Bhartu Etc. vs Union Of India
1988 Latest Caselaw 368 Del

JUDGMENT

Y.K. Sabharwal, J.

(1) The land of the applicants including other land of village Badli was acquired under Land Acquisition Act The L.A. Collector by his award No. 35/81-82 dt. 10.11.1981 offered compensation to the applicants @ Rs. 2,000.00 per bigha. On reference u/s 18 of the Act the market Value of the land of the applicants was determined @ Rs. 2,500.00 per bigha by the award made on 30.4.1984 by Additional District Judge. By judgment and decree dt. 23.3.1987 passed by this Court the market value of the acquired land of I the applicants was determined at Rs. 7,000.00 per bigha and the appeal was accordingly allowed. However, it was directed that the appellants will be paid solarium and interest in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, prior to its amendment by L.A. (Amendment) Act 1984; but, if and when judgment is delivered by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in the matter in which judgment has been reserved, and if the appellants are found entitled to an increase in the amounts of solarium and interest, and the additional amount granted by the newly added S. 23(1-A), they will be entitled to receive the same in accordance with law.

(2) By this application appellants seek amendment of judgment and decree dt. 23.3.1987 and pray that the appellants be allowed solarium, interest and additional amount u/s 23(1-A), as permissible under L.A. (Amendment) Act 1984. The appellants submit that in this case the award'by learned Adj was made on 30.4.84 i.e. after 30.4.82 and as such they are entitled to all the benefits as permissible under the amended Act and accordingly, there is no need to wait for the judgment to be delivered by the Constitution pencil of the Supreme Court. Reliance is placed on a D.B. judgment to which one of us (Y.K. Sabharwal, J.) was a party in Giani Ram vs. U.O.I. (R.F.A. 240/83 D./18.12.87) In Giani Ram's case after considering the various Judgments of the Supreme Court it was held that in cases where award either by the Collector or by We Adj is made after 30.4.82, the claimant would be entitled to the benefits of the amended provisions.

(3) Learned counsel for the Union of India, however, places reliance on a D.B. judgment of Allahabad in case of State of U.P. vs. Raj Narain Singh , wherein it was held that u/s 28 of the Act the owner of the land in that case was not entitled to 15% interest on the excess amount of compensation awarded by the District Judge. It may be noticed that in the case before Allahabad High Court, reference was decided by the District Judge on 25.9.1973, and not after 30.4.1982 as is the position in the present case. With regard to applicability of provisions of Amendment Act of 1984, relying upon Bhag Singh vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh, , the Bench held that even if the award is made by the Collector or Court on or before 30.4.1982 and appeal against such award is pending before the High Court or the Supreme Court on 30.4.1982 or is filed subsequent to the date, the provisions of the amended S. 23(2) and S. 28 would be applicable in relation to an order passed in such appeal by the High Court or the Supreme Court. The Allahabad High Court gave benefit of the Amending Act to the owner in exercise of the power u/Order 41 Rule 33, Civil Procedure Code Whether in such cases where the award by the Collector or District Judge is prior to 30.4.1982, the claimants are entitled to or not to the benefits under the amendment of 1984 are the questions which are pending decision in the Supreme Court but that is not the position where the awards by the Collector or the District Judge are made after 30.4.1982 [S. 28 as amended is then reproduced].

(4) In Raj Narain Singh's case (supra), the Allahabad High Court, on the facts of that case held that the owner will be entitled to benefit of aforesaid S. 28 but was held not entitled to 15% interest under proviso to the said section. "The provisions of S. 28 and its proviso are plain, clear and unambiguous.

(5) A bare reading of the S. 28 makes it clear that if the sum which, in the opinion of the Court, the Collector ought to have awarded as compensation, the award of the Court may direct that the Collector shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of 9% per annum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Court. Under proviso to S. 28 where such excess or any part thereof is paid into Court after the date of expiry of period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, the award of the Court may also direct interest at the rate of 75% per annum from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into Court before the date of such expiry. In view of the plain, clear and unambiguous provisions, it is not for us to go into the assumed difficulties in depositing the excess amount into Court and the remedy of the respondents, if any, lies elsewhere. By amendments of 1984, further benefits have been provided for the owners whose lands are acquired, under L.A. Act by , them higher rate of interest, higher solarium and higher rate, of interest , 28 besides additional amount u/s. 23(1-A). The object of proviso to S, 28 is not that if. the amount awarded by the Collector is less and the Court is of the opinion, that higher amount ought to have been .awarded, the owner should be deprived of 15%, interest on the excess amount under the proviso, because excess amount was determined by the Court more than one year, after taking of the possession and as such; could not have. been deposited earlier. It is not the requirement of this provision that the award of interest at 15% should be made by the Court only when excess amount is determined within the period of one year of taking of possession. We are also unable to accept the contention that interest at 15% should be awarded only in exceptional cases in view of the clear and unambiguous language, of the proviso and to this extent express our respectful disagreement with the view expressed in Raj Narain Singh case. We are in complete agreement with the judgment of the D.B. in Giani Ram's case that in cases of award made after 30.4.1982 the claimants would be entitled to the benefits accruing under the amended provisions. We are of the opinion that claimants will be entitled to interest at 15% per annum under proviso to S. 28 of the Act. :

(6) We also do not find any substance in the other contention of Mr. Saxena, learned counsel for the, respondent, that S. 151, Civil Procedure Code cannot be invoked on the facts and circumstances of the present case. The inherent powers of the Court are required to be invoked to do substantial justice between the parties. It is evident that when the judgment was passed on 23.3,1987, it was not brought to the notice of the Bench that no controversy was pending Determination of the Supreme Court in cases where awards were made after 30.4,1982 and in view thereof, it was directed that as and when judgment is delivered by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court and if the appellants are found entitled to the benefits accruing under the amended provisions, they will be entitled to receive the same in accordance with law. In our opinion the application is maintainable and the appellants are entitled to the benefits accruing under the amended provisions in view of law laid down, in Giant Ram's case

(7) For the reasons stated above, we direct the amendment of judgment and decree dt. 23.3.1987 in so far as it directs the payment of solarium and interest in accordance with the relevant provisions, of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, prior to its amendment by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. accordingly we direct that the appellants would be entitled to solarium @ 30% on the market value under. Amendment Act 68 of 1984, interest @ 9% per annum for a period of one year from the date of taking, over of possession and thereafter, @ l5% per annum on, the enhanced compensation till payment, and additional amount u/s , (1-A) @; 12% per annum. Whatever has been paid shall be deducted. The application is allowed to the extent indicated above and the judgment and decree dt. 23.3.1987 shall stand amended in terms of the directions in this order. There will be no order as to costs of this application.