Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate (F) vs Anant Pal Singh and Others

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—In these four appeals viz RFAs Nos. 608 to 611 of 1988, the State of Haryana questions the right of the respondents/landowners to the benefits admissible u/s 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Notification for the acquisition of land for development of Sector 28 in Faridabad was issued on October 9,1973. The collector gave the award on September 21, 1978. He awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1050/- per pucca biswa. The land owners sought references u/s 18 of the Act. The District Judge by his award dated January 15,1988 found that the market value of the land was Rs. 18/- per square yard. He further held that the landowners shall be entitled to the payment of interest etc. as envisaged u/s 23(1A) of the Act. Aggrieved by this award, the State of Haryana has filed these four appeals. The applicant claims that the landowners are not entitled to the benefits contemplated u/s 23(1A) of the ACt. The land owners have filed cross objections in RFA. No. 608 of 1988 and claim that the market value of the land should have been fixed at Rs. 42/- per square yard.

I have heard Mr. Grewal for the appellant and Ms. Surjeet Kaur Taunque for the respondent landowners.

Relying on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Krishan Lal (1987-1) 91 P.L.R. 688 (F.B), Mr. Grewal has contended that the benefit of the provisions of Section 23(1A) of the Act was not admissible to the respondents. Ms. Taunque, however, points out that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court of Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. Zora Singh and Others, the contention raised on behalf of the appellant cannot be sustained.

It is true that the award was given by the Collector on September 21, 1978. This was apparently prior to April 30, 1992. In this situation, the decision of the Full Bench in Krishan Lal''s case (Supra) undoubtedly helps the appellant. However, it is clear that the principle enunciated in Krishan Lal''s case has not been accepted by the Supreme Court in Zora Singh''s case. View of the decision of the Apex Court, the benefits contemplated u/s 23(1A) of the Act are admissible even in those cases where the award is given by the District Judge after the introduction of Amendment Act of 1984. In view of this authoritative pronouncement, the claim of the landowners in respect of the benefit of provision contained in Section 23(1A) has to be sustained.

Mr. Grewal points out that the correctness of the decision in Zora Singh''s case (supra) has been doubted by their lordships of the Supreme Court in KS. Pariapoornan v. State of Kerala (1992) I SC C 684. A perusal of this order shows that their Lordships have doubted the correctness of the decision in Zora Singh''s case and referred the matter to a larger Bench, However, it is undeniable that the decision in Zora Singh''s case has not been over ruled so far. Accordingly, this decision lays down the law which is binding on this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution. As such the contention raised on behalf of the State of Haryana, cannot be accepted.

As for the cross objections filed by the landowners in RFA No. 608 of 1988, it may be mentioned that Ms. Taunque has not been able to refer to any evidence to show that the market value of the land has not been correctly assessed by the learned District Judge, Accordingly, there is no merit in the cross objections. These are consequently rejected.

As a result of the above, all the four appeals and the cross objections filed in RFA No. 608 of 1988 are dismissed, In the circumstances of these cases, there will bear no order as to costs.