AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST Vs. GURDIAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure the applicants seek the issuance of directions to the Amritsar Improvement Trust (writ petitioner) to pay solatium at the rate of 30 per cent under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. It has been averred in the application that their land had been acquired under the provisions of the Punjab Development of Damaged Areas Act, 1951 for the petitioner-Trust and the requisite compensation determined by the Collector Land Acquisition was enhanced by the Tribunal constituted under the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act. Dissatisfied with that decision, the Amritsar Improvement Trust filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3962 of 1973, in which the present applicants were arrayed as respondents. In that writ petition, the Improvement Trust had challenged the award of solatium on the amount of compensation on the plea that when the land was acquired under the provisions of the Punjab Development of Damaged Areas Act, no solatium on the compensation amount awarded for the land acquired was payable. This plea was not accepted and the writ petition filed by Improvement Trust was dismissed on September 6, 1982. It was held that there was no provision for the grant of such solatium under the Punjab Development of Damaged Areas Act or the Punjab Town Improvement Act, yet the landowners were entitled to such a solatium because they could not be discriminated against. Reliance for this conclusion was placed on the following observations of the Supreme Court in P.C. Goswami v. Collector of Darrang, 1982 AIR(SC) 1214:-

(2.) The present application is contested by the Amritsar Improvement Trust. They have filed reply controverting the claim of the applicants. Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act has been substituted by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 and thereby the amount of solatium payable has been increased from 15 per cent to 30 per cent of the amount of compensation. By virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Amendment Act, the provisions of Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act have been made applicable retrospectively with effect from April 30, 1982. It has been provided therein that the provisions of the amended Section 23(2) of the principal Act shall apply in relation to any award made by the Collector or Court or to any order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court in appeal against any such award under the provisions of the principal Act after April 30, 1982. So, when the amended Section 23(2) had been enforced, the proceedings regarding the determination of compensation were pending consideration in this Court, though at the instance of the present Improvement Trust. Section 23(2) shall, therefore, be applicable to those proceedings. The present application is, therefore, competent.

(3.) Mr H.S. Mattewal, learned counsel for the Improvement Trust has vigorously argued that Section 30(2) of the Amending Act clearly lays down that the provisions of the amended Section 23(2) of the principal Act shall be applicable only to the award made by the Collector or the Court or the appeal pending before the High Court or Supreme Court; it will not be applicable to the writ petitions. This plea of Mr. Mattewal is wholly untenable. He canvasses far too technical a construction to be placed on a procedural provision. If the argument of Mr. Mattewal is accepted, then the beneficial provisions of the amended Section 23(2) will not be applicable to the lands acquired under local Acts like the Punjab Development of Damaged Areas Act, 1951 and the Punjab Town Improvement Act. This will be clearly discriminatory. The proceedings in appeal are taken when a party is not satisfied with the correctness of the impugned order. A citizen moves this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for seeking a similar relief in matters relating to his fundamental rights or infraction of any other law. Courts have allowed solatium on the market value of the lands acquired under the Act other than the Land Acquisition Act even when those statutes under which the land is acquired for the Municipalities or the Improvement Trust, there is no provision for appeal against the award of the Land Acquisition Collector or the Tribunal appointed to determine the compensation. The writ petitions are filed against the awards of the Tribunals. The decisions in such writ petitions are amenable to the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court under the Letters Patent. It will be anomalous if it is held that the provisions of Section 23(2) of the principal Act will be applicable to the cases in which Letters Patent appeals are pending but will not be attracted to those cases in which writ petitions were pending on April 30, 1982. The interpretation sought to be put on Section 23(2) will lead to discrimination. Keeping in view the scheme of the Act, the circumstances leading to the enactment of the amended provisions of Section 23(2) shall be applicable even to those cases in which the proceedings in writ petitions were pending on April 30, 1982.