NATHA SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this judgment we dispose of two LPA Nos. 64 and 65 of 1987 (Natha Singh v. State of Punjab) as both the appeals have arisen from the order dated 18th September, 1986 passed by the learned Single Judge, who dismissed the applications under Sections 151, 152 and 153-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, filed by Shri Natha Singh and others, in which they had prayed for the amendment of the judgment dated 2nd April, 1981 passed in RFA Nos. 1358 and 1359 of 1980. It was prayed by the appellants that they were entitled to solatium at the rate of 30 percent besides interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum in view of the provisions of Section 23 (1-A) of the land Acquisition Act, 1894. It was averred in the applications that various provisions of the Land Acquisition Act were amended vide Act No. 68 of 1984, according to which the applicants were entitled to the various benefits as prescribed under Section 23 (1-A) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act' ). The amending Act has been made operative with effect from 30th April, 1982. It was further averred by the applicants that on 30th April, 1982 their appeals were pending in the High Court, therefore, they are entitled to the benefits of the provisions of Section 23 (1-A) of the Act.

(2.) THE aforesaid applications did not find favour with the learned Single Judge, who vide order dated 18th September, 1986 dismissed both the Civil Misc. Nos. 1358 and 1359 of 1980. The operative portion of the order can be reproduced as follows:

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Single Judge fell in error in rejecting the applications of the appellants under Sections 151, 152 and 153-A of the Civil Procedure Code, and that the applicants are entitled to the benefits of Section 23 (1-A) of the Act as the applicants had filed an appeal against the judgment dated 2nd April, 1981 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as on 30th April, 1982 the appeal was pending there, therefore, the benefits of these provisions ought to have been extended to the applicants.