V JAYASHANKAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the claimants/landholders under Sec.54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') against the judgment and decree dated 18-7-1986 in OP.No.30/85 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Siddipet, Medak District. It relates to acquisition of land admeasuring Ac.4-07 guntas situated in Siddipet, Medak District, for the purpose of providing water supply line pursuant to draft notification published in the Gazette on 27-11-1975. After due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer by his award dt.30-6-1983 determined the compensation at Rs.800/- per acre. Not satisfied with the said award, the claimants sought for a reference under Sec.18 of the Act to a Civil Court. Thereupon, the matter was referred to the Court of Subordinate Judge at Siddipet and registered as OP.No.30/85.

(2.) Before the reference Court, the claimants asked for compensation at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per acre. Their claim was resisted by the Referring Officer. Evidence was adduced by both parties. On behalf of the claimants, the first claimant examined himself as P.W.I and got marked Ex.A-1, a photostat copy of the registered sale deed dt.30-6-1971, under the original of which he sold 6 guntas for a consideration of Rs.5,800/-, which works out to Rs.38,500/- per acre. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the Referring Officer. However, Ex.B-1, the award dt.30-8-1983 was marked on his behalf. On consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence, the reference Court having determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs.19,250/- per acre awarded only Rs.2,000/- per acre on the ground that the claimants claimed compensation before the Land Acquisition Officer only at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per acre. Accordingly, it passed the impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal by the claimants claiming a compensation at the rate of Rs.19,250/- per acre.

(3.) The effect of the impugned judgment is that Sec.25 of the Act, which was substituted by Sec.17 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (for short 'the Amendment Act') which came into force with effect from 24-9-1984 has no retrospective operation. Therefore, the only point that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether Sec.25 of the Act is retrospective in operation or not. For better appreciation of the said point it would be profitable to extract the provisions of Sec.25 as they stood before and after the amendment. BEFORE THE AMENDMENT AFTER AMENDMENT SEC.25: RULES AS TO AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION