Partly allowed

Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Narsher Singh etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Nov 2013CWP/6912/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court examined whether land-owners in pre-amendment acquisition cases could claim additional compensation, solatium, and interest under the 1984 Amendment Act. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that Section 23(1A) does not apply, but Sections 23(2) and 28 do apply to pending awards.

What did the court decide?

Section 23(1A) benefits disallowed; entitlement to solatium and interest under Sections 23(2) and 28 affirmed.

Jalandhar Improvement Trust Vs Narsher Singh etc. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.6912 of 1992 Date of Decision: November 20, 2013

¶3

The Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar

¶4

.....Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Major Narshar Singh and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA.

¶9

Present : Mr. N.B.S. Gujral, Advocate

¶10

for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Daldeep Singh, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶12

-.-

¶13

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶14

2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶15

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

¶17

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶18

The short question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the respondent-land-owners are entitled to the statutory benefits under Sections 23 (1A), 23 (2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended vide Act No.61 of 1984 on 29.04.1984?

¶19

The land of the respondents was acquired by the State of Punjab for the Improvement Trust, Jalandhar under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for which the Land Acquisition Collector passed the Award on 10.11.1980. The land-owners including the respondents sought enhancement of compensation and the Tribunal constituted under the Act, vide the impugned Award dated 25.01.1989 partly accepted their claim in the following terms:-

¶20

“....In view of my above findings the compensation amount for the land adjacent to the road upto a depth of 100 feet is enhanced to Rs.1000/- per marla while the compensation for the other land is enhanced to Rs.750/- per marla. The claimants are

¶21

Satyawan 2013.12.19 10:01 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document" High Court Chandigarh

¶22

CWP No. 6912 of 1992

¶23

¶24

also allowed interest at the rate of 12% PA on the amount of compensation from the date of notification under Section 36 of the Act till the date of award, solatium at the rate of 30% interest at the rate of 9% PA for one year from the date of award and interest at the rate of 15% PA for a period one year after the award of the Collector till payment. The respondents shall pay the costs.....”

¶25

The aggrieved Improvement Trust has approached this

¶26

Court.

¶27

It appears from the order dated 01.06.1992 that the writ petition was entertained primarily on the question of admissibility of the benefits under the amended Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Consequently, stay regarding recovery of enhanced compensation was declined but the benefits granted under the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were stayed.

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondent-land-owners very fairly states that the question formulated at the outset is no longer resintegra and has been authoritatively settled by the Constitution Bench in K.S.Paripoornan versus State of Kerala and others (1994) 5SCC 593 and in terms thereof, the respondents would not be entitled to the benefit of Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act while other statutory benefits are admissible to them.

¶29

The Apex Court in the cited decision held as follows:-

¶30

“Merely because Sub-section (1) of Section 30 only refers to award made by the Collector while Sub-section (2) of Section 30 also refers to an award made by the Court as well as the order passed by the High Court or the Supreme Court in appeal against such award does not mean that Section 23(1-A) was intended to have application to all proceedings which were pending before the civil Court on

¶31

Satyawan 2013.12.19 10:01 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document" High Court Chandigarh

¶32

CWP No. 6912 of 1992

¶33

¶34

the date of the commencement of the amending Act. The difference in the phraseology in Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 30 only indicates the limited nature of the retrospectivity that has been given to provisions contained in Section 23(1-A) under Section 30(1) as compared to that given to the provisions of Sections 23(2) and 28 under Section 30(2). The limited scope of the retrospectivity that has been conferred in respect of Section 23(1-A) under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 does not lend support to the contention that the scope of such retrospectivity should be enlarged by reading such further retrospectivity into the provisions of Section 23(1-A). For the reasons aforementioned we are of the view that in relation to proceedings which were initiated prior to the date of the commencement of the amending Act Section 23(1-A) would be applicable only to those cases which fall within the ambit of Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the amending Act. In this context it is also necessary to bear in mind the rule of statutory construction that even where a statute is clearly intended to be to some extent retrospective, it is not to be construed as having a greater retrospective effect than its language renders necessary. (See Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. 44, para 924.) There is, therefore, no scope for extending the ambit of retrospective operation of Sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 beyond the limits specified in Section 30(1) of the amending Act so as to apply it to all proceedings initiated prior to the date of coming into force of the amending Act which were pending before the civil Court on reference under Section 18 of the principal Act irrespective of the date on

¶35

Satyawan 2013.12.19 10:01 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document" High Court Chandigarh

¶36

CWP No. 6912 of 1992

¶37

¶38

which the award was made by the Collector. For the reasons aforementioned we are unable to subscribe to the view taken in Zora Singh (supra) that Sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 would apply to all proceedings pending in the Reference Court on the date of commencement of the amending Act irrespective of the date on which award was made by the Collector. In our opinion, the provisions of Section 23(1 A) of the principal Act and Section 30(1) of the amending Act have been correctly construed in Filip Tiago (supra) to mean that the obligation to pay additional amount in respect of proceedings initiated before the date of commencement of the amending Act is confined to the matters covered by Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the amending Act and we endorse the said view.

¶39

xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx

¶40

In respect of acquisition proceedings initiated prior to the date of commencement of the amending Act 68 of 1984, the payment of the additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Act will be restricted to matters referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the said Amending Act. Union of India and Anr. v. Zora Singh and Ors. (1992) 1 SCC 673 insofar as it holds that the said amount is payable in all cases where the reference was pending before the reference Court on September 24, 1984, irrespective of the date on which the award was made by the Collector, does not lay down the correct law.”

¶41

(emphasis applied)

¶42

This view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Giani, AIR 2011 (SC) 977. In that case award had

¶43

Satyawan 2013.12.19 10:01 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document" High Court Chandigarh

¶44

CWP No. 6912 of 1992

¶45

¶46

been passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 09.07.1980. Benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act were allowed by the High Court. Relying upon K.S. Paripoornan's case (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows :-

¶47

“8. In the present case the acquisition proceeding commenced with the notification under Section 4 issued on 06.03.1965 and it culminated in passing of the award by the Collector on 09.07.1980, i.e., before 30.04.1982, the date from which the amending Act 68 of 1984 was made applicable to the pending and subsequent proceedings. Therefore, in terms of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of K.S. Paripoornan (supra) the respondents are not entitled to the benefit of Section 23(1A).”

¶48

The plea of the petitioner that the solatium and interest under the amended provisions of Section 23(2) and 28 of the Act cannot be allowed, is, however, not tenable in view of the transitional provisions contained in Section 30 of the Amending Act. It says that :-

¶49

“ Transitional provisions.-

¶50

(1) The provisions of Sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 of the principal Act, as inserted by clause (a) of Section 15 of this Act, shall apply, and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation to,-

¶51

(a) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the principal Act pending on 30th day of April, 1982 (the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, in the House of the People), in which no award has been made by the Collector before that date;

¶52

(b) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the principal Act commenced after

¶53

Satyawan 2013.12.19 10:01 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document" High Court Chandigarh

¶54

CWP No. 6912 of 1992

¶55

¶56

that date, whether or not an award has been made by the Collector before the date of commencement of this Act.

¶57

(2) The provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 23 and Section 28 of the principal Act, as amended by clause (b) of Section 15 and Section 18 of this Act respectively, shall apply, and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, and 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 the 30th day of April, 1982 [the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, in the House of the People] and before the commencement of this Act. 9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S. Paripoornan discussed the provisions of Section 23(2) and 28 of the amending Act and ruled that :-

¶58

“..........It was, therefore, held that under Section 30(2) the provisions of amended Section 23(2) and Section 28 are applicable to all proceedings relating to compensation pending on April 30, 1982 or filed subsequent to that date, whether before the Collector or before the Court or the High Court or the Supreme Court, even though they have finally terminated before the enactment of the Amendment Act.”

¶59

As the law with regard to the payment of additional amount, solatium and interest under Section 23(1-A), 23(2) & 28 of the Land Acquisition Amendment Act 68 of 1984 has been settled in the cited decisions, we partly allow the writ petition. The benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Amendment Act 68 of 1984 allowed by the Tribunal is held to be untenable while the landowners

¶60

Satyawan 2013.12.19 10:01 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document" High Court Chandigarh

¶61

CWP No. 6912 of 1992

¶62

¶63

are held entitled to the statutory benefits under Sections 23(2) and 28 of the act as allowed by the Tribunal.

¶64

The writ petition is partly allowed to above extent.

¶65

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

¶66