IMPORTANT POINT
Where award under Land Acquisition Act was passed prior to amendment of Section 25 and reference proceedings also stood completed prior to amendment, Court cannot grant compensation more than what was claimed in reference.

JUDGMENT

Misra, J.-This appeal raises two questions:

(A) Whether the High Court could at all have awarded the compensation exceeding the claim made by the owners in the reference. The claim being Rs.10,000/- per Bigha while the High Court awarded @ Rs. 11/- per sq.yd.

(B) Whether the High Court was right in awarding interest @ 9% and 15% to the respondent-land owners in a case where the award was rendered on 27.12.77 and the reference order was also passed on 28.2.1981.

2. In order to appreciate the controversy we are hereunder giving essential matrix of facts. The appellant desiring to establish mandi and its office complex, sent the proposal to the Special Land Acquisition Officer in which acquisition of certain compact land falling in villages, namely, Sangrampur and Kasba Khair both in Tehsil and Pargana District, Aligarh. Accordingly a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 28.5.1976. Invoking the urgency clause under Section 17(1) possession of the land was taken on 28.8.1976. Award was made by the said Special Land Acquisition Officer on 27.12.1977. By this he awarded the market value of the land, as agricultural land @ Rs. 5159/- per acre, having Parata rate of Rs. 4.43 per acre. The respondent -land owner preferred reference under Section 18 which concluded by an award dated 28.2.1981 under which market value @ Rs. 3/- per square yard was fixed with solatium at 15% and interest at 6% per annum. Aggrieved by this the appellant filed an appeal in the High Court for restoration of the order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer while respondent-land owner preferred cross-objection for further enhancement of the compensation. The appellant raised three questions before the High Court :

(1) The reference application moved by the respondent-land owners was beyond the period of limitation.

(2) The reference application moved under Section 18 of the Act was non-maintainable as several persons, having separate and distinct interest, had joined together therein.

(3) The market value determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was just and adequate and the reference court ought not to have enhanced compensation.

3. As against this respondent-land owners in their cross-objections sought for a higher rate of market value and assailed the impugned order on the ground that the assessment of market value was on much lower side. The High Court on the first question raised, held that the reference was filed within the period of limitation and on second question held that the reference was not incompetent because of several persons having joined. On third question read with cross-objections of the respondent-land owners enhanced the rate of compensation from Rs.3/- per square yard to Rs.11/- per square yard.

4. Now, he proceed to take up the questions raised by the appellant. Submission with reference to the first question is, in view of the Section 25 as it stood then, the High Court should not have enhanced the compensation over and above what is claimed by the land owners.

5. It is relevant to quote the then existing Section 25 under the aforesaid Act which is quoted hereunder :

"25. Rules as to amount of compensation.-

(1) When the applicant has made a claim to compensation, pursuant to any notice given under Section 9, the amount awarded to him by the Court shall not exceed the amount so claimed or be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11.

(2) When the applicant has refused to make such claim or has omitted sufficient reason (to be allowed by the judge) to make such claim, the amount awarded by the Court shall in no case exceed the amount awarded by the Collector.

(3) When the applicant has omitted for a sufficient reason (to be allowed by the judge) to make such claim, the amount awarded to him by the Court shall not be less than, and may exceed, the amount awarded by the Col