- (1.)WHETHER it is permissible for this Court to grant benefits under section 23 (2) and section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in favour of claimants, even when claimants do not press their claim for enhanced compensation in a land acquisition reference is the question posed for mv answer in this matter. The above question also arises in the context of claimants who by virtue of disability, illness, old age etc. are not able to attend the Court and substantiate their claim for enhanced compensation. The reference are pending for several years in this Court. The claimants, therefore, feel that instead of taking the trouble of proving the case for enhanced compensation by leading evidence, which is difficult to obtain at their age, as well as on account of several other factors, if they get the benefit given by the statute on the amount awarded by the Collector in the award that would suffice their purpose. They, therefore, opt for statutory benefits and not pressed their plea for enhanced compensation. The Court has been awarding these benefits in the facts and circumstances before it by applying the relevant and statutory provisions including those introduced by Amendment Act. This is one such case.
(2.)THE question arises in the backdrop of a practice prevalent in the Reference Court. It was brought to my notice by learned Advocates appearing for claimants in land acquisition references that this Court has been granting the benefits under the above mentioned statutory provisions even when they have been unable to substantiate their claim for enhanced compensation. In some cases, they contend, that claimants have been giving up their claims for enhanced compensation on the basis that S. L. A. O. and acquiring body would grant statutory benefits. They point out that the practice has been prevailing because even Counsel appearing for S. L. A. O. and acquiring body have not objected to the same.
(3.)WHEN the present reference was placed before me, Shri Rele, learned advocate appearing for claimants contended that the award in the present case was made on 29th September, 1979 and reference was made in 1983. He invites my attention to consent minutes of order dated 24th April, 1987 whereby 1/3rd increase in the market value was effected. However, Union of india filed special leave petition in the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme court remanded the matter back on 8th May, 1995. During the pendency of reference, claimant Nos. 1 and 3 expired. He submits that during the pendency of this reference amendments of 1984 to the Land Acquisition Act came into force. He submits that the award grants to the claimants total compensation of Rs. 1,86,648. 45 out of which Rs. 90. 382/- has been paid as advance compensation. The net amount payable was Rs. 96,266. 45. The claimants had in the application under section 18 (1) pointed out that they have received compensation of Rs. 1,62,303/- exclusive of 15% solatium according to the award. Claimants pointed out in the application that the compensation ought to have been Rs. 2,85,175/- for land wells, and structures inclusive of solatium.