entitled tothe benefits of the amended provisions.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Union of India, however, places reliance on a D.B. judgment of Allahabad in case of State of U.P. vs. Raj Narain Singh AIR 1986 All. 321, wherein it was held that u/s 28 of the Act the owner of the land in that case was not entitled to 15% interest on the excess amount of compensation awarded by the District Judge. It may be noticed that in the case before Allahabad High Court, reference was decided by the District Judge on 25.9.1973, and not after 30.4.1982 as is the position in the present case. With regard to applicability of provisions of Amendment Act of 1984, relying upon Bhag Singh vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh, AIR 1985 SC 1576, the Bench held that even if the award is made by the Collector or Court on or before 30.4.1982 and appeal against such award is pending before the High Court or the Supreme Court on 30.4.1982 or is filed subsequent to the date, the provisions of the amended S. 23 (2) and S. 28 would be applicable in relation to an order passed in such appeal by the High Court or the Supreme Court. The Allahabad High Court gave benefit of the Amending Act to the owner in exercise of the power u/Order 41 Rule 33, Civil Procedure Code Whether in such cases where the award by the Collector or District Judge is prior to 30.4.1982, the claimants are entitled to or not to the benefits under the amendment of 1984 are the questions which are pending decision in the Supreme Court but that is not the position where the awards by the Collector or the District Judge are made after 30.4.1982 [S. 28 as amended is then reproduced].