Inder Chand Jain v. Collector, Agra — 1991 DIGILAW 1277 (ALL)

JUDGMENT M.P. Singh, J. - The present bunch, of First Appeals, arises out of land acquisition proceedings. Facts in brief, are : Plots in dispute are situate in village twasan. The were acquired by the State Government in connection with Ghatwasan Grah Isthan Evam Sarak to be carried out by the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow. Various notifications were issued as follows : A notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act ... 23.4.60 Ecquivalent to Section 357 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adbiniyam. ... Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act equivalent to Section 363 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam ... 26.9.64 Possession of the land other than Plot No. 1252 taken ... 18.6.64 Possession of the Plot No, 1252 taken ... 27.7.72 Special Land Acquisition Officer gave his award ... 24.11.72 Date of the award of the Reference Court ... 25.5 81 Date of introduction of Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982 ... 30.4.82 Appeals filed in the High Court ... 19.7.82 Date of Land Acquisition Amendment Act ... 24.9.84 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer divided the entireland in three belts for fixing rates. For the first belt it was fixed at Rs. 4 per sq. Yard, for the second it was Rs. 2.67 per sq. Yard and for the third it was Rs. 1.34 per sq. Yard. 3. The appellants filed their objections stating that the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate and unreasonable. The land was situate within the limits of Nagar Mahapalika, Agra. All the modern facilities were available. The disputed plots were building sites. There were several residential colonies in the vicinity. The appellants claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 20 per sq. Yard. The award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, not having been made within a period of two years from the date of its Notification under Section 363 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam (Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act) the appellants became entitled to receive compensation for the damages suffered by them under Section 48-A of the Land Acquisition Act. 4. According to the appellants, on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the market value of the land was Rs. 20 per sq. Yard. When the award was given on 24-11-1972 it was Rs. 45 per sq. Yard. 4. According to the appellants, on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the market value of the land was Rs. 20 per sq. Yard. When the award was given on 24-11-1972 it was Rs. 45 per sq. Yard. Thus they claimed compensation as damages at the rate of Rs. per sq. Yard. Interest was claimed under Section 28 at the rate of 6% of the Land Acquisition Act. Interest on solatium was claimed at the rate of 15%. 5. All the six cases were decided by the Avas Evam Vikas Tribunal, Agra on 25-5-1981. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the market value of the disputed land was Rs. 30 per sq. Yard in the year 1972 when the award was given by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. At the time of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, the market value was Rs. 12 per sq. Yard. The claimants were entitled to compensation for damages under Section 48-A of the Land Acquisition Act at the rate of Rs. 18 per sq. Yard. But no order for interest was passed. 6. The Tribunal was further of the view that the award of interest has been specifically provided under different sections of the Land Acquisition Act. Had the Legislature any intention to award interest on the amount of compensation for damages to be awarded to the claimants under Section 48-A of the Act then a different provision should have been made. In the absence of the same, no interest was payable on that amount. 7. The Tribunal did not award interest under Section 28 of the Act on the amount of compensation awarded to them under Section 48-A of the Act. Only this part of the order has been challenged by the appellants in the present appeals. 8. Heard Sri Dilip Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and the learned standing counsel on behalf of the State. 9. Since all the appeals are directed against a common judgment of the Tribunal, they are being disposed of by this Court also by a common judgment. 10. The appellants have only claimed interest under the amended Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the amount of compensation awarded to them under Section 48-A of the Act. 11. 9. Since all the appeals are directed against a common judgment of the Tribunal, they are being disposed of by this Court also by a common judgment. 10. The appellants have only claimed interest under the amended Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the amount of compensation awarded to them under Section 48-A of the Act. 11. In order to decide the said point the relevant provisions of the Act are to be carefully gone into. Only Sections 28 and 48-A are relevant for the purpose of this bunch. They are as follows : - "28. Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess compensation. - If the sum which, in the opinion of the Court, the Collector ought to nave awarded as compensation is in excess of the sum which the Collector did award as compensation, the award of the Court may direct that the Collector shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of nine per centum per annum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Court: (provided that the award of the Court may also direct that where such excess or any part there of is paid into Court after tho date of expiry of a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part there of which has not been paid into Court before the date of such expiry.) "48-A. Compensation to be awarded when land not acquired within two years. - (1) If within a period of law years from the date of the publication of the declaration under Section 6 in respect of any land, the Collector has not made an award under Section 11, with respect to such land the owner of the land shall, unless he has been to a material extent responsible for the delay be entitled to receive compensation for the damage suffered by him in consequence of the delay." (2) The provisions of part III of this Act, shall apply so far as may be, to the determination of the compensation payable under this section." 12. The scope of Section 48-A of the Land Acquisition Act was considered by a Division Bench of this Court reported in 1973 Alld. LJ 656 Parbhu Lal and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and other, in which the Court was of tho view that the difference between the market value of the land sought to be acquired as it existed on the date when the relevant notification was issued under Section 4 of the Act and on the date when the award was given way be a good measure for assessing the damages payable to the claimant and the figure thus arrived should be just and fair compensation. 13. In another case reported in (1990 Revenue Decisions 333) Neeta v. The Collector, Agra, the Single Judge of this Court also considered the scope of Section 48-A Land Acquisition Act and held that before the provisions of this section become applicable two conditions must exist, (i) that the award has been made beyond two years from the dare of publication of the notification under Section 6, and (ii) that the claimant himself has not been responsible for the delay to a material extent. If the two conditions were satisfied then in addition to the compensation which a claimant would be otherwise entitled to he would further be entitled to receive a compensation in respect of damages suffered by him as a consequence of the delay. In that case the court awarded interest at the rate of 6% as claimed by the claimants on the amount of compensation under Section 48-A of the Act. 14. In the case of Neeta (supra) the appellant did not claim interest under the amended provision. So there is no difficulty in any way in proceeding to consider the rate of interest to be awarded according to the amended provision. 15. Once the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the appellants were entitled to compensation under Section 48-A of the Act then it was necessary for it to have decided the rate of interest payable on such an amount. Section 48A, sub-section (2) has made the provisions of Section 28 applicable. This section is included in part III of the Land Acquisition Act. The said provision is clearly attracted in the instant case. This aspect has been completely ignored by the Tribunal. 16. Section 48A, sub-section (2) has made the provisions of Section 28 applicable. This section is included in part III of the Land Acquisition Act. The said provision is clearly attracted in the instant case. This aspect has been completely ignored by the Tribunal. 16. After it is held that the appellants are entitled for payment of interest then it has to decide the rate of the same, whether it will be 6% or 9%. 17. Section 29 before the amendment provided for payment of interest on excess compensation and it ran as follows :- Opinion of the Court, the Collector ought to have awarded as compensation is in excess of the sum which the Collector did award as compensation the award of the court may direct that the Collector shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of 6% per centum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Court. This provision was amended in 1984 by Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1984. It provides - Section 18 of the amending Act Amendment of Section 28. In Section 28 of the principal Act, - (a) for the words "six per centum," the words" nine per centum" shall be substituted, (b) The following proviso would be inserted at the end, namely., "provided that the award of the court may also direct that where such excess or any part there of is paid into court after the date of expiry of a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part there of which has not been said into court before the date of such expiry." This amended provision of Section 28 was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhag Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, reported in AIR 1985 SC 1576 . It was held that the rate of interest was payable at the enhanced rate i.e. 9%. This judgment of the Supreme Court was based on two reasons. It was held that the rate of interest was payable at the enhanced rate i.e. 9%. This judgment of the Supreme Court was based on two reasons. The first reason given was, since the appeal was pending before the Supreme Court and it was being decided on 14-8-1985 and the amendment has come into force prior to that, the amended provision of Section 28 would come into play. The second reason given was on the basis of the interpretations of Suction 30, sub-section (2) of the Land Acquisition Amendment Act of 1984 which was transitional provision in the Amending Act. The Court held that even in view of Section 30, sub-section (2), the provisions of the amended Section 28 could be made applicable to all proceedings which related to compensation pending on 30th April, 1982 or filed subsequent to that date whether before the Collector or before the Court or High Court or the Supreme Court. The Court went a step ahead in saying that even if they have been finally terminated before the enactment of the Amending Act, the claimants would be entitled to get interest at the rate of 9%. 18. The main controversy before the Supreme Court. In this case was the interpretation of Section 30 of sub-section (2) of the Amending Act but while doing so, an additional reason had been given for the application of the amended provisions of Section 28 of the Act in the pending appeal. 19. The case of Bhag Singh (supra) has been reconsidered by the Supreme Court in another case reported in AIR 1984 SC 1989 Union of India v. Raghubir Singh. While interpreting the provisions of Section 30 subsection (2) of the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984 the Supreme Court has over-ruled that case. This judgment affects only the second reason given in the case of Bhag Singh (supra) which confined only to the interpretation 30 (2) of the Amending Act. But the first part of the reasoning remained untouched. 20. On the date when the amendment came into force the appeal was pending in the High Court. Accordingly in view of the amended provisions of Section 28, the appellants became entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date on which possession of the land was taken to the date of payment of such excess amount in court. Accordingly in view of the amended provisions of Section 28, the appellants became entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date on which possession of the land was taken to the date of payment of such excess amount in court. If this excess amount is paid after expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the possession was taken the appellants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 15% per annum. 21. In the result, all the appeals succeed and are allowed with costs.