STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. AMAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order, we propose to dispose of Letters Patent Appeals bearing Nos. 409 to 416 of 1987, 487 to 491 of 1992 and 511 of 1991, filed by the State of Punjab under clause X of the Letters Patent against judgment of learned Single Judge dated January 30, 1987 as also cross-objections filed by the claimants in LPA Nos. 409 of 1987 and 491 of 1992. Learned counsel for the parties also suggest the said course to be adopted as all the appeals arise from common judgment recorded by the learned Single Judge dealing with market value of the land under acquisition at the time when notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (here-in-after referred to as the 'Act') came to be issued.

(2.) INASMUCH as the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties are in a very narrow compass, all that needs to be mentioned, on facts, is that by notification dated September 25, 1981 the State of Punjab acquired land for Mukerian Hydel Channel. For two villages, namely, Bamboowal and Sunderpur, the matter was separately dealt by the Land Acquisition Collector as also by the Civil Court on reference made by the claimants under Section 18 of the Act. Whereas, for village Bamboowal, learned Additional District Judge, vide his award dated April 24, 1984, allowed market price as per nature of land, i.e. for Nehri, Rs. 27,000/- per acre, for Barani, Rs. 12,000/- per acre and for Gair Mumkin, Rs. 7000/- per acre, for village Sunderpur, once again market price was fixed as per quality of land, i.e., for Chahi, Rs. 40,000/- per acre, Nehri, Rs. 28,000/- per acre, Barani Rs. 25,000/- per acre, and Gair Mumkin, Rs. 12,000/- per acre. Aggrieved, whereas, the State of Punjab filed Regular First Appeals, claimants filed cross-objections. The appeals filed by the State were dismissed, whereas cross-objections filed by the claimants in RFA Nos. 1877, 1878, 1879 and 1883 of 1984 were allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated January 30, 1987. For both the villages, i.e., Bamboowal and Sunderpur, learned Single Judge fixed the market value of the acquired land at the relevant time @ Rs. 28,000/- per acre for Nehri/Chahi land, Rs. 16,000/- per acre for Barani land and Rs. 12,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land.

(3.) MR . Dhillon, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, however, relies upon a judgment of Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Om Parkash Bhasin, 1998(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 487 : 1998(1) All India Land Laws Reporter 242. The facts of the said case would reveal that notification under Section 4 of the Act came to be issued on October 7, 1971. The Land Acquisition Collector made an award giving compensation of acquired land @ Rs. 200/- per marla. A reference under Section 18 of the Act was deiced by the District Judge, Gurgaon, on October 10, 1978. On an appeal, High Court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 10/- to Rs. 12/- per sq. yard vide judgment dated January 28, 1981. It was contended on behalf of the appellant-State of Haryana that award of solatium @ 30% under Section 23(1-A), as introduced by amended provisions of the Act, could not have been granted to the respondents in view of judgment of Supreme Court in K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala, JT 1994(6) SC 182 : 1995(1) RRR 40 (SC). It was also submitted that since award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector prior to 1982 and even District Judge made his award prior to 1982, interest @ 9% and 15% was not admissible to the respondents. We are of the firm view that the judgment of Apex Court in Om Parkash Bhasin's case (supra) cannot be applied to the facts of this case at all. The contention of Mr. Dhillon can be accepted only to the extent that insofar as claimants of village Bamboowal are concerned, they shall not be entitled to additional interest @ 12% under Section 23(1-A) as the Land Acquisition Collector had given his award on a date when the bill for amendment had since not even been introduced and reference in their case came to be decided by the learned Additional District judge before the amendment received assent of the President of India on September 24, 1984. We would like to mention here that during the course of arguments, when confronted with the settled position of law on the issue, Mr. Dhillon had to concede that it is only the claimants from village Bamboowal, who shall not be entitled to additional amount of 12% interest under Section 23(1-A) whereas the claimants from village Sunderpur shall be entitled to the benefits of amended provisions of Sections 23 (1-A), 23(2) and 28 and claimants from village Bamboowal would be entitled to the benefits of amended provisions of Sections 23(2) and 28. This proposition could not be controverted even by counsel for the claimants.