1996 INSC 0685
                                                   State of Punjab

                                                           Vs

                                                        Des Raj

                                          Civil Appeal No. 7673 of 1996

                                       (K. Ramaswamy, G.B. Pattanaik JJ)

                                                      18.04.1996

                                                        ORDER

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') was
published on 11-3-1978 acquiring 55 acres 5 kanals 1 marla for construction of new Mandi at
Jalalabad. The Collector in his award dated 13-3-1978 determined the compensation at Rs. 4500 per
acre. On reference, the Additional District Judge by his award and decree dated 19-3-1982 enhanced
the compensation to Rs. 25,000 per acre and Rs. 20,000 per acre on the basis of belting. The learned
Single Judge by his judgment and decree dated 2-12-1988 further enhanced the compensation to Rs.
43,000 and Rs. 34,000 per acre on belting basis, but applied the provisions of the Amendment Act
68 of 1984. In this appeal, we are concerned only with the applicability of Sections 23(2), 28 and
23(1-A) of the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984. Since the Reference Court determined the
compensation on 19-3-1982, i.e., prior to the introduction of the Amendment Act, the claimants are
not entitled to the enhanced solatium and interest and also the additional amount under Sections
23(2), 28 and 23(1-A) respectively of the Act.

3. It is brought to our notice that dissatisfied with the enhanced compensation of Rs. 43,000 per
acre, the claimant has filed letters patent appeal and that it is pending. If that is so, we need not go
into the question whether determination of the compensation by the learned Single Judge at Rs.
43,000 per acre is justified or not. The matter is left open. The Division Bench would be free to
decide the matter according to law. But as regards the applicability of the amended provisions, in
view of the above facts, the learned Single Judge was clearly in error in extending the additional
benefits under the amended provisions of the Act.

4. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order awarding 30% solatium, 9% interest from the date
of taking possession for one year and thereafter 15% interest and also the additional amount of 12%
per annum under Section 23(1-A) stands set aside. Instead, the claimant is entitled to 15% solatium
under Section 23(2) and 6% interest under Section 28 as unamended, on enhanced compensation
from the date of taking possession till the date of deposit into court. No costs.