SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR Vs. K ACHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two appeals raise common question of law though thenotifications under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (Act I of 1894), for short, "the Act" were issued on different dates for different public purposes.

(2.) The statutory rigour under Section 25 (1) of the Act to lay specificamount as market value and the absence thereof prohibits the Court to enhance the same in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector, though is a relic of the past due to its amendment, its ghost still haunts the adjudicatory process. The cases are replica thereof. A.S. No. 251/85 arises against O.P No. 124/82, Sub-Court, Nalgonda, acquiring Ae 0-25 guntas in S. No. 178 in Gudur village for laying broad-gauge railway line between Bibinagar to Nadikudi. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value thereof at Rs. 4,645/- per acre. On reference under Section 18 at the behest of the claimant, the Civil Court enhanced it to Rs. 9,000/- per acre. Against the difference of the market value, the appeal by the State was laid. A.S. No. 1133/85 arises against the common order in O.P. No. 38/84, Sub-Court Peddapuram, East Godavari District. Section 4 (1) notification was published in the District Gazette on May 18, 1978 acquiring total extent of Ac. 7-21 cents. The appeal concerns S No. 33/1 of Ac. 3-30 cents in Yeleswaram village to provide house sites to poor. The Collector fixed the market value at Rs. 4,000/- per acre. On reference under Section 18, the Civil Court found that the prevailing market value is Rs. 40,000/- per acre. As the appellants claimed at Rs. 15,000/- per acre it awarded at that rate. Assailing the legality thereof, the appeal by the claimants was laid.

(3.) The contention of the claimants by their learned Counsel is thatSection 17 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984, for short, "the Amendment Act", amended Section 25 of the Act. Section 25 is a procedural facet eulogised during award enquirv. On receipt of notice under Sec. 9 read with Sec. 10 of the Act, the claimant is entitled to lay claim for a specified amount as compensation. On making the award under Section 11, if the claimant is dissatisfied with the offer, he is entitled to a reference under Section 18 (1) of the Act to the civil Court to determine the reasonable market value. Unless explanation for refusal or omission to make specific claim is offered and accepted by the Court, Section 25 (2) interdicts the Judge to enhance the compensation in excess of the amount awarded under Section 11 The rigour thereof is removed by Section 17 of the amendment Act which is retroactive in its operation. Section 17 of the Amendment Act applies to pending proceedings. The Court has, therefore, power to relieve the claimant of injustice heaped by Section 25, Thereby the claimants are entitled to higher compensation. This was resisted by Sri Ramana, learned GovernmenttPleader contending, inter alia, that Section 17 of the Amendment Act is only prospective ; no express retroactivity was given to its operation ; the appeal is a continuation of the origiaal proceedings ; the Court, therefore, is enjoined to apply Section 25 of the Principal Act. Section 17 of the Amendment Act, thereby, is inapplicable. The question that emerges for adjudication is whether Section 17 of the Amendment Act is retrospective in its operation and whether it would apply to the pending proceedingsbe it in the civil Court or appellate Court. On tacts the enhanced market value is unwarranted under law.