Punjab Urban Development Authority v. Naunihal Singh & Ors.

Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the land owners in RFA No. 4439

2003. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 4438 and 4439 of 2003, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. These appeals are arising out of award dated 4.4.2003 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide which the reference petition under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') was allowed. Briefly, the facts are that the land situated in village Phullanwal, Tehsil and District Ludhiana was subjected to acquisition vide notification dated 11.12.1974, issued under Section 4 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') announced award No. 349 on 28.3.1976. The land owners did not file any application for reference under Section 18 of the Act. However, one Mal Singh filed an application for reference under Section 18 of the Act, which was referred to the Additional District Judge, who vide award dated 12.1.1998 enhanced the compensation to ` 50,000/- per acre. The land owners then filed application under Section 28A of the Act and the Collector passed an award in their R.F.A. No. 4438 of 2003 [2] favour on 10.12.2000. Aggrieved against the said award, the land owners preferred petition under Section 28A(3) of the Act for reference to the District Judge claiming interest @ 9% for the first year of taking possession and @ 15% per annum for subsequent period, solatium @ 30% and 12% additional market value from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act, along with interest on solatium. Dissatisfied with the award of the learned court below, the beneficiary of the acquisition, i.e., Punjab Urban Development Authority preferred the present appeals. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the court below has wrongly granted the benefits to the land owners as per the provisions of the Act, as amended in the year 1984 on the ground that award in the case of the land owners was passed by the Collector in the year 2000. It was submitted that date of passing of award in the present case by the Collector under Section 28A of the Act is not the relevant date for the purpose of grant of benefits under the amended Act as the original award at the time of acquisition of the land was passed by the Collector on

28.3.1976, i.e., much prior to the amendment of the Act in the year 1984. The land owners were, in fact, entitled to the statutory benefits in terms of the provisions contained in the Act prior to the amendment. On the other hand, learned counsel for the land owners submitted that under the provisions of the Act, the only thing mentioned is the award of the Collector. The award can either be under Section 18 or under Section 28A of the Act. Once in the case of the present land owners, the award under Section 28A has been passed by the Collector after the amendment of the Act, the learned court below has rightly granted the benefits under the amended provisions of the Act to the land owners. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. In the present case, the landowners filed petition under Section 28A of the Act after the award of the court in petition under Section 18 of the Act, vide which the compensation was enhanced. The learned court below granted the benefits under the provisions of the amended Act of 1984 on the ground that the award was passed by the Collector on 10.12.2000. The finding of the learned court below is erroneous as the original award was passed by the Collector on 28.3.1976, i.e., much prior to the date of R.F.A. No. 4438 of 2003 [3] amendment, i.e., 6.8.1984. The date of passing of award under Section 28A of the Act is not relevant for the purpose of granting benefits of amended provisions. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Filip Tiago De Gama, (1990) 1 SCC 277 held that the amended Section 23(2) is not retrospective in operation. Similar view has been expressed in Stanes Higher Secondary School v. Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition) Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 319 and Prem Chand and others v. Union of India, 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 622. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a recent judgment in V. Ramakrishna Rao v. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. and another, 2010 (6) Recent Apex Judgments 389 held that the court shall bear in mind that a person who has not sought reference under Section 18 of the Act cannot get compensation higher than the one payable to those who had sought reference under that section. Relevant para of the said judgment is extracted below: “If sub-section (3) of Section 28A is interpreted keeping in view the object sought to be achieved by enacting the provision for removing inequality in the matter of payment of compensation, it must be held that a person who is not satisfied with an award made under section 28A(2) can make an application to the Collector under Section 28A (3) for making a reference to the court as defined in Section 3(d) of the Act and this right cannot be frustrated merely because as a result of re- determination made under Section 28A(2) read with Section 28 (1) the applicant becomes entitled to receive compensation at par with other land owners. There is nothing in the plain language of Section 28A(3) from which it can be inferred that a person who has not accepted the award made under Section 28A(2) is precluded from making an application to the Collector with the request to refer the matter to the court. Of course, the court to which reference is made under Section 28A (3) will have to bear in mind that a person who has not sought reference under Section 18 cannot get compensation higher than the one payable to those who had sought reference under that Section.” R.F.A. No. 4438 of 2003 [4] In the present case, the original award was passed on

28.3.1976, the land owners moved application under Section 28A of the Act after the award of the reference court dated 12.1.1998 and on the said application, the Collector passed the order on 10.12.2000 re-determining the amount of compensation payable to the respondents. The date of passing of the order by the Collector in the case of the landowners under Section 28A of the Act would not be relevant for the purpose of consideration of their claim for grant of benefits under the amended provisions of the Act, as the relevant date would always remain when the award is announced by the Collector for the first time when notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act are issued and the award under Section 11 of the Act is passed and the acquisition proceedings concluded. Rights given to a land owner under Section 28A of the Act is a kind of concession given to those land owners who could not approach the court initially. They have also been given parity in payment of compensation. It is re-determination of compensation as otherwise even in the case of the land owners in the present case the compensation had already been determined by the Collector, when the award was initially announced. For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned award of the learned court below is set aside to the extent whereby the land owners have been held entitled to benefits under the amended provisions of the Act. However, it is made clear that they shall be entitled to get the benefits in terms of un-amended provisions of the Act. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge

13.12.2010 (Refer to Reporter)