Judgment

M.H. KANIA, J.

(1) LEAVE granted. Counsel heard.

(2) AS the controversy before us is a limited one and relates only to the question of granting of benefit of the provisions of S. 23 (1-A) introduced into the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, (referred to hereinafter as "the Amendment Act of 1984") only a few facts are necessary for the appreciation of the submissions made before us.

(3) THIS appeal, arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14297 of 1990 by special leave, is directed against the judgment of a division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1251 of 1987. The other appeals before us are connected appeals filed by the Union of India or the claimants. The respondent was the owner of a piece of land in one of the villages in District Bhatinda in Punjab. Land admeasuring 74,375 acres situated in various villages in Bhatinda District including the land of the respondent was acquired by the appellants under the said Act.

(4) THE Notifications under S. 4 and 6 of the said Act were published on 10/05/1979 and 27/03/1981, respectively. The Special Land Collector made and declared his award of compensation in respect of the acquisition of the said land and several other plots of land on 31/03/1981. Being aggrieved by the said award, the respondent and other landowners filed reference applications under S. 18 of the said Act which were decided by the learned District Judge concerned in 1985 and 1986. The land acquired was classified into various grades and compensation awarded accordingly. In the case before us and several other similar cases the benefits under S. 23 (1-A) of the said Act were granted to the land owners. The State appealed to the High court. In several other cases where the land owners were not satisfied with the compensation awarded, including the cases where the benefits conferred by S. 23(1-A) were not awarded the land owners filed appeals before the High court.

(5) WHAT is relevant for our purpose is that a learned Single Judge of . the High court confirmed the grant of benefits under S. 23(1-A) of the said Act where such benefits had been granted by the learned District Judge and awarded the same where that had not been done by the learned District Judge. Letters patent appeals were filed by the State being dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

(6) IT was submitted on behalf of the Union of India before the Division bench deciding the letters patent appeals that the claimants/land owners were not entitled to the benefit of S. 23 (1-A) of the said Act introduced by the said Amendment Act, 1984 as aforestated. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that the right to get additional amount at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of Notification under S. 4 of the said Act and till the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession whichever is earlier conferred under the provisions of S. 23 (1-A) of the said Act was available only in cases where the Collector made his award after 30/04/1982, being the date of the introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982 in the House of the People, whereas in the present case, the Collector had made his award on March 31, 1981. Reliance was placed on the judgment of a full bench of the Punjab and Haryana High court in State of Punjab v. Krishan Lal The division bench repelled this contention and pointed out that the learned chief justice H.N. Seth, who spoke for the full bench in Krishan Lal case had explained that judgment in the subsequent decision rendered in Maya Devi v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and pointed out that the land owner was entitled to the additional amount in terms of S. 23 (1-A) of the Amendment Act of 1984 if the proceedings for determination of compensation were