1986 Supreme(Cal) 393

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Chittotosh Mookerjee & Susanta Chatterjee, JJ.
Panchanan Bhowmick
vs.
State of West Bengal
And
Makhanlal Koley
vs.
State of West Bengal
Civil Revision No. 2700 of 1986 and No. 2701 of 1986
Decided On: September 22, 1986

The provisions of the amended s. 23(2) and s.28 of the Land Acquisition Act would be applicable to all orders and judgments of the Land Acquisition Judge, High Court, and the Supreme Court delivered between 30th April, 1982, and the commencement of the Amending Act irrespective of the fact whether the award by the Collector or the Court was made before or after 30th April, 1982.

Headnote:

LAND ACQUISITION - SECTION 7(2)(A), 8(2) - WEST BENGAL LAND (REQUISITION AND ACQUISITION) ACT 1948 (WEST BENGAL ACT 2 OF 1948) - SECTION 23(2), 28 - LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894 - REVIEW - ORDER 47, RULE 1 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - COMPENSATION - STATUTORY ALLOWANCE - INTEREST - AMENDMENT - LAND ACQUISITION (AMENDMENT) ACT 1984 (ACT 68 OF 1984) - APPLICABILITY - COURT'S DUTY.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners claimed to be persons interested in respect of certain plots in mouza Hasia, P.S. Jagaddal district 24 Parganas which were requisitioned under s. 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act 1948 (West Bengal Act 2 of 1948) and later acquired for construction of Barrackpore Kalyani Expressway. The Land Acquisition Collector made an award under s. 7(2) of the West Bengal Act 2 of 1948 determining compensation. Aggrieved, the petitioners made applications under s. 8(1) of the Act requiring the matter of compensation to be referred to the court. The Additional Special Land Acquisition Judge, 3rd Court Alipore, enhanced the market values of the acquired lands and ordered 6% recurring compensation and 15% statutory allowance. The petitioners filed review applications alleging that the Judge had committed errors apparent on the face of the record in not awarding statutory allowance and interest at the rates provided respectively in s. 23(2) and s.28 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984 (Act 68 of 1984) which had come into force on 24th September, 1984. The Additional District Judge, 9th Court, Alipore, dismissed the review applications. Hence, the present revisional applications.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Additional Special Land Acquisition Judge had committed an error apparent on the face of the record by not awarding statutory allowance and interest at the rates specified in s. 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984. The court further held that the provisions of the amended s. 23(2) and s.28 of the Land Acquisition Act would be applicable to all orders and judgments of the Land Acquisition Judge, High Court, and the Supreme Court delivered between 30th April, 1982, and the commencement of the Amending Act irrespective of the fact whether the award by the Collector or the Court was made before or after 30th April, 1982. Accordingly, the court allowed the revisional applications, set aside the order of the Additional District Judge, and directed the Additional Special Land Acquisition Judge to dispose of the review applications of the petitioners.

Issues: Whether the Additional Special Land Acquisition Judge had committed an error apparent on the face of the record by not awarding statutory allowance and interest at the rates specified in s. 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following principles: (i) A court's failure to apply the provisions of an enactment which on the face of it would apply to a case would be a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. (ii) Retrospective amendment of law is a sufficient ground for review of a judgment which was rendered before the said retrospective amendment of law was published in the Official Gazette. (iii) Where a subsequent Act and the previous Act are supplemental to each other, or where two Acts are pari materia, or where amendment of the previous Act if not imported into the subsequent Act would render the subsequent Act wholly unworkable and ineffectual, or where the amendment of the previous Act either expressly or by necessary intendment applies the said provisions to the subsequent Act, the incorporated provision survives even if the previous Act is repealed, amended, declared a nullity, or erased from the statute book. (iv) The provisions of the amended s. 23(2) and s.28 of the Land Acquisition Act would be applicable to all orders and judgments of the Land Acquisition Judge, High Court, and the Supreme Court delivered between 30th April, 1982, and the commencement of the Amending Act irrespective of the fact whether the award by the Collector or the Court was made before or after 30th April, 1982.

Final Decision: The court allowed the revisional applications, set aside the order of the Additional District Judge, and directed the Additional Special Land Acquisition Judge to dispose of the review applications of the petitioners.