Nirmal Singh vs The State of Punjab and another

G.R. Majithia, J.—The learned Single Judge through the reference order has sought reconsideration by a larger Bench of judgment rendered in Surjit Singh v. The State of Punjab 1988 P.L.J 276. The learned Single Judge further highlighted that the judgment deserves to be reconsidered in view of the decision rendered by him in Puran v. The State of Haryana (1986-1) 89 P.L.R. 59, wherein the learned Judge has held that acquisition proceedings terminate or come to an end with the passing of the award or the taking of the posseesion of the acquired land by the Collector under the Act and subsequent proceedings as a result of a reference u/s 18 of the Act are independent proceedings and Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Amending Act only concerns a proceeding before the Collector and has nothing to do with proceedings in Court which are the result of a reference u/s 18 of the Act.

We do not think that Surjii Singh''s case (supra) requires reconsideration by a larger Bench, more particularly when in the numerous petitions where an idential question arose, such as C.M. 957-C of 1985 in R.F.A. 1343 of 1980; C.M. 958-C of 1985 in R.F.A. 1344 of 1980; C.M. 959-C of 1985 in R.F.A. 1348 of 1980; C.M. 960-C of 1985 in R.F.A. 1349 of 1985; C.M. 961-C of 1985 in R.F.A. 1350 of 1986; C.M. 962-C of 1985 in R.F.A. 1352 of 1980; C.M. 963-C of 1986 in R.F.A. 1353 of 1980; C.M. 964-C of 1985 in R.F.A. 1354 of 1980; C.M. 965-C of 1985 in R.F.A. 1356 of 1980; C.M. 966-C of 1985 in R.F.A. 1357 of 1985; C.M. 967-C of 1985 in R.F.A. 1360 of 1985; C.M. 968-C of 1985 in R.F.A. 1363 of 1980; C.M. 968-A-C of 19.5 in R.F.A. 1370 of 1980; C.M. 969-C of 1985 in R.F.A. 1526 of 1980; C.M. 970-C of 1985 in R F.A. 1540 of 1980; C.M. 971-C of 1985 in R.F.A. 1542 of 1980; C.M. 972-C of 1985 in R.F.A. No. 1576 of 1980 and C.M. 973-C of 1985 in R.F.A. 1577 of 1980, the learned Judge had allowed the benefit of the Amending Act in case where SLP filed against the judgment of the High Court in regular first apppeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court after the Amending Act had become applicable. On the second question posed in the order of reference, the matter again stands concluded by a Division Bench judgment in Matu Ram v. Union Territory of Chandigarh (1988) 93 P.L.R. 8 where it was held thus:

In the instant case, even if the award had been made prior to April 30,1982, regular first appeal in respect of that award was filed before the High Court after 30th day of April, 1982 and was decided by the learned Single Judge on August 28, 1984, before the enforcement of Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 984 (the date of enforcement being September 24, 1984). The provisions contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 30 to the effect that amended Sub-section (2) of Section 23 and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act shall apply to and in relation to appeals decided by the High Court as between the dates on which the Bill for amending the provisions was introduced in the year 1982 and coming into force on September 24, 1984, clearly contains an implication that it is the duty of the Court to amend such decisions and to bring them in accord with the provisions of the Amended Act.

In view of this authoritative pronouncement, the matter stands adjudicated and does not call for a reconsideration the decision in 1988 PLJ 276. Accordingly, C.M. No. 151-CI of 1988 is allowed to the extent that the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 30(2) of the Amending Act and accordingly we direct the amendment of the decree in terms thereof. No order as to costs.

Sd/- V. Ramaswami, C.J.