The benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is applicable if reference for compensation is pending at the time of application of amended provisions, as clarified by the Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT

Harkesh Manuja, J. (Oral)

This common judgement of mine shall dispose of three civil revision petitions bearing CR-1521-2016, CR-4000-2016 and CR-5047- 2018, as common question of law and fact are involved therein. For convenience, the facts are being taken from CR-4000-2016.

2. By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to an order dated 28.01.2016 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar, whereby, the benefit of Section 23(1-A) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "1894 Act") in favour of petitioners-landowners, has been denied.

3. In the present case, certain land owned by the petitioners, situated in District Amritsar came to be acquired for the benefit of Improvement Trust, Amritsar (for short, "Trust"), vide notification dated 26.06.1970, under Section 36 of the PUNJAB TOWN IMPROVEMENT ACT , 1922 (for short, "1922 Act"), followed by an award dated 25.08.1975 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector.

4. Aggrieved of the quantum of compensation, the petitioners-land owners filed reference before the Land Acquisition Claims Tribunal, Amritsar (for short, "Tribunal") constituted under the 1922 Act. The said reference came to be decided on 17.03.2009, whereby, the compensation was determined @ Rs.312.50/- per marla, besides all other statutory benefits admissible under the 1894 Act. The operative para 131 of the said award is reproduced hereunder:-

"131. As a result of discussion and findings on the issues, supra, applications are allowed partly with costs, applicants are granted compensation @ Rs.312.50 per marla with all admissible statutory benefits, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Needless to say that in References Nos.17, 19, 46, 59, where, there is dispute between landlords and tenants, they shall apportion compensation in a manner that 75%, thereof, shall go to the tenants and 25% shall go to the landlords. Copies of the award be placed on the record of other consolidated cases and memos of costs be prepared in all the cases separately. File be consigned to the record room."

5. Still aggrieved, the petitioners-landowners approached this Court by way of filing CWP-4988-2010, which came to be decided on 17.02.2016 and the compensation was enhanced to Rs.350/- per marla, besides all other statutory benefits under the 1894 Act. Para 5 of the same is being relevant reproduced hereunder:-

"5. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the matter is covered by the decision of this Court dated 07.03.2014 rendered in Laxmi Arora and Gobinder Singh's cases (supra) and connected petitions. The operative part of the order dated 07.03.2014 reads thus:-

"In view of our discussion above, all these petitions are partly allowed. Impugned award dated 17.03.2009 is modified to the extent that the petitioners are allowed compensation @ rupees 350/- per marla with all admissible statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894."

6. Based upon the aforesaid decision dated 17.02.2016, passed in CWP No.4988 of 2010 (O&M), the petitioners-landowners filed execution petition, wherein, claim as regards the benefit of Section 23(1-A) of the 1894 Act was made, which was strongly opposed by the respondent-trust. Vide order dated 28.01.2016, the Executing Court rejected the claim made by the petitioners-landowner as regards the release of aforementioned benefit.

7. Impugning the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioners-landowners submits that in the present case, though, the original award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 25.08.1975, yet, the reference filed at the instance of petitioners-landowners was pending as on 30.04.