State Of Maharashtra vs Maruti Dagadu Kardile And Ors.
2006 Latest Caselaw 164 Bom

JUDGMENT

Bhatia J.H., J.

1. This group of appeals may be disposed of by common judgment as all of them arise out of the same project, wherein same question of law is involved.

2. Admittedly, for percolation tank of village Baburdi Ghumat, Taluka and District Ahmednagar, certain lands from village Khandala were acquired. In five of the First Appeals, notification under Section 4 were issued on 11-7-1974 and final awards were passed on 30-11-1978. In remaining five appeals, notification under Section 4 was issued on 10-9-1981 and the award was passed on 18-12-1981. In all these ten appeals, the respondents claimants were not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, they made land reference applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned IInd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.) Ahmednagar, heard all these land references and found that the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was grossly inadequate and needed to be enhanced. Relying on the rate of compensation fixed by him in land reference Application No. 139/1981, arising out of adjacent village Walki, with consent of the parties, he decided to fix compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,500/ - per acre for dry or Zirayat land and at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per acre for irrigated or Bagayat land and accordingly, he fixed the market value of the lands acquired in each of the matters. The learned Civil Judge (S.D.) passed the judgment in November, 1985. Before that Land Acquisition Act was amended by the Amending Act No. 68/1984 with effect from 24-9-1984. Certain benefits in the pending matters were to be given with effect from 30-4-1982, when the Amendment bill was introduced in the Loksabha. In view of the said amendment, the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) directed to grant solatium at the rate of 30% p.a. on the enhanced amount and 15% additional solatium on the amount of compensation awarded by the S.L.A.O. He also granted enhanced rate of interest on the compensation amount. Besides that, he also directed to pay additional component at the rate of 12% p.a. on the total compensation amount from the date on which Section 4 notification was published in the Government Gazette. The State has preferred these appeals challenging only grant of additional component at the rate of 12% p.a.

3. The respondent claimants also filed cross-objections contending that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) was not sufficient, he should have granted compensation minimum at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre.

4. Heard Mrs. R.R. Mane, learned A.G.P. for the appellant and Mrs. A.D. Rakh, learned Counsel for the respondents.

5. Perused the record and proceedings of the trial Court.

6. Following points arise for my determination and I record my findings against them for the reasons given below:

(i) Whether the trial Court committed any error in determining the market value of the land? ....No.

(ii) Whether the trial Court committed an error in granting additional component at the rate of 12% p.a. in view of the amendment in Section 23(1-A) of the Act?...Yes.

(iii) What order ?...As per final order.

REASONS

7. The record reveals that the market price was fixed at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 7,000/- per acre for Zirayat and Bagayat land respectively with consent of the parties. In view of this, Mrs. Rakh, learned Counsel could not point any illegality or mistake in determination of market value of the land.

8. The relevant amended provisions and the provisions of Section 30 pertaining transitional provisions of the amending Act were subject-matter of interpretation before the several High Courts and then Supreme Court in several matters. However, now, the legal position has been settled. Section 23-1-A as added by the amending Act reads as follows:

(1-A) In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, Sub-section (1) in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier.

By this provision, in addition to the market value of the land as determined under Section 23(1) the Court shall in every case award additional component at the rate of 12% p.a. on the market value from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 or the date of taking possession of the land whichever is earlier. This benefit was not available prior to the amendment. Such amendment is generally prospective. However, Amendment Bill was introduced in the House of People on 30-4-1982 and it appears that in the wisdom of legislature this additional benefit was also given to the proceedings which were pending before the Collector on 30-4-1982, the date of introduction of the amendment bill, in which no award was passed before that date. Therefore, Section 30, Sub-section (1) of the amendment Act provided as follows:

30. Transitional provisions. - (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, -

(a) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the Principal Act pending on the 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;

(b) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the Principal Act commenced after that date, whether or not an award has been made by the Collector before the commencement of this Act.

9. The effect of Section 30(1) of the Amending Act read with Sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 added by the amending Act was considered by the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Verem Vasco De Gama 1990(Supp.) Bom.C.R. (S.C.) 790 : A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 981. Their Lordships observed as follows:

20. Entitlement of additional amount provided under Section 23(1-A) depends upon pendency of acquisition proceedings as on 30 April, 1982 or commencement of acquisition proceedings, after that date. Section 30, Sub-section (1)(a) provides that additional amount provided under Section 23(1-A) shall be applicable to acquisition proceedings pending before the Collector as on 30th April, 1982 in which he has not made the award before that date. If the Collector has made the award before that date then, that additional amount cannot be awarded. Section 30 Sub-section (1)(b) provides that Section 23(1-A) shall be applicable to every acquisition proceedings commenced after 30 April, 1982 irrespective of the fact whether the Collector has made an award or not before 24 September, 1984. The final point to note is that Section 30 Sub-section (1) does not refer to Court award and the Court award is used only in Section 30, Sub-section (2).

This view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in K.S. Paripooman v. State of Kerala and Ors. , wherein Their Lordships observed in para 55 as follows:

In our opinion, the provisions of Section 23(1-A) of the Principal Act and Section 30(1) of the amendment Act have been correctly construed in Filip Tiago A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 981 (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.

10. In view of the legal position settled by these two Supreme Court authorities, there remains no doubt that the benefit of additional component under Sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 may be given only if the proceedings for acquisition was pending and award was not passed by the Collector. It has no reference to the award to be passed by the Court on reference under Section 18 of the Act. As such the respondents, in whose case the award was already passed by the Collector prior to 30-4-1982, could not be entitled to the benefit of additional component under Section 23(1-A). In the present case, as stated earlier, the award was passed by the Collector prior to 30-4-1982 when the Land Acquisition Amendment Bill was introduced in the House of People. Therefore, the benefit of Section 23(1-A) could not have been granted in the present matters. Hence, it must be held that the learned trial Court committed error while granting the benefit. Therefore, to that extent, award passed by the trial Court needs to be modified.

11. For the reasons stated above, all these appeals are allowed to the extent of additional component at the rate of 12% p.a. of the total compensation amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act and to that extent the impugned order shall stand set aside. Cross-objections stand dismissed. No order as to costs.