- (1.) THIS appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act is directed against the judgment and award dated 22-10-1986 passed by the Ad ditional District Judge, Dehradun in Misc. Case (Review) No. 38 of 1985 arising out of Land Acquisition Ref erence No. 38 of 1980, Atma Ram and another Vs. Collector, Dehradun, whereby the learned Reference Court decided review petition in favour of the claimant- respondents holding that the claimants are entitled to solatium @ 30% in view of the amended Sec tion 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act (for Short the Act) as well as in terest @ 15% in view of amended provisions of Section 28 of the Act. The learned Reference Court has de cided Review Petitions No. 20 of 1985, 31 of 1985, 32 of 1985, 33 of 1985, 34 of 1985, 35 of 1985, 36 of 1985, 37 of 1985, 38 of 1985, 40 of 1985, 41 of 1985, 44 of 1985, 46 of 1985, 47 of 1985 and 61 of 1985 by a common judgment, which have arisen out of the different Land Ac quisition References decided on 27-9-1984 relating to the same award passed by the Special Land Acquisi tion Officer. It may be added that the controversy involved in all these re view petitions was the same and identical.
(2.) THE impugned order has been challenged, on the ground that the appellant no. 2 U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad was required to pay the compensation to the claimant-re spondents was not arrayed as re spondents or the opposite parties in the land acquisition reference or the review application, therefore, the judgment and decree passed against the U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad is patently against the Rule of Natural Justice. The Review Application was filed by the claimant-respondents for review of the order dated 27-9- 1984 passed in the Land Acquisition Case with a prayer to grant solatium ,@ 30% instead of 15% and interest @ 15% instead of 6% in view of the amended Act No. 68 of 1984. The short controversy before the Reference Court was whether re view petitioners were entitled for the enhanced solatium and interest as have been amended by the Act No. 68 of 1984 in view of Section 23 (2) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisi tion Act No. 1 of 1894.
(3.) THE learned Additional District Judge has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "bhag Singh and others V. Union Ter ritory of Chandigarh [air, 1985, Su preme Court, 1576] in which it was held that the provisions of Section 23 (2) and 28 are applicable to all proceedings relating to compensation pending on the date of commence ment of amending Act or filed subse quent to that date whether before the Collector or before the court or High Court or Supreme Court Learned counsel for the Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Sri K. S. Mehta and learned Standing Counsel Sri Nand Prasad for the State vehe mently argued that the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Bhag Singh case (supra) has been over ruled by the Constitution Bench judg ment passed in the case of "union of India and another V. Raghubir Singh (dead) by LRs. etc. " "prithpal Singh and others Vs. Union of India", "ram Mehar Rajkumar and others etc. V. Union of India and others" and "delhi Cattle Breeding Farms Put. Ltd. etc. V. Union of India" [ (1989) 2, Supreme Court Cases, Page 754].;