JUDGMENT
Immaneni Panduranga Rao, J.
1. The common question that arises for consideration in both the above revision petitions is about the availability of the additional benefits conferred under the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, (Act 68 of 1982) (hereinafter referred to as the “Amended Act”).
2. The facts leading to the filing of the above two revision petitions are briefly as follows.
The land belonging to the respondents herein was acquired for the purpose of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University, Rajendranagar. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short “the Act”) was issued on 20th February, 1964. The Land Acquisition Officer after inquiry, passed the award on 30-10-1971. On a reference made to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Chief Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad enhanced the compensation by his order dated 13-10-1974. The matter was carried in appeal to the High Court as well as the Supreme Court and the compensation granted by the Civil Court was confirmed by the High Court and the Supreme Court by judgments dated 24-6-1974 and 17-7-1975 respectively.
3. The claimants in the execution petitions claimed the additional benefits granted under the Amended Act. The execution petitions were opposed by the Land Acquisition Officer on the ground that unless and until the decrees are amended the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to pass orders in the execution petitions granting the additional benefits under the amended Act. The learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court has repelled that objection of the Land Acquisition Officer and ordered execution, Challenging the orders of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court in E.P.No. 1 of 1988 in O.P.No. 32 of 1971 and E.P.No. 2 of 1988 in O.P.No. 97 of 1971, Civil Revision Petitions No. 432/92 and 433/92 respectively are preferred.
4. The learned Government Pleader submitted that by virtue of the final decision of the Supreme Court that the additional benefits can be paid to the claimants only when the decision of the Land Acquisition Officer or the decision of the Civil Court was rendered between 30th April, 1982 and 24th September, 1984, the order of the learned Chief Judge. City Civil Court awarding additional benefits that too at the execution stage is illegal and the orders are liable to be revised.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents claimants, on the other hand argued that on the date of passing of the orders by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhag Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, was operative which laid down that the amended provisions of Sections 23(2) and 28 of the Amended Act are applicable to all proceedings relating to compensation pending at the date of commencement of the Amending Act or filed subsequent to that date whether before the Collector or before the court or High Court or Supreme Court; that it cannot therefore, be said that the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court has committed an error in passing the orders or that his orders are vitiated by material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction and therefore, this court is not entitled to interfere with the orders of the learned Chief Judge in the revision petitions.
6. Before considering the respective contentions it is necessary to briefly refer to the cases decided by the Supreme Court from time to time. In K. Kamalajammanniavaru v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, two learned Judges of the Supreme Court have taken the view that the retrospectively of the Amended Act is limited to awards passed between 30th April 1982 and 24th September 1984 and the appeals pending there from only. Subsequently three learned Judges of the Supreme Court in Bhag Singh’s case, have over rules the decision in K. Kamalajammanniavaru’s case, holding that the amended provisions would apply in determination of the amount of compensation where proceedings are either pending at the date of commencement of the Amending Act or are filed subsequent to that date whether before the Collector or before the court or before the High Court or the Supreme Court. Subsequently the question of applicability of the Amended Act was referred to a Constitution Bench and the Constitution Bench in Union of India v. Raghubir Singhm, has set the controversy at rest by holding that the benefit of the Amended Act is available only in those appeals decided by the High Court or the Supreme Court which have arisen out of the award passed by the Collector or the court between the date of introduction of the Amendment bill in the Parliament (30th April 1982) and of its passing (24th September 1984). According to the learned Judges the Amended Act has not been made generally retrospective with effect from any particular date and as such the retrospectivity as it appears is restricted to certain areas covered by the parent Act. While overruling the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in Bhag Singh’s case (1 supra) and the decision in State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh, the learned Judges of the Constitution Bench have approved the decision in K. Kamalajammanniavaru’s case (2 supra). As a consequence of the various decisions referred to above the final opinion of the Supreme Court expressed by the Constitution Bench now holds the field. Therefore the benefit of the provisions of the Amended Act can be extended only to cases where the award of the Collector or of the Court has been made between 30th April 1982 and 24th September 1984. In these cases as I observed already all the proceedings including the decision of the Supreme Court have culminated long prior to 1982 the Supreme Court having confirmed the decision by order dated 17-7-75. Therefore in spite of the fact that the order of the learned Chief Judge City Civil Court was correct on the date on which he had pronounced the orders inasmuch as those orders are challenged in the above revision petitions the law applicable as on the date of decision of the revision petitions should be taken into consideration because the decision of the Constitution Bench in Union of India’s case (3 supra) overruling the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in Bhag Singh’s case (1 supra) and State of Punjab’s case (4 supra) becomes the law of the land by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
7. Another submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents is that the tenants were paid 60% of the compensation amount with the additional benefits due under the Amended Act. If such payment is made it amounts to an illegal payment and affords a cause of action for the Government to claim refund of the same. The fact that an illegal payment was made to the tenants cannot be taken as a ground for perpetrating the illegality in favour of the claimants also.
8. To confirm the orders of the learned Chief Judge City Civil Court on the ground that his decision was correct on the date of pronouncing the orders in E.P.Nos. 1/88 and 2/88 amounts to contravention of the law as laid down by the Supreme Court.
9. The above civil revision petitions are therefore allowed setting aside the order of the learned Chief Judge City Civil Court Hyderabad in E.P.No. 1 of 1988 in O.P. No. 32 of 1971 and E.P. No. 2 of 1988 in O.P.No. 97 of 1971. No costs.