M. P. E. B. Betul v. Premlata — 1997 DIGILAW 609 (MP)

JUDGMENT 1. M.P. Electricity Board, being aggrieved by the award dt. 31.3. 1983 passed by Addl. District Judge, Betul in Land Acquisition Case No. 1 of 1988, has preferred this appeal u/s. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. By the said award, the Reference Court has fixed the value of the land @ Rs. 1.33 per sq. ft. Reference Court has further granted solatium @ 15% on the compensation amount as also 6% interest from the date possession of the land has been taken i.e. 12.4.1978 till its payment, but it directed that interest shall not be liable to be paid on the amount of solatium. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as M.P.E.B.) is aggrieved by fixation of value of the land @ 1.33 sq. ft. and its stand is that the same is higher, whereas according to the land owner, who has filed cross appeal, submits that fixation of the value of the land at the aforesaid rate is lower and the same is fit to be enhanced. Land owner's further grievance is that solatium @ 30% ought to have been granted and they are further entitled for interest U/s. 23 (I A) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. It is common ground that a notification U/s. 4 of the Act was issued on 21.12.1976 and further notification U/s. 6 of the Act was issued on 12.11.1977. Possession of the acquired land was taken on 12.4.1978 and the Collector under the Act handed over the award on 30th June, 1978. On a request being made by the land owner, the matter was referred by the Collector to the Court and the Reference Court gave its award on 31.3.1993. 3. It is relevant here to state that while arriving at the value of the land, Reference Court held that the land in question is homestead land. Ms. Sharmila Singhai appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that finding recorded by the Reference Court that the land acquired is home-stead land and not agricultural land, while deciding the value' of the land is erroneous. In this connection, she has drawn my attention to paragraph 7 of the evidence of PW 4 Bhawarchand Garg. In the said paragraph, this witness has stated that even today near the acquired land, in some land agriculture operation is carried out. In this connection, she has drawn my attention to paragraph 7 of the evidence of PW 4 Bhawarchand Garg. In the said paragraph, this witness has stated that even today near the acquired land, in some land agriculture operation is carried out. He denied the suggestion that the acquired land has come under Tikari Village recently and has specifically stated that the land in question is in Tikari Village since before. To drive home her point she has further drawn my attention to the evidence of NAW 1, B.D. Lilhore, Assistant Engineer of M.P.E.B. in paragraph 1 wherein he has stated that at the time when the land was acquired, same was used for agricultural operation. Shri Dubey however appearing on behalf of the land owner's submit that the witness examined by the Board itself clearly shows that the land at the time of acquisition was home stead. In this connection, he has drawn my attention to the evidence of NAW 1, B.D. Lilhore in paragraph 8 wherein, he has stated that the value of the acquired land in the year 1977-78 would have been between Rs. 2-3/- sq. ft. Shri Dubey referring to the aforesaid statement of NA W 1 submits that the value of the land fixed by the Reference Court @ 1.33 is thus totally erroneous. 4. In my opinion, statement of PW 4 Bhawarchand Garg that agricultural operation is being done in some portion of the land near the acquired land even today cannot lead to the conclusion that the land acquired was an agricultural land. Subsequent statement made by this witness makes the same clear when he states that the land was in part of village Tikari from before. Similarly, evidence of NA WI, B.D. Lilhore in paragraph 1 that the land was being used for agriculture purpose is contradicted by his own statement in paragraph 8 wherein, he has stated that the land was sold @ Rs. 2-3 per sq. ft. when it was acquired. It is common knowledge that agricultural land are not sold on sq. ft. basis. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the submission of Ms. Singhai that the finding recorded by the Reference Court that the land in question is not an agricultural land, is in any way erroneous. 5. 2-3 per sq. ft. when it was acquired. It is common knowledge that agricultural land are not sold on sq. ft. basis. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the submission of Ms. Singhai that the finding recorded by the Reference Court that the land in question is not an agricultural land, is in any way erroneous. 5. Shri Dubey, as stated earlier, appearing on behalf of the land owners submits that in view of the statement of NA W 1 that the value of the land at the time of acquisition was Rs. 2-3/-, Reference Court ought to have fixed the value of the land @ Rs. 3/- per sq. ft. It is relevant here to state that the witness referred to above has stated the value of the land from Rs. 2/- to Rs. 3/- and in that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the same has to be fixed @ Rs. 3/- per sq. ft. Reference Court referred to the evidence of the aforesaid witness and held that the value of the land could be @ Rs. 2/- per sq. ft. and worked out at the rate of Rs.,1.33 sq. ft. I do not find any illegality that the Reference Court while fixing the rate has committed. 6. Shri Dubey then submits that the Reference Court ought to have granted interest U/s. 23 (1 A) and solatium at higher rate of 30% as inserted and amended respectively by Land Acquisition Act (Amendment) Act 84 (Act 68 of 1984). It is relevant here to state that by section 15 of Act 68/84, section 23 (1 A) has been inserted in the Act and further the words' 15 per centum' have been substituted by 30 per centum' in section 23 (2) of the Act. Section 15 of the Act 68 of 1984 reads as follows :- 15. It is relevant here to state that by section 15 of Act 68/84, section 23 (1 A) has been inserted in the Act and further the words' 15 per centum' have been substituted by 30 per centum' in section 23 (2) of the Act. Section 15 of the Act 68 of 1984 reads as follows :- 15. Amendment of section 23--In section 23 of the principal Act (a) after sub-section (1), the following sub-section shall be inserted, namely :- "(1A) In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market value for the period commencing OP and from the date of publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1), 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; Explanation--In computing the period referred to in this sub-section any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any Court shall be excluded." (b) in sub-section (2) for the words "fifteen per centum", the words , 'thirty per centum" shall be substituted. Section 30 of the Act 68 of 1984 reads as follows: 30. Transitional Provisions :- (1) The provisions of sub-section (1 A) of section 23 of the Principal Act, as inserted by Clause (a) of section 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 any 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) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the principal Act commenced after that date, whether or not an award has been made by the Collector before the commencement of this Act. (2) The provisions of sub-section (2) of section 23 and section 28 of the principal Act, as amended by clause (b) of section 15 and section 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 after the 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. 7. Shri Dubey contends that in the present case award by the Reference Court being after 30th April, 1982 i.e. the date on which the bill was introduced as also after the commencement of the Act i.e. 24th September, 1984, land owners are entitled to solatium @ 30 per centum and also interest under section 23 (1 A) of the Act. In support of his submission that the land owners shall be entitled for solatium at the higher rate, he placed reliance on a Constitution Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, AIR 1985 Supreme Court 228 and my attention has been drawn to the following passage from paragraph 32 of the Judgment which reads as under: "In other words S. 30 (2) of the Amendment Act extends the benefits of the enhanced solatium to cases where the award by the Collector or by the Court is made between 30th April, 1982 and 24th September, 1984 or to appeals against such awards decided by the High Court and the Supreme Court whether the decisions of the High Court or the Supreme Court are rendered before 24th September, 1984 or after that date. All that is material is that the award by the Collector or by the Court should have been made between 30th April, 1982 and 24th September, 1984." 8. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok v. State of M.P. 1990 JLJ 748 had the occasion to consider this aspect of the matter and in the said case it has been held as follows: "11. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok v. State of M.P. 1990 JLJ 748 had the occasion to consider this aspect of the matter and in the said case it has been held as follows: "11. The contention of the claimants/land owners that they are entitled to solatium and interest in accordance with the amended provisions of section 23 and section 28 of the Act cannot be accepted. The law has been settled by the Apex Court in Raghuvir Singh's case, whereby the Apex Court has held that the benefit of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended in 1984, is available and confined to appeals against an award of the Collector or of the Court, rendered between 30th April, 1982 (date of introduction of Bill) and 24th September, 1984 (date of its passing). Therefore, the benefit of the amended provisions of the Act cannot De extended to the claimant/landowners in the instant case." It is an admitted position that in this case, the Reference Court has given award on 31.3.93 i.e. after the operation of the Act 68 of 1984. When the benefit of higher rate of solatium being made applicable to land owner in case of award handed over by the Reference Court between 30.4.1982 to 24.9.1984, there is no reason to deny the same rate in case of an award handed over by the Reference Court after commencement of the Act on 24.9.84. 9. Shri Dubey contends that the reasoning applicable for grant of solatium at the higher rate shall apply with equal force for grant of interest U/s. 23 (1A) of the Act. I am of the opinion that section 30 (2) of the Act 68 of 1984 provides for application of section 23 (2) of the Act as amended by Clause (b) of section 15 of Act 68 of 1984, only in relation to enhanced Solatium. Transitional provision relating to grant of interest under section 23 (1 A) of the Act, is provided under section 30 (1) of Act 68 of 1984, quoted above. This section provides for application of provision of section 23 (1A) of the Act in relation to proceeding pending under the Act on 30.4.1982 in which no award has been made by the Collector or Land Acquisition proceeding itself has commenced after 30.4.1982. This section provides for application of provision of section 23 (1A) of the Act in relation to proceeding pending under the Act on 30.4.1982 in which no award has been made by the Collector or Land Acquisition proceeding itself has commenced after 30.4.1982. In the present case, neither of the conditions is fulfilled as the Collector handed over the award on 30.6,1978 and obviously land acquisition proceeding did not commence after 30.4.1982. In my opinion, in view of plain and unambiguous language of section 30 (1) of Act 68 of 1984, which is different than section 30 (2) of Act 68 of 1984, benefit of interest under section 23 (1A) of the Act can not be granted to the land owners. 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Cross appeal of the land owners is allowed in relation to rate of solatium, instead of 15% awarded by the Reference Court it shall be awarded @ 30%. The award of the Court is' modified to this extent only. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.