IMPORTANT POINT
Section 25 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is a substantive provision, the amended provision of Section 25 is not retrospective in effect.

JUDGMENT

Pattanaik, J.-These appeals are directed against the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 351 and 352 of 1989. The land in question measuring 3.42 acres was acquired for construction of houses for Tribals and Harijans by issuance of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, published on 9.6.1976. A second Notification was issued under said Section 4 to acquire an extent of 1.06 acres by publication of Notification dated 27.12.1976. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 11,000/- per acre by his award dated 31.2.1977. Before the Land Acquisition Officer, the land owners had claimed compensation @ Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per acre.  On a reference being made under Section 18 of the Act, the Civil Court determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs.75,000/- per acre, but granted compensation @ Rs. 30,000/- per acre in view of Section 25 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment in the year 1984 and as the owners had claimed @ Rs.30,000/- per acre. On appeal being carried, the learned Single Judge also came to the conclusion that the market value of the land would be Rs.75,000/- per acre, but did not enhance the compensation in view of the un-amended provisions of Section 25 of the Act and in view of the fact that the owners had claimed only Rs. 30,000/- per acre before the Land Acquisition Officer. The matter being carried to the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal, the Division Bench came to the conclusion that Section 25 being procedural in nature and the amendment having been made while the appeal was pending, the amended provisions of Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act would apply and since under the amended provisions, there is no bar for awarding compensation more than the amount claimed by the claimants and the only embargo being that the amount shall not be awarded less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11, the Court would be justified in enhancing the compensation if the market value is determined at a higher rate. On the question of determination of market value, the Division Bench, taking into consideration Exhibits B-3, B-4 and B-7, came to hold that the market value of the acquired land would be Rs. one lakh per acre. The appeals having been allowed with the aforesaid conclusions, the State is in appeal before this Court.

2. Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Division Bench of the High Court committed serious error in holding that Section 25 is procedural in nature and thereby applying the amended provisions of Section 25 of the Act. According to him, the provisions of Section 25 mandates the parameters within which the Court is required to determine the amount of compensation and the act of awarding of compensation or curtailing, restricting or adding to such right can never be held to be procedural in nature. According to the learned counsel the language itself reveals that it is substantive in nature and it has been so held by this Court in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti vs. Kanhaiya Lal and Others., Vol. 2000(7) SCC 756. That being the position, the substantive right of the party would be governed by the un-amended provisions of Section 25 of the Act. Consequently, it is urged that the claimants having claimed only Rs. 30,000/- per acre, the Court will not be entitled to grant compensation beyond the amount claimed. According to Mr. Prabhakar, the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court committed serious error of law, which has vitiated the ultimate conclusion.

3. Mr. P.P. Rao, the learned senior counsel appearing for the claimants-respondents on the other hand contended that the lawyer for the claimants without any authority from the claimants, made the application, even before the notice had been served on the claimants and in such an application, mentioned the claim at the rate of Rs.