ORDER :

Doraiswamy Raju, J.

The above appeal has been filed against the order of a division bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dated 23.5.1988 in civil miscellaneous No. 3233 of 1987 in LPA No. 872 of 1981.

2. The lands of the respondent have been originally requisitioned for a public purpose in December 19, 1965 and subsequently acquired under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 itself under a notification dated 4.2.1972.

3. The special land acquisition collector passed an order dated 15.3.1972 fixing the compensation of the acquired land since the respondent was not satisfied, he sought for a reference and the same was referred to the statutory arbitrator in terms of Section 8(1)(b) of the Act. It may be noticed that the said arbitrator was the learned senior subordinate judge, Faridkot and he came to pass the award on 26.5.1979.

4. Aggrieved against the award passed on the said reference both parties seems to have pursued the matter before the High Court and a learned single judge of the High Court came to dispose of the appeal on 26.3.1981. On further appeal invoking the powers of letters patent, the appeals were also disposed of on 21.12.1982.

5. While matters stood thus, the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, came into force on 24.9.1984. Section 30 of the Amendment Act which enacted a transitional provision, applied the amendments introduced by sections 15 and 18 of the Amendment Act to sections 23 and 26 of the main Act to certain proceedings which came to be disposed of between 30.4.1982 and 24.9.1984, subject to certain conditions stipulated therein.

6. Taking advantage of the amendments, and that too long after the disposal of the L.P.A., i.e., almost five years later, the respondent moved an application invoking powers under Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Section 30 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 seeking for an amendment of the judgment dated 21.12.1982 and for granting him relief declaring him entitled to solatium at 30% instead of 15% on the principal sum awarded and interest @ 9% for the first year and thereafter @ 15% from the date of possession to the date of payment.

7. The division bench has chosen to countenance the claim, necessitating the above appeal in this Court.

8. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.

9. We are of the view that having regard to the provision contained in Section 30 and the point of time when the special land acquisition collector- cum-competent authority determined the compensation and the reference court/arbitrator decided the claims finally, the question of applying the provisions of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 does not arise at all. Such a view has been taken by this Court in K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors. as well as Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh (Dead) by Lrs. etc. even in respect of matters arising directly under the Land Acquisition Act.

10. Therefore, in our view the High Court committed a serious error in allowing the claim under the Amendment Act without properly appreciating the satisfaction of the essential prerequisites to be satisfied for availing of such benefits. The pendency of the proceedings in the High Court or its disposal on a particular date has been held by this Court to be wholly irrelevant, having regard to the specific mandate of Section 30 of the Amendment Act. The further error committed was to countenance such claims in the purported exercise of powers under Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Section 30 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, which could not really tenure for being entertained to alter the earlier judgment, finally disposing of the appeals.

11. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the order of the High Court dated 23.5.1988 is set aside. Parties shall bear their respective costs.