Research › Browse › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 32 (ORI)

LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. RAMA SUNDARI DEI

1996-01-30

P.K.MISRA

body1996
P. K. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) LAND Acquisition Officer, Puri, has filed this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') against the award dated 16-3-84 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Puri, in a reference under Section 18 of the Act. ( 2 ) AN area of Ac. 0. 80 decimals appertaining to Plot Nos. 195, 196 and 405 in mousa Inchal was acquired by the Government by notification dated 17-5-80. The Land Acquisition Officer passed award on 14-3-83 and granted Rs. 9,441. 67 paise including solatium at the rate of 15 per cent. The Land Acquisition Officer had inter alia fixed Rs. 11,100/- per acre for Bari land. Being dissatisfied, the respondent filed an application for enhancement for compensation and accordingly the matter was referred to the Subordinate Judge, Puri, under Section 18 of the Act. So far as Plot No. 196 with an area of Ac. 0. 10 decimals is concerned, the Subordinate Judge found that the calculation given by the Land Acquisition Officer was correct. So far as the balance Ac. 0. 70 decimals of land from Plot Nos. 195 and 405, the Subordinate Judge treating the same to be Bari land has directed that compensation should be paid at the rate of Rs. 19,231 per acre instead of Rs. 11,100/- as calculated by the Land Acquisition Officer. The Subordinate Judge has also directed for payment of compensation at the rate of 15 per cent and has granted Rs. 15,860. 62 in all. Against the aforesaid award of the Subordinate Judge this appeal has been filed by the Land Acquisition Officer. ( 3 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the State that the rate adopted by the Subordinate Judge is not correct. It is further contended that the Subordinate Judge should not have treated the land appertaining to Plot Nos. 195 and 405 as Bari land. ( 4 ) LAW is well settled that ordinarily High Court should not interfere in the award of the Subordinate Judge unless the determination is grossly high or grossly low. The Subordinate Judge has made the calculation on the basis of the report furnished by the Government official as well as on the basis of a transaction of sale, referred to in the sale statistics. From Ext. The Subordinate Judge has made the calculation on the basis of the report furnished by the Government official as well as on the basis of a transaction of sale, referred to in the sale statistics. From Ext. 9, the report of the Zone Officer, D. I. S. Niali, it appears that recommendation had been made for calculating at the rate of Rs. 19,000/ - per acre for the Bari land. In Ext. 8, the sales statistics, reference has been made to a transaction whereunder Ac. 0. 13 decimals of Bari land had been sold for Rs. 2,500/ -. Calculating on the basis of aforesaid transaction, the Subordinate Judge has fixed Rs. 19,231/- per acre of Bari land. Strictly speaking in the absence of the sale deed itself, the Court below should not have relied upon the transaction as indicated in the sales statistics. Moreover, Ext. 9 itself shows that the Zone Officer had recommended for grant of compensation at the rate of Rs. 19,000/ - per acre and the difference between the two being marginal, I would not like to interfere in the judgment, so far as this aspect is concerned, as it cannot be said that the award given by the Subordinate Judge is grossly high. The award of the Land Acquisition Officer shows that the land appertaining to Plot Nos. 195 and 405 was treated to be Bari land and the report of the Zone Officer is also to that effect. Therefore, the Subordinate Judge has rightly proceeded in calculating compensation treating the land appertaining to plot Nos. 195 and 405 as Bari land. ( 5 ) THE next question is as to whether the claimant is entitled to enhanced solatium, interest and additional amount as per Sections 23 (2), 28 and 23 (1-A) as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act 68 of 1984 ). The Subordinate Judge has awarded solatium at the rate of 15 per cent under Section 23 (2) and interest under Section 28 of the Act. By Clause (b) of Section 15 and Section 18 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, the rate of solatium and interest payable has been increased. It is contended by Mrs. The Subordinate Judge has awarded solatium at the rate of 15 per cent under Section 23 (2) and interest under Section 28 of the Act. By Clause (b) of Section 15 and Section 18 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, the rate of solatium and interest payable has been increased. It is contended by Mrs. Sujata Jena, learned Additional Standing Counsel, that solatium and interest should not be paid at the enhanced rate, as the Subordinate Judge has passed the Award before the commencement of Act 68 of 1984 with effect from 24-9-1984. She has further contended that benefit of Section 23 (1-A) is also not available. She has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1995 SC 581 (K. S. Paripoornam v. State of Kerala) and AIR 1995 SC 1012 (K. S. Paripoornam v. State of Kerala) in support of the above contentions. I am afraid, the aforesaid two decisions do not support the contentions raised by the learned Addl. Standing Counsel. The question as to whether the benefit of the Amended Act is available or not has to be judged in the light of the provisions made in Section 30 of the Amending Act. The relevant provisions of Section 30 are, quoted hereunder:-"30. Transitional provision.- (1) The provisions of sub-section (1-A) of Sec. 23 of the principal Act, as inserted by Cl. (a) of Sec. 15 of this Act, shall apply, and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation to,- (a) every proceeding for the acquisition of land under the principal Act pending on the 30th day of April, 1982 (the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, in the House of the people), in which no award has been made by the Collector before that date; (b ). . . . . . . . . . . . (2) The provisions of sub-section (2) of Secs. 23 and 28 of the principal Act, as amended by Cl. (b) of Secs. . . . . . . . . . . . (2) The provisions of sub-section (2) of Secs. 23 and 28 of the principal Act, as amended by Cl. (b) of Secs. 15 and 18 of this Act respectively, shall apply, and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation to, any award made by the Collector or Court or to any order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court in appeal against any such award under the provisions of the principal Act later than 30th day of April, 1982 (the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, in the House of the People) and before the commencement of this Act. " ( 6 ) IN the present case, though the proceeding for acquisition of land was commenced prior to 30th of April, 1982, the award was made by the Collector on 14-3-1983. Thus, by the time of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, no award had been made by the Collector. Applying the provisions of Section 30 (1) (a) of the Amending Act, the claimant is entitled to the benefit under Section 23 (1-A) at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the market value of the land for the period from date of publication of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act till the date of taking over possession i. e. 16-7-1980. The aforesaid conclusion gets support from the observations made in paragraph 54 of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1995 SC 1012 . Similarly, in view of Section 30 (2) of the Amending Act, the claimant is entitled to get solatium under Section 23 (2) and interest under Section 28 of the Act, as amended by Act 68 of 1984. In the present case, though the land acquisition proceeding had been initiated prior to 30th of April, 1982, the award of the Collector as well as the Court had been passed after 30th of April, 1982. Thus, there can be no doubt regarding payability of enhanced solatium and interest. Apart from the clear language of Section 30 (2) of the Amending Act, the aforesaid view gets support from the observations made in the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1995 SC 581 (See paragraphs 4 and 5 ). Thus, there can be no doubt regarding payability of enhanced solatium and interest. Apart from the clear language of Section 30 (2) of the Amending Act, the aforesaid view gets support from the observations made in the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1995 SC 581 (See paragraphs 4 and 5 ). ( 7 ) THOUGH the Amended Act came into force after the award of the Subordinate Judge and the Collector, the aforesaid benefits are available to the claimant under Section 30 (1) (a) and Section 30 (2) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 even though no cross-objection has been filed by the claimant. By virtue of the deeming clause in Section 30 of the Amending Act, the claimant is entitled to the aforesaid statutory benefits. ( 8 ) TO sum up, the rate of calculation adopted by the Subordinate Judge is upheld. The claimant is entitled to an amount at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act till date of dispossession in accordance with Section 23 (1-A ). She is also entitled to solatium at the rate of 30 per cent on the market value of the land in accordance with Section 23 (2) of the Act and the interest at the enhanced rate in accordance with Section 30 of the Act, as amended by Act 68 of 1984. ( 9 ) SUBJECT to the aforesaid modification, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. .