VERMA, J. - (1.) -Since the aforesaid two writ petitions involve similar question of law and fact, the same are being decided by this single common order.
(2.) THE petitioner (hereinafter called as `riico') has filed the present writ petitions challenging the order of the Land Acquisition Officer (for short `lao') when vide Annexure 5 in both the writ petitions had exercised his jurisdiction on the application filed by the non-petitioners under Sec. 56 (8) & (9) of the Raj. Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called as `the Act' ). THE LAO had granted compensation at the rate of 12% per annum as required under Sec. 23 (1-A) and under Sec. 23 (2) in regard to the solatium under the Land Acquisition Act. The State Government had acquired certain land under Notification dated 18. 07. 1979 in village Jhalana Chod, Tehsil Sanganer, District, Jaipur. The Notification was issued under Sec. 6 of the Act. The Notification was published on 22. 06. 1982 after complying the mandatory provisions as required under the Act, the LAO had issued an Award in respect of the Land on 14. 05. 1984 and in respect of structure another Award was passed on 28. 11. 1985. A referen-ce was pending before the Reference Court and is still pending. However, non-petitioners in the year 1994 moved an application for claiming the compensation and solatium as provided under Sec. 23 (1-A) and Sec. 23 (2) of the Act and the additional interest thereon as permissible under Sec. 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. The application was opposed. However, the LAO did accept the application and awarded the enhanced amount of compensation and the solatium and added interest as well vide the impugned order dated 13. 02. 1996. The RIICO is aggrieved against the impugned order primary on the grounds:- 1. That the LAO once having announced the Award in the Year 1984 and 1985 had no power to entertain the application even for awarding the compensation and the solatium and additional interest as requi-red under Secs. 23 (1-A) & 23 (2) and Sec. 34 of the Land Acquisition Act which were inserted in the Act by way of amendment in the year 1984 and so far in Rajasthan the provisions were inserted in the year 1987 with retrospective effect. 2. That in any case the LAO had become functituous officio and had lost his jurisdiction, and 3. That if any relief was to be awarded, the non-petitioners should have moved the Reference Court where the matter in regard to the enhancement was pending. The contention raised by the petitioner has no merit in view of the amen-ded Rajasthan Act of 1953 where in sub-sections (8) & (9) of Sec. 56 make it cleat that for awarding such compensation, solatium and interest as being claimed by the petitioners in the present cases, it is the Collector who has jurisdiction to entertain the application. Sec. 56 (8) and (9) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act reads as under: "56 Provision consequential to the extension of this Act to the State of Rajasthan- (1) Consequent on this Act having been extended to the State of Rajasthan on the 24th day of September, 1984, hereinafter referred to as the date of extension, the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act 24 of 1953), hereinafter referred to as the State Act, shall be deemed to have been repealed on the date of extension. (8) In a proceeding where the amount of compensation has been determined before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 1987, whether by the Collector or by the court the amount in addition to the market value of the land is specified in sub-section (1-A) and Sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 23 shall be further paid, after adjustment of any sum paid earlier under the said sub-sections, by the Collector to the persons to whom compensation was payable or paid. These amounts shall be payable in every proceedings and in regard to every award as specified in sub-section (1) and (2) of Sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition (Amend-ment) Act, 1984 (68 of 1984 ). (9) Where in the case as specified in sub-sections (2) and (3) of Sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (68 of 1984) interest is payable or has been paid under Sec. 28 or Sec. 34, the amount of such interest shall be re-determined and paid after the adjustment of sum paid earlier under the said sections by the Collector at the respective rates specified in and in accordance with the provisions of the said sections as amended by the said Act," Counsel also relies on a single Bench judgment of this court as reported in Raghuveer Singh vs. Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur and another (1), wherein almost in the similar circumstances as mentioned in para 5 of the judgment it was held that it was the Collector who was required under sub-Sec. (8) of Sec. 56 of the Act to pay the additional amount. "the question is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the payment of the amount of interest u/s. 34 upto the date of payment or not? Sub-sections (8) and (9) of in the said Act after Sec. 55 by the Rajasthan Amendment Act which have already been extracted in the earlier part of this order. As per sub-Sec. (3) of Sec. 55 by the Rajasthan Amendment Act which have already been extracted in the earlier part of this order. As per sub-Section (3) of the Section 1 of the Rajasthan Amendment Act the said Act came into force on January 3, 1987. Under Sub-Sec. (8) of Sec. 56 of the Central Act in all cases where the amount of compensation has been determined before the commencement of the Rajasthan Amendment Act i. e. , before January 3, 1987, whether by the Collector or by the Court, the amount in addition to the market value of the land specified in Sub-Sec. (1-A) and Sub-section (2) of Sec. 23 has to be further paid after adjustment of any sum paid earlier under the said sub-sections by the Collector to the persons to whom compensation was payable or paid. These amounts shall be every award as specified in sub-Sec. (1) and (2) of Sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (68 of 1984 ). Therefore, even if the court would have disposed of the reference pending before it, in this case it has not been disposed of, it was the Collector who was required under Sub-Sec. (8) of Sec. 56 of the Central Act to pay the additional amount under sub-section (1-A) of Sec. 23 of the Central Act. Therefore, notwithstanding in this case that the award under the State Act had been made on June 29, 1983, the provisions of Sub-Sec. (8) and (9) of Sec. 56 of the Central Act will be attracted and the claimant had a right to file an application before the Collector for payment of the additional amount under the aforesaid provisions. But it could only be done. If the proceedings were pending on April, 30 1982, the date of introduction of the Amendment Bill of 1982 and if the proceedings were not pending on the aforesaid date then the provisions of Sub-Sec. (8) and (9) of Sec. , 56 of the Central Act could not have been attracted. In the instant case, as already sta-ted earlier, a notification under Sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 4 was only issued on January 13, 1982 and possession of the land was taken on May 24, 1982. Award was made on June 29,1983. Therefore, the proceedings under the State Act were pending on April 30, 1982 as aforesaid and the provisions of sub-Sec. (9) of Sec. 56 of the Central Act where in the cases as specified in sub-sections (2) and (3) of Sec. 30 of the Act of 1984 (68 of 1984) interest is payable or has been paid under Sec. 28 or Sec. 34, the amount of such interest shall be redeterminated and paid after adjustment of any sum paid earlier under the said sections by the Collector at the respective rates specified in and in accordance with the provisions of the said sections as amended by the said Act. Therefore, in all such cases in which the acquisition proceedings were pending under the State Act on April 30 1982, though the award might not have been made before the Central Act was extended to the State of Rajasthan on September 24, 1984, intere-st will have to be paid under Sec. 34 of the Central Act to the Claimant. In the instant case it does not appear to have been disputed that the interest is payable and that is why the Officer on Special duty on the application of the claimant, and because it was not contested on behalf of the Rajasthan Housing Board, allowed the interest under Sec. 34. " Even otherwise if the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted for the sake of argument that application should have only been moved in the court where reference was pending, it would amount to the same result,i. e. it would have been mandatory for the reference court to have awarded compensa-tion what claimed by the petitioner from the date it was due,i. e. from the date the possession was taken and the result would have been the same and no prejudice in any case, could have been caused to the petitioner if the LAO had entertained the application to which, in my opinion, the LAO had complete power having been so authorised under Sub-Sec. (8) and (9) of Sec. 56 (ibid ). Sec. 56 authorises the Collector and in the present case the LAO to entertain the application and act and order for payment of compensation under Sec. 23 (1-A) and (2) read with Sec. 34 and, therefore, no illegality has been committed by the LAO in passing the impugned order Annexure 5.
(3.) FOR the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed at admis-sion stage. There will be no order as to costs. .;