SUBHASH BHATIA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTIFICATION for acquisition of land was issued in July, 1974. The award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is dated 27. 09. 1979. By this award a sum of Rs. 6,63,399 has been awarded as compensation to all the claimants including petitioner. A reference was made to the Civil Judge, Alwar, which was rejected and the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer was upheld. The petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court and this was dismissed in default on 4. 09. 1987. The petitioner thereafter moved an application for restoration of the appeal. This was also dismissed on 17th Feb. , 1993. Thereafter, he again moved an application for restoration of the restoration application but on 6. 08. 1993 he did not press the same but made a prayer that amended legal provisions of the Land Acquisition Act may be given effect to. He was directed to file a separate application and this is the application which has been moved by him. In this application it has been submitted that the Land Acquisition Act was amended in the year 1984 and Section 23 (1-A) and Section 23 (2) have been added. According to him, these provisions have to be given effect to in all cases in which proceedings were pending on the date this amendment came into force which is 24. 09. 1984. According to Section 23 (1-A) the court has to award in addition to the market value an amount at the rate 12% per annum on the market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 (1) to the date of the. award or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. The other amended provision is Section 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act which provides that in addition to the market value of the land, the court shall in every case award a sum of 30% on such market value in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition.

(2.) IN Matu Ram vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh (1), it has been held that no period of limitation has been prescribed for moving an application for giving effect to this amended provision. On the relevant date, when the amendment came into operation the proceedings in the present case were pending and the petitioner was entitled as a matter of right to the benefit of the above amended provisions. This could not be granted as the appeal was dismissed in absence of the petitioner. Something to which the petitioner is legally entitled has to be granted to him, and when there is no period of limitation prescribed for moving the application for obtaining benefit under the amended provisions, the same can be allowed at a later date also.