IMPORTANT POINT
Although respondents - land holders claimants could claim and get compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 over and above what they claimed in an application seeking reference to civil court and are also entitled to the statutory benefit under Sections 23 and 28 as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 but the benefit under Section 23(1A) could not be extended to them.

JUDGMENT

P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.-In these appeals by Special leave preferred against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in a First Appeal, two questions arise for consideration : (1) whether the respondents - land holders could claim and get compensation under the Land Acquisition Act over and above what they claimed in an application seeking reference to Civil Court and (2) whether the respondents are entitled to the statutory benefits under Sections 23 and 28 as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act of 1984?

2. An extent of two bighas and 1 biswa equivalent to 6,201 sq. yards situated in the village of Jatwara Kalan of Ghaziabad District was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, starting with the publication of Notification under Section 4(1) on 18.8.1962. The acquisition was for the purpose of implementation of a scheme for planned development of Ghaziabad Municipal Area taken up by the then Improvement Trust, Ghaziabad - the appellant, being its successor. The declaration under Section 6 was made on 27th October, 1964, possession was taken on 22.12.1964 and the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Special Officer on 26.6.1967. The market value was fixed by him as low as Rs. 2 per sq. yard, evaluating it as agricultural land. Being dissatisfied with the same, an application was filed by the claimants seeking reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In that application, compensation was claimed at the rate of Rs.20 per sq. yard. Though the application is said to be ante dated in collusion with the then Land Acquisition Officer, there is no evidence to that effect. After the case was referred to the court of District Judge at Ghaziabad, the claimants filed a petition for amendment of the application dated 11.7.1967 seeking fixation of market value at Rs.100 per sq. yard instead of Rs.20. The same was allowed. The Reference Court by its judgment dated 31.5.1984 determined the market value at the rate of Rs. 40 per sq. yard and also awarded solatium at 15 per cent and interest at 6 per cent on the amount of compensation from the date of taking possession till the date of payment. Shortly thereafter, the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act (Act 68 of 1984) was enacted by the Parliament which, inter alia, amended Section 25, Section 23 and Section 28. By the latter two Sections, the rates of solatium and interest were enhanced and the benefit of additional amount of 12 per cent was also conferred. Section 25 was substituted so as to remove the bar against the award of compensation in excess of what was claimed pursuant to the notice issued under Section 9. Section 25 of the Act came into force from 24.9.1994. The amendment of two provisions viz., Sections 23 and 28 were given limited retrospective effect as mentioned in Section 30 of the amendment Act.

3. The claimants preferred an appeal in the High Court praying for further enhancement of compensation. The appellant herein also filed appeal questioning the enhancement of compensation by the Civil Court. The High Court by the impugned judgment dated 05.2.1993 allowed the appeal of the claimants partly by enhancing the market value to Rs. 85 per sq. yard, based on the judgment in a comparable case. The High Court directed solatium to be awarded at 30 per cent, and interest at the enhanced rates prescribed by the amended Section 28. The High Court also awarded an additional amount under Section 23 (1-A) at 12 per cent per annum on the market value determined by it commencing from 25th April, 1962 till the date of taking possession of the land. It may be stated that the appellant also filed an appeal questioning enhancement by the Reference Court. The appeal filed by the appellant was consequentially dismissed. It is against this judgment that these two appeals are preferred by the Ghaziabad Development Authority.

4. For the purpose of resolving the first question, we may refer to Section 25, before and after its amendment. As pe