http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: CHIMANLAL HARGOVINDDAS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, POONA, AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT21/07/1988

BENCH: THAKKAR, M.P. (J) BENCH: THAKKAR, M.P. (J) RAY, B.C. (J)

CITATION:  1988 AIR 1652            1988 SCR  Supl. (1) 531  1988 SCC  (3) 751        JT 1988 (3)   106  1988 SCALE  (2)43  CITATOR INFO :  R          1992 SC 666  (4)

ACT:      Land   Acquisition    Act-Challenging   valuation   and compensation in  respect of  land acquired  under provisions of-Whether appellant  whose land was acquired is entitled to benefit of Central Amending Act 68 of 1984.

HEADNOTE:      The appellant not being satisfied with the compensation offered by  the Land  Acquisition officer  in respect of his land placed  under acquisition  under the  Land  Acquisition Act,  applied   for  a  reference  to  a  civil  court,  for determining the  market  value  of  the  land  for  awarding compensation to  the appellant.  The Trial  Court determined the market  value of  the land  in question  at Rs.8692  per acre. The  High Court  reduced the  amount  of  compensation payable to  Rs.4845.87 from  Rs.8692 per acre. The appellant moved this Court for relief, complaining that the High Court had erroneously  revised downwards  the valuation  correctly arrived at by the Trial Court.      Allowing the appeal partly, the Court ^      HELD: The  trial Court  had virtually treated the award rendered by the Land Acquisition officer as a judgment under appeal.  The  Court  laid  down  general  guidelines  to  be followed in  respect of  methodology for valuation, in order to capsulize the true position. [534E] F      The valuation  made by  the High Court had been faulted on three grounds:      (1) The  High Court should not have made a deduction of 25% in  place of deduction made by the Trial Court at 20% to account for  the factor pertaining to largeness of the block of land under acquisition. [539B]      (2) The High Court had grossly under-valued the land in determining the  market value  of the  appellant’s  land  at Rs.7000 per acre as a block. [539B-C] 532      (3) There was no warrant for pushing down or depressing the market value of land as determined by the Trial Court in order to  deduce the ’present value’ by reference to Miram’s

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

Tables to  account for  the factor  as regards the estimated time lag  for development  reaching the  block  of  land  in question which  was situated  in the  interior. Besides, the time lag  of 12  years as  estimated by  the High  Court was excessive and unrealistic. [539C-D]      The first  two grounds were devoid of merit. It was not possible to  find fault  with the reasoning or conclusion of the High  Court. The  High Court  was regularly  engaged  in valuation of  the lands  in different parts of the State and was fully  aware of  the landscape. It had made the estimate as regards  the  time  lag  for  development  to  reach  the appellant’s land  to the  best of  its judgment,  and having taken into  account all the relevant factors, it had arrived at its  determination. The  High Court had not committed any error or  violated any principle of valuation. It was purely a question  of fact  and it  was not  possible to detect any error even  in the  factual findings  recorded by  the  High Court. There  was no material on the basis on which the plea of the  appellant could  be upheld  that  the  valuation  of Rs.7000 per  acre did  not reflect  the true market value or that the land in question was undervalued. [541B-F]      The Appellant’s  grievance with  regard  to  the  third ground was  justified. The  appellant’s parcel  of  land  in question, situated  very much in the interior, was valued by the Trial  Court at Ks. l0,866 per acre (less 20% for roads, etc.). The High Court valued this parcel of land at Rs.7,000 per acre.  It had valued the land with the best situation on the Ganeshkhand Road at Rs.20,000 per acre. As against this, the appellant’s  land was  valued at Rs.7,000 per acre. This pushing down  was made  to account  for its situation in the interior on the premise that development would take about 12 years to  reach the  appellant’s land under acquisition. But after 12 years, it would become land adjoining the developed area and not land which could be treated as in the interior. If the  present value  was to  be ascertained,  it should be ascertained on  the basis  of present  value of  land  which would fetch  Rs.20,000 per  acre  after  12  years  and  not present value  of land  which would  fetch Rs.7,000 per acre after 12  years. In  fact the  present  value  of  Rs.20,000 payable at  the end  of 12  years at  8% would  work out  to Rs.6942 according  to Miram’s Table 7, p.657 of A.K. Mitra’s Theory and Practice of Valuation 2nd Edition. The High Court was right  in valuing  the land  in interior at Rs.7,000 per acre but  wrong in  directing that present value of Rs.7,000 payable after  12 years should be ascertained. The appellant must be awarded compensation at Rs.7,000 533 per acre subject to deduction or allowance of 25% to account for land  required to  be set  apart for roads, open spaces, etc. The appellant would be entitled to be paid compensation for his  land in question at Rs.5250 per acre (Rs.7,000 less 25%) in  place of  lesser amount  awarded by the High Court. [541F-H; 542A-F]      The appellant  would be  entitled to the benefit of the Central Amending  Act 68 of 1984 in view of section 30(2) of the Act because these appeals were pending before this Court on 30th  April, 1982, if the view is taken that the said Act had retrospective  operation in  the sense  that the amended section 23(2)  and section  28 apply  also in relation to an order under appeal against an award made by the Collector or Court between  April 30,  1982 and  the commencement  of the Amending Act.  This must  depend upon  the decision  of  the Constitution  Bench   of  this  Court,  expected  soon;  the appellant would  be entitled to the benefit as above-said if the Constitution  Bench upholds  the view  expressed in Bhag

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

Singh case,  (1985) 3  SCC p.  737 and  overrules  the  view expressed in  Kamalajamanniavaru case,  (1985)  1  SCC  582. [542G-H; 543A-B]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 272 1 & 2722 (N) of 1972.      From the  Judgment and  order dated  30.3.1972  of  the Bombay High  Court in  First Appeal  No. 440/62  and 577  of 1962.      Dr. D.Y.  Chandrachud, S.  Dutt and P.H. Parekh for the Appelant.      A.M. Khanwilkar and Ajit S. Bhasme for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      THAKKAR, J.  Controversy is  centred on the question of valuation of  the lands  under acquisition.  The trial Court had correctly  valued the  lands  and  the  High  Court  had erroneously revised  the valuation  downwards-complains  the original owner of the land who is the appellant in these two allied appeals.      The lands  in question  situated in a locality known as ’Tigris Camp’ within the city limits of Poona in Maharashtra admeasuring 15  acres and  17 Gunthas,  comprised in  Survey Nos. 85 and 86, were 1.  By   Certificate  under   Article  133(   l)(a)  of  the Constitution of India as it existed at the material time. 534 placed under  acquisition pursuant  to a  Notification under section 4  of the Land Acquisition Act published on March 8, 1956. The acquisition was a part of the total acquisition of 101 acres  33 Gunthas  made for  a public  purpose viz.  for construction of the Headquarters, Poona Rural Police Charge. The  appellant  was  not  satisfied  with  the  compensation offered by  the Land  Acquisition officer  in respect of his parcel of  15 Acres  7 Gunthas  and applied  for a reference being made under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Two references were  made to  a Civil  Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for determining the market value of the lands  for the  purpose of  awarding compensation to the appellants. The  Trial Court  determined the market value of 2- 1/4  acres forming  part of  Survey Nos.  85  and  86  at Rs.15,00 per  acre. Market value in respect of the remaining 13 acres  and 7  Gunthas was determined at Rs.8692 per acre. The present  dispute is  confined to valuation of 13 Acres 7 Gunthas forming  part of  Survey No.  85. The High Court has reduced the  total compensation  payable in  respect of  the land in  question from  Rs.1,14,517 computed  at Rs.8692 per acre to  Rs.63,846 (which  works out at Rs.4845.87 per acre) thereby reducing  the compensation  awarded to the appellant by Rs.50,554 in respect of this parcel of land.      Before tackling  the problem  of valuation  of the land under acquisition  it is  necessary  to  make  some  general observations. The  compulsion to  do so  has arisen  as  the Trial Court  has virtually treated the award rendered by the Land Acquisition  officer as a judgment under appeal and has evinced unawareness of the methodology for valuation to some extent.  The   true  position   therefore  requires   to  be capsulized.      The following  factors must  be etched  on  the  mental screen:      (1)  A  reference   under  section   18  of   the  Land           Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award           and  the   Court  cannot  take  into  account  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

         material  relied  upon  by  the  Land  Acquisition           officer in  his Award  unless the same material is           produced and proved before the Court.      (2)  So also  the Award of the Land Acquisition officer           is not  to be  treated as  a judgment of the trial           Court open  or exposed  to  challenge  before  the           Court hearing the Reference. It is merely an offer           made by  the  Land  Acquisition  officer  and  the           material utilised  by him for making his valuation           cannot be  utilised by  the Court  unless produced           and proved before 535           it. It is not the function of the Court to suit in appeal  against   the  Award,   approve  or  disapprove  its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion  reached by  the Land Acquisition officer, as if it were an appellate court.      (3)  The  Court  has  to  treat  the  reference  as  an           original proceeding  before it  and determine  the           market value  afresh on  the basis of the material           produced before it.      (4)  The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who           has to show that the price offered for his land in           the award  is  inadequate  on  the  basis  of  the           materials produced  in the  Court. Of  course  the           materials placed  and proved by the other side can           also be taken into account for this purpose.      (5)   The market value of land under acquisition has to           be  determined   as  on   the  crucial   date   of           publication of  the notification  under sec.  4 of           the Land  Acquisition Act  (dates of Notifications           under secs. 6 and 9 are irrelevant).      (6)   The determination  has to be made standing on the           date line  of valuation  (date of  publication  of           notification under  sec. 4)  as if the valuer is a           hypothetical purchaser  willing to  purchase  land           from the  open market  and is  prepared to  pay  a           reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be           assumed that  the vendor  is willing  to sell  the           land at a reasonable price.      (7)  In doing so by the instances method, the Court has           to correlate  the market  value reflected  in  the           most comparable  instance which provides the index           of market value.      (8)   only genuine  instances have  to  be  taken  into           account. (Some  times instances  are rigged  up in           anticipation of Acquisition of land).      (9)  Even post notification instances can be taken into           account (1) if they are very proximate,(2) genuine           and (3)  the acquisition  itself has not motivated           the purchaser  to pay a higher price on account of           the   resultant    improvement   in    development           prospects. 536      (l0) The  most comparable  instances out of the genuine           instances have  to be  identified on the following           considerations:           (i) proximity from time angle,           (ii) proximity from situation angle.      (11) Having  identified the instances which provide the           index of  market value the price reflected therein           may be  taken as  the norm and the market value of           the land  under  acquisition  may  be  deduced  by           making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus           factors  vis-a-vis   land  under   acquisition  by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

         placing the two in juxtaposition.      (12) A  balance-sheet of  plus and minus factors may be           drawn for  this purpose  and the  relevant factors           may be  evaluated in terms of price variation as a           prudent purchaser would do.      (13) The market value of the land under acquisition has           there after  to be  deduced by  loading the  price           reflected in  the instance  taken as norm for plus           factors and unloading it for minus factors      (14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13) has           to be  undertaken in  a common  sense manner  as a           prudent man  of the world of business would do. We           may  illustrate   some  such   illustrative   (not           exhaustive) factors:      Plus factors                    Minus factors 1. smallness of size.             1. largeness of area. 2. proximity  to a  road.                2. situation in the                                      interior at a                                      distances from the                                      Road. 3. frontage on a road.            3. narrow strip of                                      land with very                                 small frontage                            compared to death. 4. nearness to developed area.    4. lower level                                      requiring                                 the depressed                            portion to be                       filled up. 5. regular shape.                 5. remoteness from                                 developed                                      locality. 537 6. level vis-a-vis land           6. some special    under acquistion.                 disadvantageous                                      factor which would                                      deter a purchaser. 7. special value for an owner    of an adjoining property    to whom it may have some    very special advantage.      (15) The  evaluation of these factors of course depends           on the  facts of  each case.  There cannot  be any           hard and  fast or  rigid rule. Common sense is the           best and  most reliable  guide. For instance, take           the factor  regarding the size. A building plot of           land say  500 to  1000 sq.  yds cannot be compared           with a  large tract  or block  of land of say l000           sq. yds  or more.  Firstly while a smaller plot is           within the  reach of  many, a  large block of land           will have  to be developed by preparing a lay out,           carving out  roads, leaving  open space,  plotting           out  smaller   plots,   waiting   for   purchasers           (meanwhile the  invested money will be blocked up)           and the hazards of an entrepreneur. The factor can           be discounted  by making  a deduction by way of an           allowance at  an appropriate  rate ranging approx.           between 20% to 50% to account for land required to           be set  apart for  carving out  lands and plotting           out small  plots. The  discounting  will  to  some           extent also  depend on  whether it is a rural area           or  urban   area,  whether  building  activity  is           picking up,  and  whether  waiting  period  during           which the  capital of  the entrepreneur  would  be           looked up,  will be  longer  or  shorter  and  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

         attendant hazards.      (16) Every  case must  be dealt  with on  its own facts           pattern bearing  in mind  all these  factors as  a           prudent purchaser  of land  in which  position the           Judge must place himself.      (17) These  are general  guidelines to  be applied with           understanding informed with common sense.      The problem  which has  surfaced in the present appeals needs to  be  recapitulated.  The  question  is  whether  in scaling down the total compensation payable to the appellant from Rs.1,14,517  to Rs.63,846,  the High Court has violated any  principle   of  valuation   or   adopted   any   faulty methodology. 538      The formula  evolved by  the High  Court may be briefly outlined. The  High Court  has taken into account the market value reflected in the instances pertaining to small parcels of land  cited by  the parties  which on the analysis of the evidence have  been considered  as compar  able  subject  to factors of  differentiation. The  High Court  has valued the land having  best situation admeasuring 9 acres comprised in Survey No.  86  which  abuts  on  the  Ganeshkhand  Road  at Rs.20,000  per   acre.  Having  done  so  the  market  value reflected therein has been unloaded to account for the minus factors pertaining  to the  rest of  the lands including the land in  question. The  lands comprised  in  Survey  No.  86 situated in  the interior were valued at Rs.16,000 per acre, whereas  lands  abutting  on  Pashan  Road  were  valued  at Rs.12,000 per acre. .      The  appellant’s  land,  which  was  agricultural  land albeit with  future potential  for development  as  building site, was  situated far  far in the interior in the midst of blocks of  undeveloped  land.  The  formula  for  evaluation involved taking of three steps:      (1)   The High  Court formed the opinion that allowance           for largeness  of block deserved to be made at 25%           instead of 20% as done by the Trial Court.      (2)   The  High  Court  formed  the  opinion  that  the           development would take about 12 years to reach the           appellant’s land. On these premises the High Court           formed the  opinion that the land of the appellant           could be valued at Rs.7000 per acre as a block.      (3)   The High  Court directed that the market value so           ascertained should be further depressed to account           for the factor as regards the waiting period of 12           years  which   was  the   estimated   period   for           development reaching  the  appellant’s  land.  The           ’present value’  of the  land was  accordingly de-           duced by  depressing the  valuation of Rs.7000 per           acre by  reference to  Miram’s Tables on the basis           of discount  rate of  5% per  annum to account for           the  factor  that  approximately  12  years  would           elapse  before   development   could   reach   the           appellant’s land. That is  how the total compensation payable to the appellant for the  block of  land admeasuring  13 acres  7 gunthas was determined at  Rs.63,846 which  works out  at  approximately Rs.4,845.87 per acre. 539      The valuation  made by  the High Court has been faulted on three A grounds:      (1)  The High Court should not have made a deduction of           25% in  place of deduction made by the Trial Court           at 20% to account for the factor pertaining to the           largeness of the block of land under acquisition.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

    (2)  The High Court had grossly undervalued the land in           determining the  market value  of the  appellants’           land at Rs.7,000 per acre.      (3)     There  was  no  warrant  for  pushing  down  or           depressing the  market value of land as determined           by the Trial Court in order to deduce the ’present           value’ by  reference to  Miram’s Tables to account           for the  factor as  regards the estimated time lag           for development  reaching the  block  of  land  in           question  which  was  situated  in  the  interior.           Besides, the  time lag of 12 years as estimated by           the High Court was excessive and unrealistic. The first  two grounds  are devoid  of merit.  It is  common knowledge that  when a large block of land is required to be valued, appropriate  deduction has  to be  made for  setting aside land  for carving  out roads, leaving open spaces, and plotting out  smaller plots  suitable  for  construction  of buildings. The  extent of  the area required to be set apart in this  connection has  to be  assessed by the Court having regard to  shape, size  and situation of the concerned block of land  etc. There  cannot be  any hard and fast rule as to how much  deduction should  be  made  to  account  for  this factor. It  is essentially  a question  of fact depending on the facts  and circumstances  of  each  case.  It  does  not involve drawing upon any principle of law. It cannot be said that the  High Court  has committed any error in forming the opinion that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case  25% deduction  was required  to be  made  in  this connection. The High Court cannot be faulted on this score.      The more  serious grievance of the appellant however is that  the   High  Court   has  depressed  the  market  value excessively in  evaluating the  land in question at Rs.7,000 per acre as compared to the land abutting on the Ganeshkhand Road valued  at Rs.20,000 per acre, the land abutting in the interior of  Survey No.  86 valued  at Rs.16,000,  and  land abutting on  Pashan Road  valued at  Rs.12,000 per  acre.  A glance 540 at the  sketch on the record shows that the appellant’s land is situated  very much  in the  interior as  compared to the other parcels of land. It is in the midst of large blocks of undeveloped land.  A hypothetical  purchaser would not offer the same  market value  for lands  with such  a situation as lands which  are nearer  to the developed area and abut on a road or are nearer to a road. The development of lands which are nearer  to the developed area and nearer to the road can reasonably be  expected to  take place  much  earlier.  Only after such  lands are  developed and  construction comes up, the development  would proceed  further in  the interior. It would not  be unreasonable  to visualize that a considerable time would  elapse before  development could reach the block of undeveloped  land located  in the  interior. Besides, the land which  is situated  in the  interior does not fetch the same value as the land which is nearer to the developed area and nearer  to the road. If a hypothetical purchaser opts to purchase the  land situated  in the interior in the midst of an undeveloped  area, he  would doubtless  take into account the factor  pertaining to the estimated time for development to reach the land in the interior. For, his capital would be unprofitably looked up for a very long time depending on the estimated time  required for  the development  to reach  the land in the interior. Meanwhile he would have to suffer loss of interest.  It is, therefore, understandable that the land in the  interior would  fetch much smaller price as compared to the lands situated nearer to the developed locality. More

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

so  as  all  these  factors  are  incapable  of  precise  or scientific evaluation.  The valuer  has to  indulge in  some amount of guess work and make the best of the situation. The High Court  having accorded  anxious  consideration  to  all these factors of uncertainty has arrived at the valuation of Rs.7000 per acre. Says the High Court in paragraph 51 of the Judgment:           "This brings  up for final consideration the plots           which we  have described  as interior plots in all           the  survey  numbers  and  which  do  not  have  a           frontage on  the roads. A lower price will have to           be provided  for  these  plots,  since  the  plot-           holders will  have to  spend  moneys  for  getting           water and  drainage connections  which  are  given           only upto  the Municipal Roads. Then again, in our           opinion, the  interior plots  would not be sold at           all as  long as any of the plots having a frontage           on Pashan Road or Baner Road are sold, though once           such plots  have been  disposed of  the demand for           interior  plots  would  certainly  pick  up.  Here           again, it  is impossible  to be  precise in fixing           the value;  but in  our opinion the interior plots           may fairly be valued at Rs.7,000 541           per acre.  As stated  earlier, the  sales of these           plots would  commence after all the plots having a           frontage  on   Pashan  Road  and  Baner  Road  are           disposed of  i.e. after  12 years,  and we may say           that those  plots would be sold within a period of           about 4 years."      It is  not possible to find fault with the reasoning or conclusion of  the High Court. The High Court was day in and day out engaged in valuation of the lands in different parts of the  state and was fully aware of the landscope. There is no yardstick  by which  the future  can be  forseen with any greater degrees  of preciseness. The High Court has made the estimate as  regards the  time lag  for development to reach the appellant’s  land to  the best  of its  judgment. Having taken into  account all the relevant factors, the High Court has arrived at the aforesaid determination. And in doing so, the High  Court has  not committed any error or violated any principle of  valuation. It is purely a question of fact and it is  not possible  to detect any error even in the factual findings recorded  by the High Court. In fact the High Court has  been  extremely  considerate  and  has  approached  the question of  valuation with  sympathy and  understanding for the land  owner. The  High Court did not opt for an easy way out by  taking the  view that  since there was no comparable instance of  undeveloped lands  in the interior on the basis of which  the valuation  of the  appellant’s land  could  be made, the  Award made by the land Acquisition officer should remain undisturbed.  The High  Court has done the best under the circumstances  albeit by  making recourse  to some guess work which  in the circumstances of the case was inevitable. There is  no material  on the  basis of which this Court can uphold the  plea of  the appellant  that  the  valuation  at Rs.7,000 per  acre does not reflect the true market value or that the  land in  question is  under-valued.  The  argument urged  by   the  appellant   in  this   behalf,  under   the circumstances, cannot be accepted.      Turning now  to the  third ground,  it appears that the appellant’s grievance  is justified.  The grievance  is that there was  no warrant  for making any further deduction once the land  was valued at Rs.7,000 as against the valuation of the  best  parcel  of  land  at  Rs.20,000  which  was  made

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

precisely to  account  for  the  factor  pertaining  to  its situation in  the interior.  There was  therefore no warrant for  ascertaining  the  present  value  of  Rs.7,000  as  if Rs.7,000 would  be fetched after 12 years. Now the parcel of land admeasuring  13 acres 7 gunthas comprised in Survey No. 85 which  was situated  very much in the interior was valued by the  Trial Court  at Rs.  10,866 per  acre (less  20%  to account for  roads etc.).  This parcel of land was valued at Rs.7,000 per acre by the High 542 Court. The  High Court  had valued  the land  with the  best situation on  the Ganeshkhand Road at Rs.20,000 per acre. As against  this  the  appellant’s  land  was  valued  at  mere Rs.7,000 per  acre which reflected an unloading by Rs.13,000 per acre  which works out at 65%. This pushing down was made to account  for its situation in the interior on the premise that development would take about 12 years to reach the land under acquisition. If the appellant’s land just adjoined the land valued  at Rs.20,000 per acre it would have been valued at the  same figure  of Rs.20,000.  It has  been  valued  at Rs.7,000 per  acre precisely  because it is so situated that development would  reach the appellant’s land after 12 years as estimated  by the High Court. But after 12 years it would become land  adjoining to  developed area and not land which could be  treated as  in the interior. Therefore, if present value was  to be ascertained it should be ascertained on the basis of  present value  of land which would fetch Rs.20,000 per acre  after 12 years and not present value of land which would fetch  Rs.7.000 per  acre  after  12  years.  In  fact present value of Rs.20,000 payable at the end of 12 years at 8% would  work out  at Rs.6942 (.3971 x 20,000 = 6942)1. The High Court  was therefore  right  in  valuing  the  land  in interior at  Rs.7,000 per  acre but  wrong in directing that present value  of Rs.7,000  payable after 12 years should be ascertained. The last ground is thus well founded .      In the result appellant must be awarded compensation at Rs.7,000 per  acre subject  to deduction or allowance of 25% to account for land required to be set apart for roads, open spaces etc.  In other words appellant will be entitled to be paid compensation for 13 acres 7 gunthas comprised in Survey No. 85  at Rs.5,250  per acre  (Rs.7,000 less  25% i.e. Iess 1750=Rs.5,250) in  place of  the lesser  sum awarded  by the High Court.  Appeal must  be partly  allowed to  this extent accordingly. F      The question  however remains  whether the appellant is entitled to  the benefit  of Central Amending Act (Act 68 of 1984) providing payment of solatium and interest at enhanced rates on the ground that present appeals were pending before this Court  on 30th  April, 1982.  The appellants  would  be entitled to  the benefit  thereof by virtue of section 30(2) of the  Act if  the view  is taken  that the  said  Act  has retrospective operation  in the  sense that  amended section 23(2) and  section 28  apply also  in relation  to an  order under appeal against an award made by the Collector of Court between April  30, 1982 and the commencement of the Amending Act. This must depend on the deci- 1.   See Mirarm’s  Table 7 at 657 of A.K. Mitra’s Theory and      Practice  of   Valuation  (2nd  Edition)  Published  by      Eastern Law House. 543 sion of  the Constitution  Bench which is expected soon. The appellant  Will  be  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  Central Amending Act (Act 68 of 1984) in case the Constitution Bench upholds the  view expressed in Bhag Singh case [1985] 3 SCC- p.   737    and   overrules    the   view    expressed    in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

Kamalajammanniavaru Case  [1985] 1  SCC p.  582. In case the Constitution   Bench    affirms   the    view    taken    in Kamalajammanniavaru Case, the appellant will not be entitled to such benefit.      Appeal is  partly allowed  accordingly to the aforesaid extent. Order  passed by  the High  Court is modified to the corresponding extent.      Having regard  to the  facts and  circumstances of  the case there will be no order regarding costs in this Court. S.L.                                    Appeal allowed. 544