TMI Blog1980 (4) TMI 315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mistake was committed by the Counsel in not bringing to the notice of the Court, paragraph 21 of Schedule IV of Part III of the Land Acquisition Manual, which provides for interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum in cases of acquisition of land for the purposes of the Central Government though the rate is 4 per cent per annum if the land is acquired for the State Government. The said Para. 21 of Board's Standing Order 90 was amended only in the year 1966 by G. O. Ms. No. 1364 dated 21-11-1966 providing for payment of interest at the rate of 4 per cent per annum regardless of the fact whether the land is acquired for the Central Government or the State Government. Since the amendment is subsequent to the acquisition, i.e., 1963, the rate of interest will be 6 per cent per annum. The Land Acquisition (Madras Amendment) Act, 1953, which reduces the rate of interest from 6% to 4% is applicable only to the lands acquired for the purposes of the State Government. In fact, Board's proceedings, B. P. Mis. No. 1005 dated 2-9-1953 and Government Memo No. 3695-C/50-2, Rev. dated 6-8-1953 issued thereafter clearly demonstrate that the amendment is applicable to cases of acquisition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 47, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, which would warrant any review. 6. Before adverting to the arguments for and against the relevant statutory and other provisions may be noticed. 7. The Land Acquisition (Madras Amendment) Act, 1953 is extracted hereunder: The Land Acquisition (Madras Amendment) Act, 1953. (Received the assent of the President on the 29th June, 1953, published in the Fort St. George Gazette, Part IV-B, page 37, dated the 8th July, 1953). Act No. XII of 1953. An Act further to amend the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in its application to the State of Madras. Whereas it is expedient further to amend the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act I of 1894) in its application to the State of Madras, for the purposes hereinafter appearing. It is hereby enacted as follows: 1. (1) This Act may be called The Land Acquisition (Madras Amendment) Act, 1953. (2) It extends to the whole of the State of Madras. 2. In Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act I of 1894)- (i) for the words six per centum , the words four per centum shall be substituted; (ii) the following proviso shall be added at the end, n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -- Instructions -- Issued. Ref: -- 1. Government Memo No. 4693-H/ 61-3 Revenue dated 15-9-1961. 2. From the Collector of East Godavari Ref. B2/2262/61 dated 30-9-1961. With reference to his letter second cited, the Collector of East Godavari is informed that Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by Madras Act XII of 1953, provide for payment of interest on the compensation amount at the rate of 4 pet cent, per annum from the date of taking possession, until the compensation amount is paid or deposited. The reduction of the rate of interest from 6 per cent to 4 per cent made in the said amendment came into force from 8-7-1953, and it applies to all cases of acquisition of lands undertaken by the State Government both for the State and for the Central Government, since there is no specific provision to the contrary in the Act. In view of this legal position, the view expressed by the Collector in the penultimate sentence of para 2 of his letter second cited is correct. The Collector is therefore requested to adopt the rate of 4 per cent for calculating interest in this case as well as in all similar cases. The Board of Revenue is r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 1005 dated 2-9-1953 and Government Memo No. 3695-C/50-20 Revenue dated 6-8-1953; and they have been cited in para 21 of B. S. O. 90. 13. Now, as is evident from papa 21, It is titled Rules to be observed in making payment in cash , and in the body of it, it is stated, The payment of compensation should be made ..... as under Section 34 of the Act, interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum in cases of acquisition of land for the purposes of Central Government, and at the rate of 4 per cent per annum in cases of acquisition of land for the purposes of the State Government is payable on the amount of compensation. meaning thereby that the purported amendment Act XII of 1953 reduced the rate of interest from 6 per cent to 4 per cent only in cases of acquisition of land for purposes of State Government and not the Central Government. In fact, para 21 of the said B. S. O. has been admittedly acted upon and actually the interest has been awarded at the rate of 6 per cent per annum in case of acquisition of land for the Central Government. The Madras B. S. O. 90 has been admittedly adopted by the Andhra Pradesh State Government, which in its purport and content is the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Raman Ltd. v. State of Madras , AIR 1959 SC 694 ; R. Abdulla Rowther v. S. T. A. Tribunal AIR 1959 SC 896 and Fernandez v. State of Mysore, [1967] 3 SCR 636 , the Supreme Court while referring to particular G. Os. and the instructions contained in the Mysore Public Works Department Code, held that they are mere administrative instructions and not statutory rules. Therefore, even if there has been any breach of such executive instructions, that does not confer any right on any member of the public to ask for a writ against the Government by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The contention of the teamed Government Pleader in this behalf is well founded and, therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the executive or administrative directions do not confer an enforceable right, as they are not statutory in character. 17. The contention that no grounds contemplated under Order 47, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, have been made out to justify any review has no substance. Reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in A. T. Sharma v. A. P. Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389 , wherein Sarkaria and Chinappa Reddy, JJ., held (at p. 1048): It is true as obse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficient reason for review under Order 47, Rule 1, C. P. C. The decision in (1925) ILR 3 Rang 261 : (AIR 1925 Rang 314) and (1925) 49 Mad LJ 671 : (AIR 1925 Mad 1031), which recognize a power of review in cases of mistake of counsel or mistake of the Judge leading to errors in the judgment though not apparent on the face of the record, seem to support this conclusion. In P. Gangamma v. P. Venkamma (Supra), Umamaheswaram, J., held that the mistake of Counsel would be a sufficient ground for granting review under Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P. C. The learned Counsel also relied on the judgment in W. A. M. P. No. 141/74 in W. A. No. 238/73, dated 22-3-1974 wherein a Division Bench of this Court reviewed its judgment on the ground that a particular amendment of a section in the Municipal Act was not brought to the notice of the Court by the Advocates of both sides at a time when the main judgment was delivered and which was brought to their notice in the review petition. 19. Since the Supreme Court decision cited is, in the main, with reference to Article 226 of the Constitution we are inclined to hold that inasmuch as certain important provision was not brought to the notice of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purpose like hospital under the principal Act. The classification thus sought to be made by the Land Acquisition (Madras Amendment) Act (23 of 1961) between person whose lands are acquired for other public purposes has no reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. Discrimination is writ large on the amending Act and it cannot be sustained on the principle of reasonable classification. The Land Acquisition (Madras Amendment) Act (23 of 1961), therefore, clearly infringes Article 14 of the Constitution and is void. 21. Similarly the Supreme Court, in Balammal v. State of Madras , [1969] 1 SCR 90 , while referring to the provisions enacted in the Madras City Improvement Trust Act of 1950 which deprived the owners of the statutory right to solatium at the rate of 15 per cent on the market value of the land as the owners of the lands were entitled to the statutory solatium under the Land Acquisition Act in consideration of compulsory acquisition of their lands, held that the provisions of the Madras Act violate the equality clause of the Constitution. If the Slate should acquire the lands for improvement of the town under the Land Acquisition Act, the acquiring a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt. It is, on the face it, discriminatory in Character, It is very scarce to make out any intelligible differentia, much less such differentia having any rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. In fact, the object is conspicuous by its absence. Therefore, in our judgment, the discrimination it 'Writ large on the Amendment Act which must be held to be bad. Hence we hold that the Land Acquisition (Madras Amendment) Act, 1953, in so far as it is adopted by the State of Andhra Pradesh by the A. P. Adaptation of Laws Order, 1957, is void. 23. In view of our decision on the discrimination aspect of the amending legislation, it is needless for us to go into the vires aspect of the case. 24. In the result, the review petitions are allowed. No costs. 25. On the oral application made by the learned Government Pleader for the grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, we are inclined to certify that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance which needs a decision from the Supreme Court. We therefore giant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of India. The parties may take appropriate steps for printing and for the appeals being he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
