Honble KOKJE, J.–These appeals arise out of a common appellate judgment of a learned Single Judge pronounced in 14 cases deciding 14 appeals of the Union of India against enhancement of compensation, grant of Solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 15% p.a. by the Reference Court in compliance with Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as the Act). The appeals were disposed of by the learned Single Judge by a common order and therefore the appeals were heard together by a Division Bench of Honble Justice Shri B.J. Shethna and Honble Justice A.K. Singh. The learned Judges did not agree on certain points and therefore they delivered their separate opinions. Honble Sh. B.J. Shethna, J. was of the opinion that the appeal should be partly allo-wed only to the extent that the order passed by the learned Civil Judge in all references awarding interest at the rate of 12% p.a. under Sec. 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act and confirmed in the Regular First Appeal by the learned Single Judge be set aside and the direction for enhancement of compensation amount from Rs. 8000/-to 9000/-per bigha and awarding interest at the rate of 15% p.a. and solatium at the rate of 30% p.a. which was confirmed by the learned Single Judge in the first appeals be confirmed. Honble Sh. A.K. Singh, J., however, was of the opinion that the appeals deserve to be partly allowed, the orders passed by the learned Civil Judge granting benefit of Sections 23 (1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act to the claimants and judgment of the learned Single Judge uphold-ing the award giving benefit of Section 23(1-A) and 23(2) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 deserve to be set aside. Thus, the difference of opinion is on the point of applicability of Sec. 23(2) and Sec. 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended to the case. Honble B.J. Shethna, J. was of the opinion that the provisions did apply, but Honble A.K. Singh, J. was of the view that the provisions did not apply to the case. As there was difference of opinion between the Judges of the Division Bench, the matter has been referred to me under Rule 61-A of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Rules, 1952, by the Honble Chief Justice.

(2). It would be necessary to first set out the relevant provisions of law on the basis of which the difference is to be resolved. The Bill to amend the Land Acquisi-tion Act, 1894 to incorporate the amended Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act was introduced on 30th day of April, 1982. The Bill became an Act on 24.09.1984. Obviously, the result of the time taken in the Legislative process was that it was known to all concerned from 30.04.1982 that on the conversion of the Bill into an Act, the interest and solatium will be avai-lable at a higher rate to the claimants of compensation. People were bound to suffer because of the awards being passed in their cases before the Bill became the Act and their reference cases being decided during this period. Likewise some claimants would stand to benefit by successfully stalling the proceedings in order to see that the awards are passed and references are decided only after the bill became the Act. To avoid this, the Legislature in its wisdom enacted Section 30 in the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 by which amended Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 were brought into existence. It would be necessary to reproduce Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the Act as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 as also Section 30 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984.

``Section 23(2):-In addition to the market-value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of (thirty per centum) on such market-value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition.

Section 28:-Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess com-pensation:-If the sum which, in the opinion of the Court, th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document