UNION OF INDIA Vs. INDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of some significance that falls for consideration for this Bench on a reference order dt. July 15, 1986, passed by I.S. Tiwana, J. is as to whether claimant-respondents, whose land stands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, can or cannot take advantage of the provisions of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act No. 68 of 1984) (hereinafter called 'the Amending Act) even though no appeal against the award at their instance was pending in the High Court or the Supreme Court at the relevant time, only appeal pending against the award being that of the State Government.

(2.) When the matter came up for hearing before the learned single Judge, counsel for the claimant-respondents canvassed that even the pendency of an appeal of the State Government would give the respondents right to claim benefit of the provisions of the said Amending Act and in support of that stand, the learned counsel placed reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Civil Misc. No. 3127 of 1985 in C. W. P. No. 3962 of 1973 (Amritsar Improvement Trust v. Gurdial Singh) decided on 9th May, 1986 (reported in 1986 Pun LJ 675); (ii) Civil Misc. No. 105-CI of 1986 in R.F.A. No. 1352 of 1981 (State of Haryana v. Ishwar Singh), decided on 16th May, 1986; (iii) Civil Misc. No. 371-CI of 1985 R.F.A. No. 714 of 1975 (P.S.E.B. v. Saranjit Singh etc.) decided on 18th Dec., 1985; (iv) Civil Misc. No. 203-CI of 1986 in R.F.A. No. 129 of 1983 (State of Haryana v. Hukam Singh etc.), decided on 10th Mar., 1986. Tiwana, J. in view of the fact that in Civil Misc. No. 1515-CI of 1985 in R.F.A. No. 815 of 1979 (Lila Wati v. State of Haryana), decided on 30th Nov., 1985, he had held that only when the claimants' appeal is pending in the High Court or the Supreme Court at the relevant period that the provisions of the Amending Act can be taken advantage of by the claimants, which view is contrary to the judgements cited on behalf of the claimant respondents, referred the matter for decision to the larger Bench and that is how the case is before us.

(3.) The judgements cited on behalf of the claimants have not examined the provision of S.30, Sub-Sec. (2) of the Amending Act. As a matter of fact no reason has been given, as it appears, the question had not been posed to the learned Judges, who decided those cases and, therefore, no occasion arose to examine the controversy that arises for consideration before us.