A
THE STATE OF PUN.JAB
v.
DES RAJ
APRIL 18, 1996
B
jK. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, .J.J.j
Land Acqui.1ition Act,· 1894 :
Amendnwll Act 6/i of 191!4-Sectivm 23(2), 28 and 23(1-Aj-Rcfer-
C encc cou1t detcnnining cunzpensation on /\1arclz 19, 1982 prior to the An1cnd-
111ent Act 6.8 of 1984-Hcnce clainiants not entitled to the enhanced svlatiunz,
interest and additional a111ount under the anzended 11rovisions-Detcnnina-
tion of compensation by High Cowt Single Judge-Appeal pending before
Dirision Bench-Hence n1atler leji OJJen and the Division Bench tvould be
ji·ce to decide the 11u1ttcr according to laiv.
D
E
F
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTLON : Civil Appeal No. 7673 of
1996.
From the .I udgment and Order dated 2.12.88 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in R.F.A. No. 912 of 1982.
Sanjecv Sen and Manoj Swarup for the Appellant.
T.N. Arora, Adv. for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Delay condoned. Leave granted.
Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(for short, the 'Act') was published on March 11, 1978 acquiring 55 acres
5 kanals 1 maria for construction of new Mandi at J alalabad. The Collector
in his award dated March 13, 1978 determined the compensation at Rs.
4500 per acre. On reference, the Additional District Judge by his award
and decree dated March 19, 1982 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 25,000
per acre and Rs. 20,000 per acre on the basis of belting. The learned single
Judge by his judgment and decree dated December 2, 1988 further en-
H
hanced the compensation to Rs. 43,000 and Rs. 34,000 per acre on belting
562
-
STATE v. DES RAJ
563
basis, but applied the provisions of Amendment Act 68 of 1984. In this A
appeal, we are concerned only with the applicability of Sections 23(2), 28
••
and 23(1-A) of the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984. Since the reference
Court determined the compensation on March 19, 1982, i.e .. prior to the
introduction of the Amendment Act, the claimants are not entitled to the
enhanced solatium and interest and also the additional amount under
section 23(2), 28 and 23(1-A) respectively of the Act.
B
It is brought to our notice that dissatisfied with the enhanced com-
pensation of Rs. 43,000 per acre, the claimant has filed Letters Patent
Appeal and that it is pending. If that is so, we need not go into the question
whether determination of the compensation by the learned single Judge at
Rs 43,000 per acre is justified or not. The matter is left open. The Division
Bench would be free to decide the matter according to law. But as regards
the applicability of the amended provisions, in view of the above facts, the
lear!led single Judge was clearly in error in
extending the additional
· benefits under the amended provisions of the Act.
c
D
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order awarding 30%
solatium, 9% interest from the date of taking possession for one year and
thereafter 15% interest and also the additional amount of 12% per annum
under section 23(1-A) stands set aside. Instead, the claimant is entitled to
15% solatium under section 23(2) and 6% interest under Section 28 as E
unamended, on enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession
till date of deposit into Court. No costs.
G.N.
Appeal allowed.
Lex