KOKJE, J. - (1.) THESE appeals arise out of a common appellate judgment of a learned Single Judge pronounced in 14 cases deciding 14 appeals of the Union of India against enhancement of compensation, grant of Solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 15% p. a. by the Reference Court in compliance with Section 23 (2) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as the Act ). The appeals were disposed of by the learned Single Judge by a common order and therefore the appeals were heard together by a Division Bench of Hon'ble Justice Shri B. J. Shethna and Hon'ble Justice A. K. Singh. The learned Judges did not agree on certain points and therefore they delivered their separate opinions. Hon'ble Sh. B. J. Shethna, J. was of the opinion that the appeal should be partly allo-wed only to the extent that the order passed by the learned Civil Judge in all references awarding interest at the rate of 12% p. a. under Sec. 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act and confirmed in the Regular First Appeal by the learned Single Judge be set aside and the direction for enhancement of compensation amount from Rs. 8000/-to 9000/-per bigha and awarding interest at the rate of 15% p. a. and solatium at the rate of 30% p. a. which was confirmed by the learned Single Judge in the first appeals be confirmed. Hon'ble Sh. A. K. Singh, J. , however, was of the opinion that the appeals deserve to be partly allowed, the orders passed by the learned Civil Judge granting benefit of Sections 23 (1-A), 23 (2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act to the claimants and judgment of the learned Single Judge uphold-ing the award giving benefit of Section 23 (1-A) and 23 (2) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 deserve to be set aside. Thus, the difference of opinion is on the point of applicability of Sec. 23 (2) and Sec. 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended to the case. Hon'ble B. J. Shethna, J. was of the opinion that the provisions did apply, but Hon'ble A. K. Singh, J. was of the view that the provisions did not apply to the case. As there was difference of opinion between the Judges of the Division Bench, the matter has been referred to me under Rule 61-A of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Rules, 1952, by the Hon'ble Chief Justice.
(2.) IT would be necessary to first set out the relevant provisions of law on the basis of which the difference is to be resolved. The Bill to amend the Land Acquisi-tion Act, 1894 to incorporate the amended Sections 23 (1-A), 23 (2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act was introduced on 30th day of April, 1982. The Bill became an Act on 24. 09. 1984. Obviously, the result of the time taken in the Legislative process was that it was known to all concerned from 30. 04. 1982 that on the conversion of the Bill into an Act, the interest and solatium will be avai-lable at a higher rate to the claimants of compensation. People were bound to suffer because of the awards being passed in their cases before the Bill became the Act and their reference cases being decided during this period. Likewise some claimants would stand to benefit by successfully stalling the proceedings in order to see that the awards are passed and references are decided only after the bill became the Act. To avoid this, the Legislature in its wisdom enacted Section 30 in the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 by which amended Sections 23 (1-A), 23 (2) and 28 were brought into existence. IT would be necessary to reproduce Section 23 (2) and Section 28 of the Act as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 as also Section 30 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. " Section 23 (2):-In addition to the market-value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of (thirty per centum) on such market-value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. Section 28:-Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess com-pensation:-If the sum which, in the opinion of the Court, the Collector ought to have awarded as compensation is in excess of the sum, which the Collector did award as compensation,the award of the Court may direct that the Collector shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of (nine per centum), per annum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Court. Provided that the award of the Court may also direct that where such excess or any part thereof is paid in to Court after the date of expiry of a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into Court before the date of such expiry. Section 30: Transitional provisions - (1) The provisions of sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 of the Principal Act, as inserted by clause (a) of Section 15 of this Act, shall apply, and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation to,- (a) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the Principal Act pending on the 30th day of April. 1982 (the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, in the House of the People), in which no award has been made by the Collector before that date; (b) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the Principal Act commenced after that date,whether or not an award has been made by the Collector before the date of commencement of this Act. (2) The provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 23 and Section 28 of the Principal Act, as amended by clause (b) of Section 15 and Section 18 of this Act respectively, shall apply, and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation to, any award made by the Collector or Court or any order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court in appeal against any such award under the provisions of the Principal Act after 30th day of April, 1982 (the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, in the House of the People) and before the commencement of this Act. (3) The provisions of Section 34 of the Principal Act, as amended by Section 20 of this Act, shall apply,and shall be deemed to have applied,also to, and in relation to,- (a) every case in which possession of any land acquired under the Principal Act has been taken before the 30th day of April, 1982 (the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, in the House of the People) and the amount of compensation for such acquisition had not been paid or deposited under Section 31 of the Principal Act until such date, with effect on and from that date; and (b) every case in which such possession has been taken on or after that date but before the commencement of this Act without the amo-nt of compensation having been paid or deposited under the said Sec. 31, with effect on and from the date of taking such possession. A close reading of the aforesaid provisions would show that the amended Sections 23 (2) and 28 of the Principal Act, 1894 shall apply and shall be deemed to have applied also to any award made by the Collector or Court or to any order pas-sed by the High Court or Supreme Court in appeal against any such award after 30th day of April 1982 and before 24. 09. 1984. In the cases in hand, the award of the Collector was passed in the year 1979-80 well before 30. 04. 1982. The references arising out of the awards were decided by the Civil Court in the year 1991. Thus in the year 1991 when the references were decided by the Civil Court,section 23 (2) and Section 28 as amended by the Amendment Act 1984 were in force. The word `court' used in Section 23 of the Act is defined by Section 3 (d) of the Act to mean a Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction unless the approp-riate Govt. has appointed as it is empowered to do, a special judicial officer within any specified local limits to perform the functions of the Court under the Act. The Civil Judge Ganganagar was therefore the `court' for the purpose of Section 23 of the Act and Section 23 (2) as amended by the Amending Act of 1984 providing for solatium at the rate of 30% on market value and Section 28 containing the provision for award of 15% interest was in force on the date on which the references were decided by the Reference Court, the Court was clearly bound by law which existed on the date of its decision and therefore the Civil Judge, Ganganagar who decided the reference in the year 1991 was bound to award solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 15% p. a. as provided by Section 23 (2) and Section 28 of the Act in force at the time of deciding the reference. To my mind in the facts of the case, the position is so clear that no decision is required to be cited or required to be considered for deciding the case. The confusion which led to difference of opinion seems to have arisen because of undue attention given to Section 30 of the Amending Act of 1984 and the rulings of the Supreme Court on the point. Section 30 (2) of the Amending Act of 1984 confers the benefit of amendment also on claimants in whose cases awards are made by the Collector or Court or orders are passed by the High Court or Supreme Court in appeal against such awards between 30th April 1982 and 24. 09. 84. This has led to the mistaken belief that the benefit of the Amend-ment would not be available to claimants in whose cases awards are made by the Collector or Court or orders are passed by the High Court or the Supreme Court in appeal against such awards passed after 24. 09. 84. It will be ridiculous to hold that the benefits which were given by the Amending Act would cease to be available immediately after the amendment comes into effect and would only be available between the period from the date the Amending Bill was introduced and the date on which the Amending Act came into force. Obviously, Section 30 of the Amending Act deals with transitional provisions and it only provided as to what would happen in the interregnum between the introduction of the Amending Bill and coming into force of the Amending Act. The intention of enacting transitional provision cannot be that the benefits of the amendments would not be available from the time the Act comes into force. In my opinion therefore the Amended provisions of Section 23 (2) and 28 would apply to the case and the Civil Judge, Ganganagar, the Reference Court was right in awarding solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 15% p. a. The learned Single Judge has rightly held so. I am aware that on the basis of the view taken by me even the agreed decision of the two Hon'ble Judges that Section 23 (1-A) of the Act, as amended,would not be applicable to the case, can be faulted, but since only the points of difference between the Hon'ble Judges of the Division Bench have to be resolved by the third Judge to whom the matter is referred, I have no authority to pronounce on the applicability or otherwise of Section 23 (1-A) of the Act. In the result I agree with the order proposed by Hon'ble Justice Sh. B. J. Shethna though for entirely different reasons and express my inability to agree with the view taken by Hon'ble Justice A. K. Singh. In terms of the Rule 61-A of the Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952, in view of my agreeing with the order proposed by Hon'ble Justice B. J. Shethna, the appeals have to be partly allowed in terms of the decision of Hon'ble Justice B. J. Shethna. . ;