- (1.) LEAVE granted in SLP (C) Nos. 15653, 15657, 15683 and 20741 of 2004.
(2.) ALL these appeals involve identical questions and are therefore, taken up together for disposal. The basic issues involved in these appeals relate to entitlement of the claimants/ appellants for benefits under Sections 23 (1-A), 23 (2) and Section 28 of the Land acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the 'act' ). Factual position is almost undisputed and essentially as follows : notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued on 21/4/1965, Section 6 notification was issued on 10/11/1966 and the Land acquisition Collector's Award was made on 6/4/1972. Section 30 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (in short the amendment Act') was introduced and made operative with effect from 24/9/1984. The reference court decided reference on 30. 9. 1985, the High Court held that in view of the decision of this Court in K. S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala,! [1994 (5) SCC 593] the appellant was not entitled to the benefit under Section 23 (1-A), 23 (2) and Section 28 of the Act. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the benefit under Section 23 (1-A) may not be available in view of what has been stated in K. S. Paripoornan's case (hereinafter referred to as 'paripuranan I') yet in view of the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Raghubir Singh,2 [1989 (2) SCC 754] and in K. S. Paripoornan v. State of kerala3 [1995 (1) SCC367] (hereinafter referred to as 'paripoornan II' )the benefit under Section 23 (2) and Section 28 of the Act are available.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent-State and bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (in short the 'bccl') the beneficiary for whose benefit the land was acquired submitted that the view in Paripuranan II is not correct as a three judge Bench had taken a view clearly contrary to what has been stated by the constitution Bench in Raghubir Singh's case (supra ). By way of reply learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even recently in panna Lal Ghosh v. Land Acquisition collector,4 [2004 (1) SCC 467] this Court has adopted a view taken in Paripuranan II's case (supra ).;