Kameshwar Prasad Verma v. State Of Bihar — 1989 DIGILAW 103 (PAT)

Judgment Bhuvaneshwar Prasad, J. 1. This appeal, by the sole appellant, is directed against the judgment dated 11-7-1986 and decree dated 30-7-1986 passed in LAR Case No. 4 of 1982 by Stiri Sankatha Prasad, Special Land Acquisition Judge-cum-Sub-Judge, Siwan. 2. It appears that the State of Bihar acquired 16 decimals of land equivalent to 4 Kathas 6 dhurs in Plot No. 1233 under Khata No. 78 situated at village Mnrklioo under P.S. Hussainganj for Ganduk Project for a sum of Rs. 1079 84 which was awarded as compensation as per the award prepared under Sec.12 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act). This award was made in favor of the present appellant who happened to be the owner of the land acquired. The appellant filed an objection against this award on the ground that the amount of compensation awarded to him was very low and inadequate. It was his submission that the laud under acquisition was a very fertile piece of land which got irrigational facilities and which produced three crops in one year. He claimed that the valuation of the acquired land was Rs. 3,000.00 per katha at rate prevailing for the neighboring land. The appellant did not accept the award and prayed that the matter may be referred to the Special Land Acquisition Judge under Sec.18 of the Act. It appears that after filing this objection the appellant informed the court that he had received the amount of compensation under protest. He, however, alleged that about 6 Kathas of land of Plot No. 1233 out of the remaining portion of this plot was also cut and damaged for embankment of canal and was rendered useless. For this land he claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,000.00 per Katha. 3. The State of Bihar contested these claims of the appellant. It was submitted that the amount of compensation was assessed on the basis of the sale deeds for the adjoining land in the village during the period from 1-3-1978 to 1-3-1979. It was further submitted that the valuation so fixed was neither illegal nor low nor inadequate. Only two crops are grown over the land. 4. The matter came up before the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge who determined the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. It was further submitted that the valuation so fixed was neither illegal nor low nor inadequate. Only two crops are grown over the land. 4. The matter came up before the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge who determined the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 2666/- per Katha along with additional 15% of the amount arrived at the calculation in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. The award of the Collector was modified accordingly. Thus as per this judgment of the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge the market value of the acquired land was assessed at Rs. 14,463.80 paise and the amount of solarium at the rate of 15 per cent was assessed at Rs 1,714/- and no interest was awarded to the appellant. 5. In this appeal the appellant has contended that the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge should have awarded solarium at the rate of 30 per cent on the market value in view of the provisions of Sec.23(2) of the Act as amended by Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 and if calculated at this rate the amount of solarium would come to Rs. 4,339/-. The appellant further claimed a sum of Rs. 2625/- as interest at the rate of 9 per cent. It was contended that the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge has wrongly awarded solarium at the rate of 15 per cent which is not according to law. On these grounds it was contended that the appeal be allowed and the amount claimed by the appellant by way of solarium as also by way of interest be allowed to him. 6. Additional grounds were also made out by filing another application by the appellant. In this application, which appears to have been received in court on 11-2-1988, it was claimed that the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge has failed to award interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the entire amount of compensation including the solarium and other amounts as contemplated under the provisions of Sec.23 of the Act right from the date of publication of the Notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Act till the final payment was made. The learned lower Court has erred in law in not passing any decree in respect of the amount in addition to the market value of the land acquired as provided in the Act which is 12 per cent per annum on the said market value for the period commencing right from the date of the publication of the notice under Section 4(1) of the Act to the final payment of compensation money as provided under Sec.23(1-A) of the Act. 7. On behalf of the State-respondent these contentions of the appellant have been seriously challenged. It was submitted that it was only under Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 that the amount of solarium was raised to 30 per cent. This would not apply to pending proceeding and, therefore, the appellant was not entitled to get anything more than 15 per Cent by way of solarium It was further contended that the appellant was not entitled to get interest at 9 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation inclusive the amount of solarium, 8. At the time of hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the case of Bhag Singh V/s. Union Territory of Chandigarh -- . It was the submission of the appellant that he is not challenging the amount of compensation as assessed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge. However, the grievance of the appellant is that the learned Land Acquisition Judge did not award the solarium at the rate of 30% on the amount of compensation to which the appellant was entitled. The further grievance of the appellant is that under the law the appellant was entitled to interest at the rate of 9% on the entire amount of compensation including the solarium and further that a decree in respect of the addition to the market value acquired as provided under Sec.23(1-A) of the Apt at the rate of 12% per annum should have been awarded to him. It was only on these limited points that this appeal was heard. 9. So far as Bhag Singhs case (supra) is concerned, the effect of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Amending Act) was taken into consideration and determined by the Hon ble Supreme Court. It was only on these limited points that this appeal was heard. 9. So far as Bhag Singhs case (supra) is concerned, the effect of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Amending Act) was taken into consideration and determined by the Hon ble Supreme Court. In this connection a reference has been made to Sec.30(2) of the Amending Act by virtue of which amendments were effected in Sec.23(2) and Sec.28 of the Act, It was held that Sec.30(2) of the Amending Act the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 23 and Sec.28 of the Act were made applicable to all the proceedings pending on 30-4-1982 or filed subsequent to the date, whether before the Collector before the Court or the High Court or the Supreme Court, even if they have finally terminated before the enactment of the Amending Act. It was further held that the amended provisions of Sec.23(2) and Sec.28 of the Act were applicable not only to an award made by the Collector or the Court after 30-4-1982 and before the commencement of the Amending Act but also in relation to order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court in appeal between 30-4-1982 and the commencement of the Amending Act. The Amending Act came into effect on 24-9-1984 The Hon ble Supreme Court has further laid down in this case that even if an award is made by the Collector or the Court on or before 30-4-1982 and an application against the award is pending before the High Court or the Hon ble Supreme Court on this date or is filed subsequent to this date, the provisions of the amended Sec.23(2) and Sec.28 of the Act would be applicable in relation to an order passed in such appeal by the High Court or the Supreme Court. In view of this authoritative pronouncement in this case it has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the provisions of the Amendment Act should be made applicable to his case and the relief claimed by him should be allowed, 10. On behalf of the appellant reliance has also been placed on the case of Smt. Nikhleshwari Choudhary V/s. The State of Bihar 1986 BBCJ 519 : 1986 PLJR 1737. This is a Bench Decision of this Court following the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhag Singh (supra). On behalf of the appellant reliance has also been placed on the case of Smt. Nikhleshwari Choudhary V/s. The State of Bihar 1986 BBCJ 519 : 1986 PLJR 1737. This is a Bench Decision of this Court following the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhag Singh (supra). It was held that the amended provisions of the Act will apply for the payment of solarium In this case acquisition was made on or before 24-9-1984 the date on which the amending Act came into force Relying on the case of Bhag Singhs (supra) this Court held that the amended provisions of Sec.23(2) and Sec.28 of the Act will apply to the case with respect to the payment of the solarium. 11. On behalf of the State, however, reliance has been placed on the case of Mahabir Prasad Santuka V/s. Collector, Cuttack and Ors. -- , specially my attention has been drawn to Paragraph 7 of the judgment. According to this paragraph it would appear that the High Court had awarded solarium at the rate of 15% in consideration of compulsory nature of acquisition and it had further awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of taking over the possession till the date of deposit of amount of compensation. On behalf of the appellant it was urged before the Hon ble Supreme Court that in view of the amendment made in Sec.23 and Sec.28 of the Act by the Amending Act 1984 the appellants were entitled to solarium at the rate of 30% of the compensation and they were further entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The appellant had placed reliance on the case of Bhag Singh (supra) in support of their contention before the Hon ble Supreme Court. However, the Hon ble Supreme Court in this judgment has observed as follows; We are informed that this question has been referred to a larger Bench and a Constitution Bench has heard argument and the judgment is reserved. In this view we refrain from expressing any opinion on the question; If and when the judgment is delivered in the matter and if the appellants are found entitled to the increased amount of solarium and interest they would also be entitled to receive the same in accordance with law. In this view we refrain from expressing any opinion on the question; If and when the judgment is delivered in the matter and if the appellants are found entitled to the increased amount of solarium and interest they would also be entitled to receive the same in accordance with law. It was the submission of the respondent before me that in view of this decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court this Court should also refrain from expressing any opinion on the question till the judgment by the larger Bunch of the Hon ble Supreme Court is delivered. 12. In support of his contention the learned Counsel for the State has further placed reliance on a Single Judge decision of this Court in the case of State of Bihar V/s. Dwarikanath Jha 1988 PL.1R 991. In this case also a claim for solarium and interest at enhanced rates in terms of provisions of Sections 23 and 28, after amendment by Amendment Act of 1984, was made. The matter was taken up for consideration by S.C. Mookherji, J. in Paragraph 9 of the judgment. It was observed as follows: It may be pointed out here that when a similar question arose before their Lordships of Supreme Court in another case, reported in Mahctbir Prasad Santuka and Ors. V/s. Collector, Cuttack and Ors. -- , it was observed that since the view taken in the earlier case has been referred to a larger Bench, the claimants claim of higher interest etc. will be decided after the disposal of that case. In the circumstances, it is made clear that if the view taken in the case of Bhag Singh (supra) is accepted by the larger Bench, the respondents shall be entitled to get solarium and interest at the amended rate and this amount in that event shall be paid to them by authorities concerned without making any reference to court. for the present, the respondents shall get, if not already paid, the rate of interest etc. as granted by the court below, besides the amount of compensation fixed for the land, building, trees, well, crops etc., acquired by the Government for the purpose of Anchalcum-Block building by the Government. for the present, the respondents shall get, if not already paid, the rate of interest etc. as granted by the court below, besides the amount of compensation fixed for the land, building, trees, well, crops etc., acquired by the Government for the purpose of Anchalcum-Block building by the Government. Relying on this decision by the learned Single Judge of this Court the respondent has contended that for the present in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Mahahir Prasad Santuka and Ors. (supra), the appellant will not be entitled to get the increased amount of solarium at the rate of 30 per cent or interest at the rate of 9 per cent. 13 I am, however, unable to accept this contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent. It is well-known that by Amending Act of the year 1984 the provisions of Sections 23(2) and 28 of the Act were amended so as to raise the amount of solarium at the rate of 30 per cent and the amount of interest at the rate of 9 per cent. In Bhag Singhs case (supra) the Hon ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that the amended provisions of Sections 23(2) and 28 of the Act would apply in determination of the amount of compensation to all the proceedings that are pending at the date of commencement of the Amending Act or filed subsequent thereto whether before the Collector or before the Court, or before the High Court or the Supreme Court. It is not disputed that on 24-9-1984, the date on which this Amending Act had come into force, the proceeding before the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge, Siwan was pending. It will, accordingly, follow that in terras of the law as laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Bhag Singhs case (supra), the amended provisions of Sections 23(2) and 28 of the Act will apply to the present case also, and, therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant on this point has to be accepted. It will, accordingly, follow that in terras of the law as laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Bhag Singhs case (supra), the amended provisions of Sections 23(2) and 28 of the Act will apply to the present case also, and, therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant on this point has to be accepted. It is well-known that the law declined by Hon ble Supreme Court is binding on all Courts of India including this Court which has to follow respectfully the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court, Since the law laid down in Bhag Singhs case (supra) is still good law (it has not been set aside or modified as yet by the larger Bench), it is binding on this Court and has to be followed. 14. In this connection a reference may be made to Mahabir Prasad Santukas case (supra). In that case the High Court had awarded solatium at the rate of 15% in consideration of the completely nature of the acquisition and it further awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of taking over the possession till the date of deposit of the amount of compensation. It was urged before the Hon ble Supreme Court by the appellant that in view of the amendments made in Sections 23(2) and 28 of the Act by Amending Act 1984 the appellants were entitled to solarium at the rate of 30% of compensation and also they were entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Since this plea was taken before the Hon ble Supreme Court it was observed by it that since the question was referred to a larger Bench and Constitution Bench had heard the argument and bad reserved the judgment the Hon ble Supreme Court would refrain from expressing any opinion on the question. The situation here, is however, quite different. Here the matter is pending before this Court and in terms of Section 141 of the Constitution of India this Court is bound to follow the decision in Bhag Singhs case (supra), In this case there has already been an authoritative pronouncement on the points involved and so far as this Court is concerned it has to follow the ratio of decision laid down in Bhag Singhs case (supra). ! ! his Court cannot differ from this decision or postpone its enforcement on the ground that the matter has been referred to a larger Bench. So long the decision given by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Bhag Singhs case (supra) is not set aside or modified it has to be followed by this Court and on this ground this Court cannot say that the claim of the appellant for higher amount of solarium and interest will be decided after the disposal of that before case the larger Bench. Till the decision in the case of Bhag Singhs (supra) is not set aside it is binding on this Court and has to be followed. Therefore, the decision in the present case has to be in terms of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhag Singhs (supra) and it will be open to the State to claim restitution if the decision in Bhag Singhs case (supra) is subsequently set aside or modified by the larger Bench of the Hon ble Supreme Court. In this view of the matter, and in face of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Bhag Singhs case (supra) I fail to persuade myself to agree to the findings of S.C. Mookherji, J, in the case of State of Bihar V/s. Dwarikanath Jha, (supra) as reported in 1988 PLJR 991. 15. The law as laid down in Bhag Singhs case (supra) has to be followed and, therefore, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent. 16. In view of these discussions, this appeal is allowed in the light of the observation made below and it is ordered that the appellant will be entitled to get solarium at the rate of 30% in place of15% as ordered by the learned special land acquisition judge on the market value of Rs 14,463.80 paisa of the amount as assessed. On behalf of the appellant it has been submitted that on the date of notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Act the State had come in possession of acquired land. On behalf of the appellant it has been submitted that on the date of notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Act the State had come in possession of acquired land. In this view of the matter, the appellant has claimed interest from that very date This fact has not been challenged on behalf of the respondent that the State of Bihar had come in possession of the acquired land with effect from the date on which the notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Act was made Hence the appellant would also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% on the entire amount of compensation including the solarium right from the date of publication of the Notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Act till the final payment of the entire amount. The appellant has further prayed that in terms of Sec.32(1-A) of the Act he is entitled to 12% per annum on the market value of the land as determined by the Court for the period commencing on and from the date of publication of the notification under Sec. 4 Sub-section (1) of the Act in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. In terms of this provision as contained in Sub-section (l-A) of Sec.23 of the Act the appellant would be entitled to this amount also in accordance with law. 17. In the result the appeal is allowed on contest with cost in the manner indicated above. Pleaders fee Rs. 100/-. The judgment and the decree of the learned lower Court is accordingly modified.