Gujarat High Court
Rabari Lakha Bhura vs State Of Gujarat on 25 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/5341/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5341 of 1998
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
=======================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
=======================================
RABARI LAKHA BHURA & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=======================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/
REPRESTENTATIVES for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HARSHIL C DATTANI(6241) for the Appellant(s) No. 1.1
MS ROSHNI PATEL AGP for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
=======================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 25/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present first appeal is arising out of Land Reference Case
No.471 of 1983 decided by the Reference Court by common
award in seven Reference cases on 30.04.1998. In this matter,
the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was
published on 18.12.1980 and under section 6 on 23.07.1981. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/5341/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
Land Acquisition Officer published the award on 12.03.1982.
2. The main issue raised by learned Harshil Dattani, for the
appellants is that the Reference Court had failed to give benefit
of the amended provisions of Sections 23(2) and 28 of the Land
Acquisition Act as held by the Supreme Court in the case of
Panna Lal Ghosh & Ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and
Ors., reported in 2003 (10) SCALE 725. Mr.Dattani had also
faintly sought to contend that the Reference Court had
committed an error in not considering the fact that the
appellants were yielding three crops in a year, and in not
awarding the compensation accordingly.
3. However, learned AGP Ms.Roshni Patel submitted that the
award having not been made by the Collector between
30.04.1982 to 24.09.1984 as per section 30(2) of the Amending
Act, which pertained to transitory provision, the Reference Court
had rightly awarded the solatium at the rate of 15% under
section 23(2) and interest at the rate of 4.5% per annum under
section 28 of the said Act.
4. As regards the submission of Mr.Dattani that the was
yielding three crops in a year, there was no evidence produced
by the claimant, and therefore rightly not considered by the
Reference Court. The other issue raised by Mr.Dattani as regards
the benefit to be granted under section 23(2) and section 28 of
the Act, the Court is of the opinion that the said issue is no more
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/5341/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
resintegra. The Supreme Court in the case of K.S.Paripoornan
Vs. State of Kerala and Ors., (II) reported in (1995) 1 SCC
367, after considering the applicability of section 30(2) of the
Amending Act held as under:
"3. It is contended for the State by Shri A. S. Nambiar, the
learned senior counsel that in Union of India v. Raghubir
Singh (dead) by LRs., (1989) 2 SCC 754 : (AIR 1989 SC
1933) this Court had given restricted interpretation to
Section 30(2) of the transitory provision holding that if the
award has been made between April 30, 1982 and
September 24, 1984, the claimant would be entitled to the
benefit of the enhanced solatium under Section 23(2) of the
Principal Act. On the parity of the ratio therein by operation
of sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the transitory provision of
the Amendment which includes Section 28 also, the ratio
therein equally be applicable to the facts of these cases.
Since the award was made by the Court after the Act has
come into force the, appellant is not entitled to the
enhanced interest under the amended Section 28 of the
Principal Act. We are unable to agree with the learned
counsel . Sec. 30(2) :
"30(2) - The provisions of sub-section (2) of S. 23 and S. 28
of the Principal Act, as amended by clause (b) of S. 15 and
S. 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."
This Court while noticing the effect of the amendment in
sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 30 in paragraph 31 considered the effect
thereof thus :
"31. In construing Sec. 30(2), it is just as well to be clear
that the award made by the Collector referred to here is the
award made by the Collector under Section 11 of the Parent
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/5341/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
Act, and the award made by the Court is the award made by
the Principal Civil Court of Original jurisdiction under Section
23 (1) of the Parent Act on a reference made to it by the
Collector under Sec. 19(18) of the Parent Act. There can be
no doubt that the benefit of the enhanced solatium is
intended by Sec. 30(2) in respect of an award made by the
Collector between April 30, 1982 and September 24, 1984.
Likewise the benefit of the enhanced solatium is extended
by Sec. 30(2) to the case of an award made by the Court
between April 30, 1982 and September 24, 1984, even
though it be upon reference from an award made before
April 30, 1982."
4. This Court thereby clearly held that even in the pending
reference made before April 30, 1982, if the Civil Court
makes an award between April 30, 1982 and September 24,
1984, Section 30(2) gets attracted and thereby the
enhanced solatium was available to the claimants. Since
Sec. 30(2) deals with both the amendment under Sec. 23(2)
and the amendment to Sec. 28 of the principal Act by
Section 15(b) and Sec. 18 respectively by parity of the
reasoning the same ratio applies to the awards made by the
Civil Court between those dates. The conflict of decisions as
to whether Sec. 23 (2) as amended by Sec. 15(b) of the
Amendment Act through Sec. 30(2) of the transitory
provisions would be applicable to the pending appeals in the
High Court and the Supreme Court was resolved in the
Raghuvir Singh's case by the Constitution Bench holding
that the award of the Collector or the Court made between
April 30, 1982 and September 24, 1984 would alone get
attracted to Sec. 30(2) of the transitory provision. The
restricted interpretation would not be understood to mean
that Sec. 23(2) would not apply to the awarded decree of
the Civil Court pending at the time when the Act has come
into force or thereafter. In this case, admittedly the award of
the civil Court was after the Act has come into force,
namely, February 28, 1985.
5. Therefore, if the sum which, in the opinion of the Court,
the Collector ought to have awarded as compensation, is in
excess of the sum which the Collector did award as
compensation, the Court shall direct to pay interest on such
excess at the rate of 9% per annum from the date on which
the Collector took possession of the land to the date of
payment of such excess into the Court. By operation of the
proviso, if such excess or any part thereof is paid into the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/5341/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
Court after the date of expiry of a period of one year from
the date on which compensation is taken, interest at the
rate of 15% per annum shall be payable 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 the
Court before the date of such expiry. Accordingly, the
appellant is entitled to the enhanced interest @ 9% from the
date of taking possession, namely, January 15, 1981 and
March 11, 1981 respectively for one year @ 9% and
thereafter @ 15% till the date of the deposit made by the
Collector. Admittedly, the deposit of the enhanced
compensation was made on October 20, 1986 and
December 3, 1986, therefore, the interest shall be
calculated at the enhanced rates for theaforesaid record."
5. The said issue was also considered by the Supreme Court
in the case of Panna Lal Ghosh and Ors. (Supra), wherein it
has been held as under:
"12. In Union of India v. Filip Tiago De Gama, AIR 1990 SC
981, the issue was whether the amendment would apply to
an award made subsequent to 24-9-1984 even though the
acquisition proceedings had commenced prior to the date.
This Court looked at the intention behind giving
retrospective effect to the amending Section. If the literal
interpretation is taken, it was held, it will result in an
anomaly. In order to avoid it, regard must be had to the
purpose of Section 30(2). Consequently, this Court awarded
higher solatium even though the Reference Court made the
award in 1985.
13. Again in K. S. Pari-poornan's case (supra), this Court
widened the restricted interpretation given in Raghubir
Singh's case. It held that the enhanced solatium would apply
even to a case pending at the time the Act came into force.
14. Following this train of thought, the benefit of enhanced
solatium would extend to the presentcase. During the period
between 30-4-1982 and 29-9-1984, the reference was
pending in the Reference Court. The Court's award was
passed in 1985. Following the above interpretation, the
appellants are thus entitled to enhanced solatium @ 30%
and interest under Section 23(2) of the Act."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/5341/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
6. Yet in another case the Supreme Court in the case of
Lilawati Agarwal (Dead) by Legal Representatives and
Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2016) 6 SCC 566,
clarified as under:
"10. On a perusal of the principle stated in Raghubir Singh
case and what has been clarified in K.S. Paripoornan (II)
case, we do not find that the three-Judge Bench decision
runs counter to the authority in the Constitution Bench. It
also does not give a different interpretation to Section 30(2)
that what has been stated by the Constitution Bench. In
fact, K.S. Paripoornan (II) clearly postulates about the
awards that have been passed by the court after the Act has
come into force which is in consonance with the ratio laid
down in Raghubir Singh's case. The three-Judge Bench has
only observed that the restricted interpretation placed by
the Constitution Bench in Raghubir Singh (supra) should not
convey that Section 23(2) would not apply to the awards of
the civil court pending at the time when the Act came into
force or thereafter. Thus, the controversy with which the
three- Judge Bench was dealing with was absolutely
different and the view expressed by it is absolutely in
accord with the principles laid down in Raghubir Singh's
case. Additionally, it is also in consonance with the
provisions contained in Section 23(2) of the Act. Therefore,
we do not see any reason to disagree with the view
expressed in K.S. Paripoornan (II) as we are of the convinced
opinion that it has appositely understood the rule exposited
in Raghubir Singh's case.
7. In the instant cases, the award having been made by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer in 1982 and by the Reference
Court in 1998, the appellant claimant would be entitled to the
benefit of the amended Section 23(2) and section 28 of the said
Act. In that view of the matter, it is held that the appellant would
be entitled to the sum of 30% on the market value fixed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/5341/1998 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2025
undefined
Reference Court as contemplated under section 23(2) and the
interest at the rate of 9% per annum for one year from the date
of taking possession on the excess amount and at the rate of
15% per annum after expiry of the one year till payment of the
excess amount as contemplated under section 28 of the said Act.
8. The award made by the Reference Court stands modified
accordingly. The appeals stand partly allowed.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
V.R. PANCHAL
