V.K.BALI,J - (1.) BY this order, we propose to dispose of Letters Patent Appeals bearing Nos. 409 to 416 of 1987, 487 to 491 of 1992 and 511 of 1991, filed by the State of Punjab under clause X of the Letters Patent against judgment of learned Single Judge dated January 30, 1987 as also cross-objections filed by the claimants in LPA Nos. 409 of 1987 and 491 of 1992. Learned counsel for the parties also suggest the said course to be adopted as all the appeals arise from common judgment recorded by the learned Single Judge dealing with market value of the land under acquisition at the time when notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (here-in-after referred to as the 'Act') came to be issued.
(2.) INASMUCH as the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties are in a very narrow compass, all that needs to be mentioned, on facts, is that by notification dated September 25, 1981 the State of Punjab acquired land for Mukerian Hydel Channel. For two villages, namely, Bamboowal and Sunderpur, the matter was separately dealt by the Land Acquisition Collector as also by the Civil Court on reference made by the claimants under Section 18 of the Act. Whereas, for village Bamboowal, learned Additional District Judge, vide his award dated April 24, 1984, allowed market price as per nature of land, i.e. for Nehri, Rs. 27,000/- per acre, for Barani, Rs. 12,000/- per acre and for Gair Mumkin, Rs. 7000/- per acre, for village Sunderpur, once again market price was fixed as per quality of land, i.e., for Chahi, Rs. 40,000/- per acre, Nehri, Rs. 28,000/- per acre, Barani Rs. 25,000/- per acre, and Gair Mumkin, Rs. 12,000/- per acre. Aggrieved, whereas, the State of Punjab filed Regular First Appeals, claimants filed cross-objections. The appeals filed by the State were dismissed, whereas cross-objections filed by the claimants in RFA Nos. 1877, 1878, 1879 and 1883 of 1984 were allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated January 30, 1987. For both the villages, i.e., Bamboowal and Sunderpur, learned Single Judge fixed the market value of the acquired land at the relevant time @ Rs. 28,000/- per acre for Nehri/Chahi land, Rs. 16,000/- per acre for Barani land and Rs. 12,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land. In support of the appeals filed on behalf of the appellant-State, all that has been contended by Mr. G.S. Dhillon, learned Additional AG, Punjab is that inasmuch as the Collector had given award for the lands situated in villages Bamboowal and Sunderpur on February 12, 1982, the claimants were not entitled to benefits that are available under the amended provisions of the Act. To appreciate the contention of learned counsel, the date when the Land Acquisition Collector rendered the award as also the date when reference applications made by the claimants under Section 18 of the Act were decided by learned Additional District Judge, have to be seen. Even though, initially there was some dispute with regard to date of award rendered by the Land Acquisition Collector, on checking of the awards that form part of records of the case, it had to be conceded that for both villages, i.e., Bamboowal and Sunderpur, insofar as Land Acquisition Collector is concerned, he had given the award on same date i.e., February 12, 1982. Insofar as Additional District Judge is concerned, he, however, decided the matters insofar as village Bamboowal is concerned on April 24, 1984 whereas references pertaining to village Sunderpur came to be decided on February 23, 1985. It may also be mentioned that whereas, learned Additional District Judge, in addition to payment of compensation as per market value assessed by him, allowed solatium @ 15% and interest on the entire compensation amount @ 6% per annum, learned Single Judge, allowed solatium @ 30% and interest on the compensation amount as per amended provisions of the Act. Amendments in the Land Acquisition Act were brought about vide Act No. 68 of 1984 which received the assent of the President of India on September 24, 1984. The facts detailed above would, thus, reveal that when the Land Acquisition Collector gave award even bill for amendments, that were ultimately brought about, had since not been introduced, even though same is not true insofar as when learned Additional District Judge decided the matters, be it with regard to village Bamboowal or village Sunderpur. It may, however, be once again reiterated that learned Additional District Judge decided references under Section 18 pertaining to village Bamboowal on April 24, 1984 and of village Sunderpur on February 23, 1985. Insofar as claimants of village Sunderpur are concerned, we are of the view that they were entitled to solatium and interest in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act. The claims of respondents had to be decided in accordance with law prevalent at the time of adjudication of rights of the parties. Reference under Section 18 of the Act is a continuation of original proceedings initiated by the amended provisions of the Act. Reference in this regard may be made to single Bench judgment of this Court in Smt. Bharpai v. State of Haryana, 1999(2) PLR 721 : 1999(2) RCR(Civil) 374 (Delhi). The claimants from village Sunderpur would, thus, be entitled to statutory benefits arising from the provisions of amended Act under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act.
(3.) MR . Dhillon, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, however, relies upon a judgment of Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Om Parkash Bhasin, 1998(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 487 : 1998(1) All India Land Laws Reporter 242. The facts of the said case would reveal that notification under Section 4 of the Act came to be issued on October 7, 1971. The Land Acquisition Collector made an award giving compensation of acquired land @ Rs. 200/- per marla. A reference under Section 18 of the Act was deiced by the District Judge, Gurgaon, on October 10, 1978. On an appeal, High Court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 10/- to Rs. 12/- per sq. yard vide judgment dated January 28, 1981. It was contended on behalf of the appellant-State of Haryana that award of solatium @ 30% under Section 23(1-A), as introduced by amended provisions of the Act, could not have been granted to the respondents in view of judgment of Supreme Court in K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala, JT 1994(6) SC 182 : 1995(1) RRR 40 (SC). It was also submitted that since award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector prior to 1982 and even District Judge made his award prior to 1982, interest @ 9% and 15% was not admissible to the respondents. We are of the firm view that the judgment of Apex Court in Om Parkash Bhasin's case (supra) cannot be applied to the facts of this case at all. The contention of Mr. Dhillon can be accepted only to the extent that insofar as claimants of village Bamboowal are concerned, they shall not be entitled to additional interest @ 12% under Section 23(1-A) as the Land Acquisition Collector had given his award on a date when the bill for amendment had since not even been introduced and reference in their case came to be decided by the learned Additional District judge before the amendment received assent of the President of India on September 24, 1984. We would like to mention here that during the course of arguments, when confronted with the settled position of law on the issue, Mr. Dhillon had to concede that it is only the claimants from village Bamboowal, who shall not be entitled to additional amount of 12% interest under Section 23(1-A) whereas the claimants from village Sunderpur shall be entitled to the benefits of amended provisions of Sections 23 (1-A), 23(2) and 28 and claimants from village Bamboowal would be entitled to the benefits of amended provisions of Sections 23(2) and 28. This proposition could not be controverted even by counsel for the claimants.;