LOKA REDDY Vs. TAHSILDAR CUM L A O

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common point is involved in these two writ petitions and, therefore, they can be disposed of together.

(2.) These two writ petitions have been, filed challenging, the validity of payment of compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act by way of instalments. It is in that connection the additional ground also has been raised with the permission of the Court that the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs extended under the Amended Act 68/84. In both the matters, however, the reliefs in the main sought for are already allowed by giving a diretion at the time of admission of the writ petitions itself that the amount is to be paid in lumpsum and so the same are said to have been complied with. But, however, anciliary point gets now importance and that is whether it would be open to the petitioners when there were no proceedings pending within the meaning of sub-section 2 of section 30 of the Act to claim reliefs as provided under Secs. 23 (2) and 28 as amended by the Central Amendment Act 68/84 both in respect of interest as well as solatium.

(3.) The case of the petitioners is that notwithstanding the fact that the award has been finalised and even the amount is determined and there was no dispute further with regard to the enhancement, it is still open to seek the relief as aforesaid so long as the facts of the case satisfy the requirements, namely, where the award itself has been finalised subsequent to 30th April, 1982 or even if the award is made earlier to 30th April, 1982, but either on reference or on appeal if the matter has been pending but even finalised before the commencement of the Act, it would be open for the awardees to seek reliefs under Sections 23 and 28. This was resisted by the learned Government Pleader stating that there must be some proceeding pending either before the Collector or under reference or in appeal in the High Court or Supreme Court at a time when the Act came into force and if it had been terminated before the Commencement of the amended Act then that would not give cause of action for seeking fresh reliefs as postulated under Sections 23 & 28. Both the parties relied on a recent decision of the Suprem? Court reported in Bhag Singh vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh. The essential ratio-decidendi is found in para 7 and the relevant observation there of is :