Back
1996 Supreme(AP) 58
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.K.SOMASEKHARA
Special Deputy Collector, L.A.cum LOC Unit, Pochampadu - Appellant
Versus
Chakali Linga - Respondent
Decided On : 02-02-96
The doctrine of merger applies to the decisions of the courts of the lowest hierarchy in the decisions of the courts of the higher and the highest hierarchy.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION ACT - SECTIONS 23 (1-A) AND 30 - RETROACTIVITY - AWARDS PASSED BY COURT BETWEEN CUT-OUT DATES - REVIEW AWARD - DOCTRINE OF MERGER - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The claimants' lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, and awards were passed by the Court on 31-3-1979. On their review petitions, modified awards were passed on 31-12-1983. They claimed benefits under sections 23 (1 -A) and 30 of the Amended Act 68/84, which came into force on 24-9-1984, viz., enhanced solatium, interest, and 12% additional compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the review award passed on 31-12-1983, which was within the cut-out dates, should be taken as the award by the court for the purpose of extending the benefits of the amended Act to the respondent. The Court also held that the doctrine of merger applies to the decisions of the courts of the lowest hierarchy in the decisions of the courts of the higher and the highest hierarchy.
Issues: 1. Whether the awards passed by the court between the cut-out dates - 30-4-1982 and 24-9-1984 are entitled to the benefits of the Amended Act? 2. Whether the review award passed on 31-12-1983 can be considered as the award by the court for the purpose of extending the benefits of the Amended Act to the respondents? 3. Whether the order of the Sub Judge, in revision warrants interference by this court under Section 115 of C. P. C?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The benefit of enhanced interest and solatium under the Amendment Act can be awarded only to awards rendered by the collector or Civil Courts during the cut-out dates - 30-4-1982 and 24-9-1984 and for no other date subject to the limitations stated in the precedents. 2. The review award passed on 31-12-1983, which was within the cut-out dates, should be taken as the award by the court for the purpose of extending the benefits of the amended Act to the respondent. 3. The doctrine of merger applies to the decisions of the courts of the lowest hierarchy in the decisions of the courts of the higher and the highest hierarchy.
Final Decision: The revision petitions were dismissed.
( 1 ) THESE matters emanate from the common order of the learned Sub Judge, nizamabad dated 7-2-1992 in LA Nos. 602/91 and batch in O. P. No. 1154/77 and batch. The exuding similar questions in controversies are heard on merits and disposed of here in with this common judgment as proposed by both the parties.
( 2 ) THESE are the uncontroverted facts:
( 3 ) THE respondents are the claimants in the batch of cases. Their lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act , and awards were passed by the Court on 31-3-1979. On their review petitions, modified awards were passed on 31-12-1983. They claimed benefits under sections 23 (1 -A) and 30 of the Amended Act 68/84, hereinafter referred to as the Amended act which came into force on 24-9-1984, viz. , enhanced solatium, interest and 12% additional compensation. The Land Acquisition Officer opposed it. The learned Sub Judge allowed the applications and granted the benefits as claimed.
( 4 ) MS. Malathi, the learned Assistant government Pleader has contended that the impugned order is against the settled law by the supreme Court in Union of India v. Raghubir singh (1) AIR 1989 SC 1933, K. S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala (2) AIR 1992 sc 1488 and K. S. Paripoornan v. State of kerala (3) (1994)5 SCC 593. Her specific contention is that as per the settled law by the apex court, the retro-activity of the Amendment act extends to only the pending proceedings before the Court as on the date of coming into force of the Act and on 24-9-84. When the amendment Act came into force and when the awards not passed between the cut out dates namely 30-4-82 and 24-9-84 and as the awards in the cases were passed on 31-3-79 before 30-4-82 no such benefits could be conferred on them. She postulates that the award dated 31-12-83 passed onreview, only amended the earlier awards in regard to compensation for fruit bearing trees etc. , and not fresh awards as the other benefits awarded were kept intact.
( 5 ) MR. Prabhakar Rao, the learned advocate for the respondents could not successfully press back the first contention supra in view of the pronouncement of the supreme Court in K. S. Paripoornan s case (3 supra), but contends that the review award being the final decision on the claims having the effect of clearing the earlier award within the cut-out dates entitle the claimantsfor the benefits of the Amendment Act.
( 6 ) THREE questions arose for determination in view of the controversies between the parties (1) What is the settled law regarding the retro- activity by virtue of Section 23 (1 -A) and 30 of the Amendment Act? (2) Whether the awards dated 31-12-83 passed inreview of the awards can be considered as the awards of the court passed between the cut-out dates viz. ,30-4-82 and 24-9-84 for the purpose of the benefits of the Amendment Act to the respondents and (3) whether the order of the Sub Judge, inrevision warrants interference by this court under Section 115 of C. P. C?
( 7 ) THE question under Point No. 1 is no longer res Integra or vexed one in view of the latest authoritative dictum of the Supreme Court in Paripoornan s case (3 supra) as rightly contended by Ms. Malathi the learned Assistant govemment Pleader. The precedents leading to it are: union of India v. Raghubir singh (1 supra) k. S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala (2 supra) k. S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala (3 supra) and Union of India v. Zora Singh (4) 1991 (4) JT5 38 = (1992) 1 SCC673 raghubir Singh s case (1) is by a Five judge Constitutional Bench. The effect of amending Sections 23 (1-A) and 30 of the amending Act regarding enhancement of solatium from 15% to 30%, the Supreme Court said:". . . . There can be no doubt that the benefit of the enhanced solatium is intended by section 30 (2) in respect of an award made by the Collector between 30 April, 1982 and 24 September 1984. Likewise the benefit of the enhanced solatium is extended by Section 30 (2) to the ca
