State of Uttar Pradesh v. Begum Saleha Hadi Hasan — 1986 DIGILAW 147 (ALL)

JUDGMENT : K.P. Singh, J. This appeal has been preferred by the State of U.P. u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the decision of Shri R.C. Varma, Presiding Officer, U.P. Housing and Development Board Tribunal, Allahabad, dated 31-3-1978 in A.V.P./L.A. References Nos. 12 and 13 of 1977 Smt. Begum Saleha Hadi Hasan v. State of U.P. 2. Eleven Bighas and odd land of the contesting respondent Smt. Begum Saleha Hadi Hassan was acquired by the petitioner. for Avas Avam Vikas Parishad under Mahdauri Housing Scheme at Allahabad. The aforesaid respondent had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 20/- per sq. yard. The Special Land Acquisition Officer through his award dated 13-8-1976 determined the compensation at Rs. 52699.12 for the land acquired. Aggrieved with the amount of compensation determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the aforesaid respondent filed applications u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act giving rise to the References Nos. 12 and 13 of 1977 which have been dealt with by the Tribunal through the impugned judgment. Now, aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the State of U.P. has preferred the above-noted appeal. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has contended before us that the contesting respondent was not entitled to any compensation regarding the Land acquired as the was only an occupancy tenant and the State was the owner of the disputed property. 4. Second contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the contesting respondent had not made specific claim for the well, boundary wall, Maveshi Khana, Bardauli, other constructions, trees and standing crops over the area acquired, in her objection u/s 9 of the abovementioned Act. Therefore, the Tribunal has acted illegally in awarding compensation to her with regard to the aforesaid items. 5. Third contention raised on behalf of the appellant is to the effect that since the contesting respondent did not revise her claim u/s 9 of the aforesaid Act, therefore, she could not be awarded compensation with regard to the fixtures, trees, crops etc. in the circumstances of the present case. 6. 5. Third contention raised on behalf of the appellant is to the effect that since the contesting respondent did not revise her claim u/s 9 of the aforesaid Act, therefore, she could not be awarded compensation with regard to the fixtures, trees, crops etc. in the circumstances of the present case. 6. The learned Counsel for the contesting respondent has submitted in reply that the Tribunal was fully justified in awarding compensation to the respondent with regard to the items complained by the appellant in view of the definition of "land" vide Section 3(a) of the Act which reads as below : -- (a) the expression "land" includes benefits to arise out of land, and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. 7. The learned Counsel for the contesting respondent has also referred to the provisions of Section 17(3) of the Act which reads as follows : (3) In every case under either of the preceding Sub-sections the Collector shall, at the time of taking possession, offer to the persons interested compensation for the standing crops and trees (if any) on such land and for any other damage sustained by them caused by such sudden dispossession and not excepted in Section 24 and, in case such offer is not accepted, the value of such crops and trees and the amount of such other damage shall be allowed for in awarding compensation for the land under the provisions herein contained. 8. He has also invited our attention to the provisions of Section 25 of the Act which reads as below : (1) When the applicant has made a claim to compensation, pursuant to any notice given u/s 9, the amount awarded to him by the Court shall not exceed the amount so claimed or be less than the amount awarded by the Collector u/s 11. (2) When the applicant has refused to make such claim or has omitted without sufficient reason (to be allowed by the Judge) to make such claim, the amount awarded by the court shall in no case exceed the amount awarded by the Collector. (3) When the applicant has omitted for a sufficient reason (to be allowed by the Judge) to make such claim, the amount awarded to him by the Court shall not be less than, and may exceed, the amount awarded by the Collector. 9. (3) When the applicant has omitted for a sufficient reason (to be allowed by the Judge) to make such claim, the amount awarded to him by the Court shall not be less than, and may exceed, the amount awarded by the Collector. 9. In view of the aforesaid provisions of Section 25 of the Act it has been contended that the amount determined by the Tribunal is much less than the amount claimed by the contesting respondent in her claim u/s 9. Therefore, the appellant cannot make any legitimate grievance against the decision of the Tribunal. 10. We have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. The first contention of the counsel for the appellant has been noted to be rejected outright in view of the decision of this Court in Shiam Lal and Others Vs. Collector of Agra. In the aforesaid ruling a Full Bench of this Court has indicated that an occupancy tenant is entitled to compensation in the ratio of 6.10 against the Zamindar. Therefore, we think that the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant has no merits and the impugned decision of the Tribunal cannot be challenged on that score. 11. As regards the second contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant our attention has been invited to the provisions of Section 25(2) of the above Act and it has been stressed that as the contesting respondent had not made specific claims with regard to certain items, therefore, the Tribunal could not award the amount in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector. The learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the ruling reported in AIR 1936 Lah 733, Secy. of State v. Tikka Jagtar Singh. No doubt the learned Judges of that Court have also observed at page 736 : Col. 2 as below: ...As regards the remaining claims preferred by Nathu Ram admittedly he preferred no claim to compensation for the two trees or on the score of severance when he appeared before the Collector and, therefore, in view of the rulings cited above his claim was rightly rejected by the learned District Judge. 12. In reply the learned Counsel for the contesting respondent has referred to the ruling reported in AIR 1933 Sind 21, Secy of State v. F.E. Dinshaw. 12. In reply the learned Counsel for the contesting respondent has referred to the ruling reported in AIR 1933 Sind 21, Secy of State v. F.E. Dinshaw. A Division Bench of that Court has made the relevant observation at page 24 of the ruling as below : As I interpret this section, all that it requires is that a person claiming an interest in the land under acquisition should (1) specify the interest he claims (2) specify the amount he claims for such interest and (3) give particulars of his claim to compensation. It does not go further than that, and does not, in my opinion, require him to specify the amount of compensation he claims in respect of each of the six sub-heads referred to in Section 23 of the Act. A failure therefore to specify the amount claimed in respect of any particular sub-head of Section 23 is no bar to the judge reviewing the award of the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of such sub-head. If there was any doubt upon that point, it is amply removed by the Sections which follow Section 9, Section 11 makes it obligatory on the Land Acquisition Officer to determine (1) the true area of the land under acquisition; (2) the compensation to be allowed in respect of such land taken as a whole, and (3) the apportionment of compensation amongst all persons known or believed to be interested. 13. In K. Subrahmanyamma Vs. District Welfare Officer, Eluru, AIR 1966 AP 15 , Hon'ble Venkatesam, J. at page 17 Col. 2 paragraph 7 has indicated that non-compliance with Section 9 is provided for by Section 25. Section 25(2) compels obedience to the notice u/s 9(2) to appear and state the claim as required thereunder to enable the Acquisition Officer to make a proper award. If without sufficient cause Section 9(2) is not complied with, an absolute bar arises as to the obtaining of a greater sum than what was awarded by the Collector. The rigour of Section 25(2) is mitigated by Section 25(3). According to it if the Court is satisfied that there was sufficient reasons for the appellant's lapse: in filing his claim u/s 9, the Court can award a sum excess of the sum awarded by the Collector. The rigour of Section 25(2) is mitigated by Section 25(3). According to it if the Court is satisfied that there was sufficient reasons for the appellant's lapse: in filing his claim u/s 9, the Court can award a sum excess of the sum awarded by the Collector. Thus the Court on being satisfied about the bona fides of the claimant's conduct, can remove the penalty imposed by Section 25(2) and grant a compensation in excess of what has been awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer." 14. In The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram Vs. Vommi Appalaswami and Others, AIR 1967 AP 56 Hon'ble Venkatesam, J. has again indicated vide paragraph 46 as below: It is well settled that so long as the amount claimed by the claimant is not exceeded, compensation can be awarded under a different head, though not claimed, because the words 'amount claimed', in Section 25 mean the total amount claimed before the Collector and not any claim under any particular item or head comprised in the total amount; (vide C.V. Gangadara Sastri Vs. The Deputy Collector of Madras, (1912) 22 MLJ 379 , Secretary of State v. F.C. Dinshaw, AIR 1933 Sind 21, Kompalli Nageswara Rao and Others Vs. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Bapatla, AIR 1959 AP 52 , and K. Subrahmanyamma Vs. District Welfare Officer, Eluru, AIR 1966 AP 15 . 15. In the present case we find that only the plots of the contesting respondent were mentioned in the Notification u/s 4 of the Act. u/s 17(3) the possession over the respondent's constructions, trees and crops etc. was taken on 11-2-1974 and the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal in the impugned judgment has accepted the explanation by the respondent for not preferring objection with regard to specific items on the advice of her counsel, we think that the Presiding Officer has rightly accepted the explanation and has not committed any legality in awarding compensation to the contesting respondent in view of the provisions of Section 25(3) of the Act. 16. u/s 11 a duty is cast upon the Collector to make award for the land acquired and if the land had construction, trees, crops etc. over it, it was his duty to take into account the value of things attached to the earth and the benefits arising out of the land as well as permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. over it, it was his duty to take into account the value of things attached to the earth and the benefits arising out of the land as well as permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. u/s 17(3) the Collector was required while taking possession of offer to the persons interested compensation for the standing crops and trees, if any, on the land acquired. u/s 23 of the Act it is the duty of the Court to take into account the damage sustained by the person interested by reason of taking any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector's taking possession thereof. We think that the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal has rightly accepted the explanation and has correctly awarded compensation to the contesting respondent in respect of the trees and crops standing over the land acquired in view of the provisions of Section 25(3) of the Act. The amount awarded to the respondent is much less than the amount claimed by her in her objection u/s 9 of the Act. The contention raised on behalf of the counsel for the appellant in view of the provisions of Section 25(2) of the Act does not appear to us as correct in the circumstance of the present case. 17. We think that in awarding compensation regarding the land of the interested persons, the officers and the Court should take a liberal view in assessing the compensation awardable to the interested persons. They should not adhere to technicalities with a view to deprive the interested persons of the compensation due to them in law. We agree with the dictum of law laid down in the rulings reported in AIR 1933 Sind 21 , K. Subrahmanyamma Vs. District Welfare Officer, Eluru, AIR 1966 AP 15 and The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram Vs. Vommi Appalaswami and Others, AIR 1967 AP 56 . 18. The views expressed in AIR 1936 Lah 733 Secy. of State v. Tikka Jagtar Singh are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case the provisions of the Section 25(3) of the Act are attracted and the Tribunal was fully justified in awarding compensation to the contesting respondent with regard to the trees and crops standing over the disputed land at the time of taking possession in the year 1974. 19. In the present case the provisions of the Section 25(3) of the Act are attracted and the Tribunal was fully justified in awarding compensation to the contesting respondent with regard to the trees and crops standing over the disputed land at the time of taking possession in the year 1974. 19. As regards the third contention we find that the contesting respondent had put forward her claim in her applications u/s 18 of the Act regarding constructions, trees and crops standing the disputed land and the Tribunal has accepted the explanation and awarded compensation with regard to trees and crops standing over the disputed land. The appellant cannot challenge the impugned judgment on technical ground that the respondent had not revised her claim u/s 9 of the Act. When the contesting respondent put forward her specific claim in applications u/s 18 of the Act and the Tribunal has proceeded u/s 25(3) of the Act, the appellant cannot be permitted to attack the impugned judgment on a too technical ground. Moreover, the contesting respondent got a cause of action on 17-2-1974. When she was dispossessed of the trees and crops without assessment of any compensation with regard thereto and she was fully justified in pressing her claim in applications u/s 18 of the Act. 20. Thus all the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant fail. 21. During the course of arguments the learned Counsel for the respondent has prayed for higher amount of solatium as well as higher rate of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of 9% in view of the subsequent amendment of the year 1984. In view of the dictum of law laid down in Bhag Singh and Others Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh through the land acquisition collector, Chandigarh, (1985) 3 SCC 737 , we think that the respondent is entitled to larger amount of solatium as well as higher rate of interest than awarded by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment because the solatium has been awarded at the rate of 15% and the interest at the rate of 6% but in view of the amendment the respondent is entitled to the solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 9%. 22. 22. In the result, the appeal fails but we modify the impugned judgment to this extent that the respondent should be paid solatium calculated at the rate of 30% and also interest at the rate of 9% on the amount of compensation enhanced from the date on which possession of her land was taken up to the date of the payment of the enhanced compensation. We order accordingly and direct that the parties shall bear their costs of this appeal.