Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 614 (RAJ)

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Nitin Bhai

1996-05-28

D.C.DALELA

body1996
JUDGMENT 1. - The Indian Oil Corporation laid pipe lines between different States for carrying the petroleum products. This appeal pertains to the land acquired for Sayala Mathura pipe lines. The land admeasuring 24 Bighas and 4 Biswas was acquired for the construction of the Pump Station at Abu Road through Government of Rajasthan. The land was owned by ten different owners. The instant appeal in hand pertains to the compensation determined in the case of respondent Nitin Bhai, who is one of the owners whose land is acquired. The land was acquired in October, 1978 and the Land Acquisition Officer made the award on 30-12-80. At the request of the appellant, the District Collector, Sirohi referred the award for reference on 20-1-82. On such reference the Civil Court made the award on 14-1-94. The Civil Court awarded solatium under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 9% for the period from 14-10-78 to 14-10-79 and the interest at the rate of 15% per annum from 15-10-79 to 14-1-94 and further interest at the rate of 15% from 15-1-95. The Trial Court also enhanced the amount of compensation towards the costs of trees. The appellant felt aggrieved by the Civil Court awarding enhanced solatium and the interest and enhanced amount of compensation towards the costs of trees. Hence this appeal has been filed. 2. At the request of the learned counsel for both the sides the arguments on the merit of the appeal at this stage of admission have been heard. 3. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was extended to the State of Rajasthan on 24th September, 1984 and the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 was repealed on the date of examination. The Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred as Amendment Act of 1984) has enhanced the rate of solatium from 15% to 30% by making amendment in Section 23(2) of the Principal Act. Similarly the rate of interest has been raised from 6% to 9% by making the amendment in Section 28 and 34 of the Principal Act. The Amendment Act of 1984 came into force w.e.f. 24-9-84. Section 30 of the Amendment Act provides the transition provision. 4. Similarly the rate of interest has been raised from 6% to 9% by making the amendment in Section 28 and 34 of the Principal Act. The Amendment Act of 1984 came into force w.e.f. 24-9-84. Section 30 of the Amendment Act provides the transition provision. 4. The Land Acquisition Officer made the award on 30-12-80 while on reference the Civil Court made the award on 14-1-94 and the Civil Court directed the payment of solatium and interest enhanced by the Amendment Act of 1984. 5. Here it may be mentioned that the Land Acquisition (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred as Rajasthan Amendment Act, 1987) was enacted after the assent of the President of India was received. It came into force w.e.f. 3-1-1987. By this Rajasthan Amendment Act, 1987 a new Section 56 has been added in the Principal Act and made applicable in the State of Rajasthan. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the enhancement in the solatium and the rate of interest is available only in the case of an award made by the Collector or the reference Civil Court between 30-4-82 and 24-9-84. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, in the instant case in hand the Land Acquisition Officer for that matter the Collector has made the award on 30-12-80 and the reference Civil Court has made the award on 14-1-94. Thus, the awards do not fall within the interregnum i.e. between 30-4-82 and 24-9-84. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the enhanced rate of solatium and interest is not available to the respondent in view of Section 30 of the Amendment Act, 1984. In support of his argument the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the case of Union of India v. Raghubir Singh (dead) by LRs. etc. reported in AIR 1989 SC 1933 . 7. In the case of Union of India v. Philip Tiago Degama reported in AIR 1990 SC 981 the similar situation arose. In that case also the awards do not fall within the interregnum i.e. between 30-4-82 and 24-9-84. In that case the Collector made the award on 5-3-96 and the reference Court made the award on 28-5-85 and thus both the awards apparently fall outside the period prescribed under Section 30(2) of the Amendment Act, 1984. In that case also the awards do not fall within the interregnum i.e. between 30-4-82 and 24-9-84. In that case the Collector made the award on 5-3-96 and the reference Court made the award on 28-5-85 and thus both the awards apparently fall outside the period prescribed under Section 30(2) of the Amendment Act, 1984. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the case of Union of India v. Raghuvir Singh (Supra) held that the benefit of higher solatium under Section 23(2) is available to the case before it. The Supreme Court laid down that the benefit of higher solatium is available also in cases where the award by the Collector or the reference Court is made after 24-9-84. The Supreme Court has laid down as under:- "But these decisions do not solve the problem presented here. The award with which we are concerned does not fall within the interregnum i.e. between 30 April, 1982 and 24 September, 1984. To repeat the facts: The acquisition commenced on 25 October, 1967 when the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published, on 5 March, 1969 the Collector made the award on 28 May, 1985 the reference Court made the award. Both the awards, thus apparently fall outside the period prescribed under Section 30(2). Counsel for the appellant on the aforesaid facts ruled out the applicability of Section 30(2) in the first place. Secondly, he also ruled out the applicability of Section 23(2). The first contention was based on the plain terms of Section 30(2) and the Second on the ground that Section 23(2) with its isolated splendour is not retrospective in operation. He thus submitted that the claimants case could not be saved for higher solatium either under Transitional provisions or by amended Section 23(2) of the Act and it was gone both ways." "The criticism that the literal interpretation of Section 30(2), if adhered to would lead to unjust result seems to be justified. Take for example, two acquisition proceedings of two adjacent pieces of land, required for the same public purpose. Let us say that they were initiated on the same day a day sometime prior to 30 April, 1982. In one of them the award of the Collector is made on 23 September, 1984 and in the other on 25 September, 1984. Take for example, two acquisition proceedings of two adjacent pieces of land, required for the same public purpose. Let us say that they were initiated on the same day a day sometime prior to 30 April, 1982. In one of them the award of the Collector is made on 23 September, 1984 and in the other on 25 September, 1984. under the terms of Section 30(2) the benefit of higher solatium is available to the first award and not to the second. Take another example, the proceedings of acquisition initiated, say, in the year 1960 in which award was made on 1 May, 1982. Then the amended Section 23(2) shall apply and higher solatium is entitled to. But in an acquisition initiated on 23 September, 1984 and award made in the year 1989 the higher solatium is ruled out. Thus the intrinsic illogicality if the award made after 24 September, 1984 is not given higher solatium. Such a construction of Section 30(2) would be vulnerable for attack under Article 14 of the Constitution and it should be avoided. We, therefore, hold that benefit of higher solatium under Section 23(2) should be available also to the present case. This would be the only reasonable view to be taken in the circumstances of the case and in the light of t he purpose of Section 30(2). In this view of the matter, the higher solatium allowed by the High Court is kept undisturbed." 8. The Apex Court after taking into consideration the ruling cited by the learned counsel for the appellant has decided as above. Therefore, the above law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Philip Tiago De Gamas case applies to the instant case in hand with all force and the instant case in hand is squarely covered by it. Therefore, evidently, the benefit of higher solatium would be available to the respondent in the case in hand and the learned reference Court has committed no error in awarding the enhanced solatium under the amended provisions of Section 2.3(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 9. Therefore, evidently, the benefit of higher solatium would be available to the respondent in the case in hand and the learned reference Court has committed no error in awarding the enhanced solatium under the amended provisions of Section 2.3(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 9. The other ruling cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is the case of K.S. Pariapoornan v. State of Kerala, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 1488 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case in hand, because the ruling is on Section 23(1 A) of the Amendment Act, 1984, whereas the case in hand is with regard to Section 23(2). Similarly the case of State of Kerala v. George Joseph reported in 1996 (3) JT SC 140 is also not applicable in the present case in hand because this ruling is also related to Section 23(1A). 10. Since the provisions of Section 30(2) of the Amendment Act, 1984 are applicable in the instant case in hand the benefit of enhanced rate of interest under the amended Section 28 of the Principal Act would also be available in this case because the provisions of Section 30(2) are in relation to Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the Principal Act as amended by the Amendment Act, 1984. In the present case in hand, the possession of the land was taken before 30-4-82 and the amount of compensation for such acquisition has not been fully paid or fully deposited, the provisions of Section 30(3)(a) are attracted and, therefore, on the algology of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court as quoted above, the benefit of the enhanced rate of interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by the Amendment Act of 1984 would also be available in the case in hand. 11. From the above entire discussion, it is evident that the learned reference Court has committed no error in fact and law in awarding the benefit of enhanced solatium and interest under the Amendment Act of 1984. 12. Under Section 56(8) & (9) of the Rajasthan Amendment Act, 1987 as applicable in State of Rajasthan, the benefit of enhanced solatium and interest is available in the present case in hand. In this aspect of the matter also allowing the benefit of enhanced solatium and interest does not suffer from any legal infirmity. 13. 12. Under Section 56(8) & (9) of the Rajasthan Amendment Act, 1987 as applicable in State of Rajasthan, the benefit of enhanced solatium and interest is available in the present case in hand. In this aspect of the matter also allowing the benefit of enhanced solatium and interest does not suffer from any legal infirmity. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant has next argued that the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the reference Court committed an error in directing payment of compensation for 650 trees because there were actually 384 trees in the land in question acquired. 14. It seems that there were 650 trees in the entire land of the respondent. A large chunk on respondents land was acquired. In the portion of the land acquired there were 384 trees, whereas on the land left out, there were remaining 266 trees. The well which supplied the water to the trees fell in that portion of the land, which was acquired and consequently the remaining 266 trees on the left out portion of the land were adversely and injuriously affected. Taking into account the consequent loss by the severance injuriously affecting the land, the compensation for all 650 trees was awarded by the learned Land Acquisition Officer as well as the reference Civil Court. In my opinion the damage suffered by the respondent by severance injuriously affecting the land cannot go uncompensated altogether and in the circumstances, I think that the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the reference able Court committed no error in awarding the compensation on the basis of 650 trees. 15. No other point has been argued and pressed before me. 16. I have gone through the judgment and order dated 14-1-94 of the reference Court and I am satisfied that the learned Civil Court was justified in coming to the conclusion on the evidence on record with regard to the solatium, interest and compensation on account of the trees. Since I agree with the learned reference Court, it is unnecessary for me to refer to the evidence relied upon by the learned Civil Court for coming to the conclusion arrived at by that Court. Since I agree with the learned reference Court, it is unnecessary for me to refer to the evidence relied upon by the learned Civil Court for coming to the conclusion arrived at by that Court. In Girijanandni Devi v. Bijendra Narayan Choudhary, AIR 1967 SC 1124 and in case of State of Karnataka v. Hema Reddy, AIR 1981 SC 1417 it has been held by the Supreme Court that the Appellate Court, when it agrees with the views of the learned lower court on the evidence, need not repeat the narration of the evidence or reiterate the reasons given by the learned lower Court. The expression of general agreement would suffice. 17. The net result of above entire discussion is that there is no force in the appeal and the same is dismissed hereby with costs.Appeal dismissed. *******