MANSUKHLAL POPATLAL KANAKHRA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution the petitioner whose land came to be acquired under notification under Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act by the respondent-State has made a grievance that the compensation which he has got should be enhanced by paying him 30% solatium and 15% interest as per the provisions of Secs. 28 and 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894 As Amended by Act 68 of 1984.

(2.) These proceedings have a chequered history and therefore it would be necessary to give a few introductory facts. The petitioners land alongwith lands of others were sought to be acquired by issuance of notifications under Secs. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 4 notification is dated 18-2-1971 Sec. 6 notification is dated 31-12-1971. The petitioner in compensation proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer claimed compensation by raising his demand pursuant to notice under Sec. 9. Thereafter award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 15-7-1974. The petitioner was not satisfied with that award. He therefore got a reference made. The said reference came to be decided on 19-11-1977 by the District Court Jamnagar awarding enhanced compensation. The District Court Jamnagar while enhancing compensation granted 15% solatium on the enhanced amount and interest at 6% on the additional amount. The State of Gujarat being dis-satisfied by the award filed number of appeals in this Court being First Appeal No. 311 of 1977 and group. As claimant was one of the respondents he also was served with notice of the concerned appeal in the group. Other claimants filed their cross objections to the said appeals but so far as the petitioner is concerned by some mischance he failed to file cross-objections. The Division Bench of this Court decided the appeals and cross-objections by a common judgment on 22-10-1980. The said appeals were dismissed but cross-objections of the claimants were partly allowed and further compensation was awarded to the claimants. Unfortunately for the petitioner as no cross-objections were filed by him in his case enhanced compensation was not given. He therefore felt aggrieved and filed review petition in this Court. However this Court rejected the review petition on 29-4-1982 subject to recommendation to the Government that because of mischance the petitioner has failed to file cross-objections and High Court could not give him more compensation but the Government in its discretion may give some enhanced compensation as granted to other claimants covered by the same notification and same decision of the High Court. Pursuant to these observations in the review petition the petitioner want by way of representation to the State Government but his representation was rejected. He therefore filed Special Civil Application No. 4153 of 1983 in this Court. A Division Bench of this Court heard that petition on merits and allowed the same by decision dated 10-12-1984 direction the respondents to give the same benefit to the petitioner as was made available by the judgment of the High Court in First Appeal No. 311 of 1977 and group meaning thereby whatever additional compensation was made available to the concerned claimants in the group of matters by the High Court decision dated 22-10-1980. was required to be made available to the petitioner also. It is not in dispute that in the light of the decision in Special Civil Application No. 4153 of 1983 enhanced compensation has been paid to the petitioner. However in the judgment of this Court in First Appeal No. 311 of 1977 and group 15 solatium was granted and 41/2% interest was awarded. Naturally therefore the respondent gave to the petitioner the solatium at the same rate and also interest at the rate of 41/2%. It is thereafter that the petitioner has filed the present petition on the ground that as per Amending Act 68 of 1984 the petitioner is entitled to 30% solatium on the enhanced compensation and interest at the rate of 9%.

(3.) This contention is raised by placing reliance on amended Sec. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act of the Amending Act. It is submitted that the petitioners claim for compensation was pending since 1983 and it came to be decided by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 4153 of 1983 on 10-12-1984 and therefore the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of this amended provision as brought on the statute book By Land Acquisition (Amending) Act 68 of 1984. It is not possible to agree with this contention. The petitioners case would have stood on a firmer footing if earlier decision of the Supreme Court in STATE OF PUNJAB V. MOHINDAR SINGH AIR 1987 SC 758 bad survived because in that case three learned Judges of the Supreme Court had clearly taken the view that benefit of amended provisions of Act 68 of 1984 will be available in those cases where matters were pending either in the High Court or the Supreme Court at some stage. However these decision has been expressly overruled by the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA V. ROGHUBIR SINGH AIR 1989 SC 1933. Five learned Judges of the Constitution Bench in that case have taken the view that benefit of the Amended Act as per Sec. 30(2) of Act No. 68 of 1984 will be available in respect of award made by the Collector or of the Court rendered between 30-4-1982 and 24-9-1984. Likewise the benefit of the enhanced solatium is extended by Sec. 30 to the case of an award made by the Court between 30-4-1982 and 24 even though it be upon reference from an award made before 30 It has in terms been held overruling the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in AIR 1985 SC 576 and AIR 1987 SC 758 that benefit of the amended provisions will not be available to those cases which are not decided between 30-4-1982 and 24-9-1984. It has been further held that if the Parliament had intended that the benefit of enhanced solatium should be extended to all pending proceedings it would have said so in clear language. On the contrary the term in which Sec. 30(2) is couched indicates limited extension of the benefit. The Amendment Act has not been made generally retrospective with effect from any particular date and such retrospectivity as appears is restricted to certain areas covered by the parent Act and must be discovered from the specific terms of the provision concerned. Similarly it was never intended to define the scope of the enhanced solatium on the mere accident of the disposal of a case in appeal on a certain date.