Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 70 (PNJ)

Kulwant Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh

2001-01-12

R.L.ANAND

body2001
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - By this judgment I dispose of as many as (many as) 12 appeals i.e. RFA No. 350 of 1996, Kulwant Singh etc. v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, RFA No. 829 of 1996, Narinder Singh etc. v. U.T. Chandigarh, RFA No. 1056 of 1997, Gram Panchayat of village Behlana v. U.T. Chandigarh, RFA No. 351 of 1996 Dayal Singh etc. v. U.T. Chandigarh, RFA No. 352 of 1996 Pal Singh etc. v. U.T. Chandigarh, RFA No. 353 of 1996 Pal Chand etc. v. U.T. Chandigarh, RFA No. 354 of 1996 Mastan Singh and others v. U.T. Chandigarh, RFA No. 677 of 1996 Gurbachan Singh and others v. U.T. Chandigarh, RFA No. 676 of 1996, Mohinder Singh v. U.T. Chandigarh, RFA No. 1307 of 1996, Pal Singh v. U.T. Chandigarh, RFA No. 2223 of 1996, Data Ram v. U.T. Chandigarh and RFA No. 2224 of 1996 Smt. Lajwanti v. U.T. Chandigarh and others. 2. All these 12 appeals have been directed against the judgment, dated 24.11.1995, passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Chandigarh, who by enhancing the amount of compensation of the landowners/claimants, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,47,160/- per acre. In addition to the market value as assessed above, the claimants were also awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the date of award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier, as provided by Section 23(1-A) of the Act. The appellants were also allowed 30% solatium over and above this compensation. They were further paid interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation for the first year and 15% per annum onwards till its payment. 3. Still not satisfied with the award dated 24.11.1995, the aforesaid 12 appeals have been filed. 4. The facts of the case, which are being taken from RFA No. 350 of 1996, can be described in the following manner. Through notification No. 2/5/F4- 88/12288 dated 13.10.1989 and No. 2/5/R4-88/12830 dated 27.10.1989 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act respectively, 25.81 acres of land situated in village Behlana was acquired for the installation of Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force (Camps) at Chandigarh. Through notification No. 2/5/F4- 88/12288 dated 13.10.1989 and No. 2/5/R4-88/12830 dated 27.10.1989 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act respectively, 25.81 acres of land situated in village Behlana was acquired for the installation of Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force (Camps) at Chandigarh. Shri Ram Chander Sharma, Land Acquisition Collector, passed an award on completion of the acquisition proceedings on 5.2.1990 granting compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,65,400/- per acre for all kinds of land. The Gram Panchayat of village Behlana and others co-owners of the land Gurbachan Singh and Bhag Singh etc. were not granted and had filed separate references under Section 18 of the Act, claiming enhancement on various grounds inter alia that the land abuts the Chandigarh-Patiala road; it sandwiched between the new Chandigarh Industrial Area on the one side and the Chandigarh Aerodrome on the other; it was being used for commercial purposes; important places and sectors are situated close to the acquired land and as such, the market value has not been correctly assessed. It was also stated while awarding the compensation that no amount has been allowed for damage caused to the claimants by the reason of taking over of standing crops and trees on the land. It was further submitted that while calculating the compensation, the Collector has not taken into consideration the fact that the acquisition had severed the other land holdings of the owners from the land and as such, it was prayed that the compensation at the rate of Rs. 50 lacs per acre should be awarded. 5. In reply, the Collector denied the allegations and justified his award. From the above pleadings of the parties the Court framed the following issues :- 1. What was the market value of the acquired land at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation ? 2. Relief. The aforesaid 12 Land References were consolidated vide order dated 18.1.1991, passed by the lower Court and the evidence was recorded in LAC No. 37 of 22.8.1990 Gram Panchayat v. Union Territory, Chandigarh. 6. The parties led evidence. The claimants examined Namrata as AW1, Tara Chand AW2, Amar Singh AW3, Gurcharan Singh AW4 and Prem Sagar AW5 and also produced various documents in support of their claim. On behalf of the State, copies of sale deeds Exs. 6. The parties led evidence. The claimants examined Namrata as AW1, Tara Chand AW2, Amar Singh AW3, Gurcharan Singh AW4 and Prem Sagar AW5 and also produced various documents in support of their claim. On behalf of the State, copies of sale deeds Exs. R.1 and R.2 were tendered into evidence and no oral evidence was led by the State. 7. The parties addressed arguments and for the reasons given in paras No. 6, 7 and 8 of the impugned judgment dated 24.11.1995, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation and awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,47,160/- per acre besides giving other benefits which I have already indicated above. It will be appropriate for me if I reproduce paras No. 6, 7 and 8 of the impugned judgment, which are as follows :- "6. To prove their case, as already indicated by me, the claimants had produced Namrata, Clerk of the Estate Officer as AW1 to prove the average price of the commercial pots auctioned by the Chandigarh Administration held in the year 1987-88 and 1990 and residential plots in the year 1989-90. The fact that these plots had been sold from the prices ranging from Rs. 870.85 and Rs. 905/- to Rs. 1,285.55 per sq. yard would be of little consequence for determining the market value of the land in dispute at the time of its acquisition in the year 1989. 7. Tara Chand Patwari AW2 has deposed as to the location of the land. Amar Singh AW3 has indicated that he had prepared the assessment of the structure existed on the land of Pal Singh, Jawala Singh, Pritam Singh and Gurnam Singh. Gurnam Singh one of the claimants has indicated that the land owners had tubewells and other superstructure which adjoined the Air Force Station and Civil Airports and was only at a distance of 8 kms. from the Bus Stand, Chandigarh. Prem Sagar AW5 has indicated that the possession of land comprised in Khasra No. 17//9/2/2 had been taken by the Government and a judgment to this effect was passed by Shri Birinder Singh, Sub Judge Ist Class and so he was entitled to compensation from 1970 till the date of its acquisition by the Govt. Besides this, the claimants had produced documents Ex.A.11 to A.19 in support of their contention. Besides this, the claimants had produced documents Ex.A.11 to A.19 in support of their contention. In rebuttal on behalf of the Union of India, two sale deed Ex.R1 and R.2 had been filed. 8. The following chart tabulates the documentary evidence sought to be relied upon by the parties for fixing the market value of the acquired land. Document Location of the land Area acquired sold/purchased Year of acquisition date of sale Rate per acre P11 Burail 2K 5M 2.6.1982 1,62,000 70,000 P.12 Raipur Khurd 11 K 8M 28.8.1989 9,04,000 P.13 -do- 5K 6M 17.7.1989 4,24,000 P.14 -do-4TD>8K 17.7.1989 6,40,000 P.15 Hallo Majra - - 1,67,000 (Judgment) + P.16 Nizampur 64,21 acres 62,000 Burail 65.76 acres 2.2.1978 Attawa 78.31 acres 16.12.77 Kajheri --- 16.12.77 Maloya 98.12 acres 23.2.1978 Dadu Majra --- 16.5.1978 Palsora --- 17.7.1978 P.17. Kambala --- 20.11.1980 1,75,000 (Judgment) Kambali Mataur Sohana R.1 Behlana 8K 4.3.1992 1,45,000 R.2 Behlana 9K 18M 28.2.1992 1,55,000 As already indicated by me, the statement of Namrata is of no assistance to fix the market price of the land in dispute and the other documents brought on record are in the shape of sale deeds Ex.A.11, A.12, A.13 and A.14 which pertains to small area of land varying from 2 Kanals to 11 kanals and as such would be of no assistance to fix the market price per acre of the acquired land. Ex.A.15 is a judgment of the District Judge relating to the acquisition of 24 acres of land in village Hallo Majra on 20.11.1985 for setting up a Centre of the Central Reserve Police Force, Chandigarh. The Collector had priced it at Rs. 80,000/- and the learned District Judge had enhanced the price to Rs. 1,67,000/-. Ex.A.16 is the judgment of the Honble High Court relating to the acquisition of land in Nizampur Burail, Attawa, Kajheri, Burail, Maloya, Dadu Majra and Palsora and in these cases which pertain to the acquisition of the year 1977 the price of the land was fixed at Rs. 62,000/- per acre. A later judgment of the Honble High Court produced by the claimants is Ex.A.17 and in it, the compensation for the land acquired in village Kambala and Kambali was fixed at Rs. 1,75,000/- per acre. These acquisitions also pertain to the year 1980-81. 62,000/- per acre. A later judgment of the Honble High Court produced by the claimants is Ex.A.17 and in it, the compensation for the land acquired in village Kambala and Kambali was fixed at Rs. 1,75,000/- per acre. These acquisitions also pertain to the year 1980-81. In view of the fact that the judgments Ex.A-16 and A.17 pertain to the acquisitions made in the year 1977- 78 and 1980-81, these, in my opinion would not provide a correct basis for assessing the market value of the land in dispute which was acquired in the year 1989. Ex.R1 and R2 cannot be relied upon on account of the fact that Courts of law have already assessed the market value of the land adjoining to the acquired land which is more than the amount mentioned in the sale deeds sought to be relied upon. Ex.A.15 is the judgment of the learned District Judge relating to the acquisition in Village Hallo Majra which is situated across the road and this document provides the best evidence regarding the prevalent market price nearest to the date of acquisition. The Collector has already fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,65,400/- but it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the claimants that on the basis of judgment reported in Inder Singh v. The State of Punjab through Secretary to Government Punjab and another, 1988(2) PLR 190 an increase at the rate of 12% per annum should be given on the price fixed by the learned District Judge vide Ex.A.15 till the date on which the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in the present case was issued. Learned Govt. Pleader has not been able to show any judgment to the contrary and the principles laid down in judgment, 1988(2) P.L.R. 190 (supra) will have to be adopted and, therefore, the claimants will be entitled to the increase of 12% p.a. on the price fixed in Ex.A.15 to arrive at the compensation that would be payable to the claimants for compulsorily acquisition of their land. This amount would work out to be Rs. 2,47,160/- per acre. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,47,160/- per acre." 8. I have heard S/Shri A.S. Chahal and Thakur Kartar Singh, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants of all the 12 cases and Mrs. This amount would work out to be Rs. 2,47,160/- per acre. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,47,160/- per acre." 8. I have heard S/Shri A.S. Chahal and Thakur Kartar Singh, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants of all the 12 cases and Mrs. Lisa Gill, Advocate, appearing on behalf of U.T. Chandigarh and with their assistance, have gone through the record of the cases. 9. Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act lays down that "what matters are supposed to be considered in determining compensation" and Section 24 lays down that "what matters are supposed to be neglected in determining the compensation". According to Section 23 Sub-clause (i) the Court has to see what was the market value of the land on the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 Sub-section (1) of the Act." 10. What is fair and reasonable market value of an acquired area, is always a question of fact depending on the evidence adduced, circumstantial evidence and probabilities arising in each case. The guiding principles have been laid by the Supreme Court in AIR 1997 SC 2625, Special Deputy Collector and another v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others, wherein, it has been held as follows :- "What is fair and reasonable and adequate market value is always a question of fact depending on the evidence adduced, circumstantial evidence, and probabilities arising in each case. The guiding star or the acid test would be whether a hypothetical willing vendor would offer the lands and a willing purchaser in normal human conduct would be willing to buy as a prvidentman in normal market conditions prevailing in the open market in the locality in which the acquired lands are situated as on the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act; but not an anxious buyer dealing at arms length with throw away price, nor facade of sale or fictitious sales brought about in quick succession or otherwise to inflate the market value. The judge should sit in the arm chair of the said willing buyer and seek an answer to the question whether in the given set of circumstances as a prudent buyer he would offer the same market value which the Court proposed to fix for the acquired lands in the available market conditions." 11. The judge should sit in the arm chair of the said willing buyer and seek an answer to the question whether in the given set of circumstances as a prudent buyer he would offer the same market value which the Court proposed to fix for the acquired lands in the available market conditions." 11. Now, it is to be seen what was the potential value of the land on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act which was issued in this case on 13.10.1989. 12. In this case the oral evidence which has been led by the claimants is not of much avail though an effort was made by the counsel for the appellants to convince me through the statement of AW1 Narmata that in the year 1987 auction of commercial plots in different sector in Chandigarh took place and that the average value of the said auction was Rs. 5931/- per square yard. The auction of residential plots also took place and the average value of the said auction was Rs. 870.85 per square yard. It was also stressed by the claimants that auction of residential plots was held on 12.3.1988 and the average value of the said auction was Rs. 905/- per square yard. The average value of the commercial plots, which were put to auction on 13.3.1988 and Rs. 6864/- per square yard. Thereafter, auction of residential plots took place on 11.2.1989 and the average value was Rs. 1285.55 per square yard. While the average value of the commercial plots which were put to auction on 12.2.1989 was Rs. 10021/- per square yard. From this evidence, the learned Counsel for the appellants wanted to convince me that by giving reasonable discount, we can assess the market value of the land in question. 13. I am not inclined to accept the argument raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants. The plots which were auctioned for residential and commercial purposes, were developed plots and they were in the heart of the city of Chandigarh, whereas the present acquisition is of village Behlana adjoining to Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force (Camps) at Chandigarh and abuts the road leading from Chandigarh to Zirakpur. Moreover, Ms. Namrata in her cross-examination has stated that she does not know whether about 78 to 80 per cent of the auctioned plots were surrendered by the bidders. Moreover, Ms. Namrata in her cross-examination has stated that she does not know whether about 78 to 80 per cent of the auctioned plots were surrendered by the bidders. However, she was categorical in saying that maximum number of plots were surrendered and if the price of those surrendered plots is excluded, the rate of auction would go very much down. 14. Now, I would like to discuss the statement of Shri Tara Chand AW2, who stated that the acquired area abuts Chandigarh-Ambala Road on one side and the road running from Chandigarh to Airport on the other. The industrial area Chandigarh is about half a kilometre distance from the acquired land and that industrial area was fully developed. The Chandigarh Airport is in the revenue area of the same village (Behlana) and is about half a kilometre away from the acquired land. There is no cross-examination to the statement of Shri Tara Chand. Thus from the statement of Shri Tara Chand, we can take a lot of assistance about the potential value of the land in question. The acquired area is on Chandigarh-Ambala Road. It is at a distance of half a kilometre from the industrial area which is fully developed and is also at a distance of half a kilometre from the Airport. Thus, the potential value of the land can be manifold such as it can be used for a complex for which it was acquired. It can be commercial one as it is very close to the industrial area. Acquired area could also be used for industrial purpose for the development of the industry and for the expansion of the industrial area. The Government could also initiate a heavy industrial unit to utilise the potential value of the land. We cannot dispute that the acquired land is one of the prime lands near Chandigarh. 15. AW3 Shri Amar Singh has proved the scaled site plan Ex.A.1 and I will discuss this document in the latter part of this judgment. Amar Singh, however, deposed that there is a frontage of the acquired land to the extent of six killas touching National Highway Chandigarh-Ambala Road. Gurnam Singh AW4 is one of the owners of the land in question and he stated that there was a facility of electric supply and sewerage and there were also dispensary and High School in the village for the last about 10-12 years. Gurnam Singh AW4 is one of the owners of the land in question and he stated that there was a facility of electric supply and sewerage and there were also dispensary and High School in the village for the last about 10-12 years. The approach road was metalled one. There was a market of about 200 shops in village Behlana. The Air Force Aerodrome and Civil Airport adjoin the acquired land. The market value of the land acquired is much higher than assessed by the Collector. He has, however, not been able to give the idea about the market value of the land on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. He stated two facts further that village Raipur Khurd which falls in U.T., is opposite to the acquired land and the properties across the National Highway. Villages Behlana and Raipur Khurd are at a distance of 8 kms. from Bus Stand Sector-17, Chandigarh. There is virtually no cross-examination to the statement of Shri Gurnam Singh. 16. To strengthen the case further the claimants have placed on record A.1., the scaled site plan which was prepared by the witness Shri Amar Singh. The acquired land has been shown in dotted lines. A perusal of the same would show that the acquired land abuts the Chandigarh-Ambala Road and adjoins the CRPF Camp (residential quarters). It is very close to the Farm of one Shri Vinod Sharma and the said Farm adjoins village Hallo Majra which is hardly at a distance of about 1000 feet from the acquired area. On the southern side of the acquired area a road goes to the Airport and opposite to the road there is a land of village Raipur Khurd. The distance of village Raipur Khurd from the acquired area is hardly 120 metres. Thus, the instances of sale of village Raipur Khurd and instances of sale of Hallo Majra can also be helpful besides the instances of village Behlana. To discuss further, across the link road which goes to Airport and which bifurcates from the main road (Chandigarh-Ambala Road), there are buildings of Chief Engineer MES and there are residential houses of the army personnel and so on and this goes up to the Air Force Station. To discuss further, across the link road which goes to Airport and which bifurcates from the main road (Chandigarh-Ambala Road), there are buildings of Chief Engineer MES and there are residential houses of the army personnel and so on and this goes up to the Air Force Station. Thus, there is no dispute that the potential value of the land was very high on the date of the acquisition and it could be used for industrial purposes and it could also be used for residential purposes by carving out certain sectors. It could also be used for agricultural purposes by giving a shape of the Farm by the owners and it could further be used for setting up the different complexes like Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force Complex. 17. The claimants have mainly relied upon three instances of sale i.e. Ex.A.12, A.13 and A.14. These instances of sales have been examined by me with the help of the site plan Ex.A.1. A.12 pertains to the sale dated 28.8.1989 vide which land measuring 11 Kanals 8 Marlas was sold for a consideration of Rs. 9,04,000/- and the value of land of one acre comes to round about 6.36 lacs. Similarly, land measuring 5 Kanals 8 Marlas was sold in Raipur Khurd as per A.13 on 17.7.1989 for a consideration of Rs. 4,24,000/-. Thus, the price of one acre would be round about 6.28 lacs. Vide A.14 area measuring 8 Kanals (one acre) was sold for a consideration of Rs. 6,40,000/- on 17.7.1989. The counsel for the appellants submitted that these transactions may be taken into consideration while determining the market value of the acquired area. 18. The submission of the counsel for the appellants can be accepted to a limited extent but full weightage cannot be given to the instances of sale Exs.A.12, A.13 and A.14 for the reasons that vendees/vendors of these sale deeds have not been examined. Agreement of sales have also not been produced. The respondents were deprived of the opportunity of cross-examination. The transactions are of two to three months earlier to the date of the notification and the people of the area can reasonably become aware that this land is likely to be acquired by the Government because adjoining to these lands the camp of CRPF is already located. The respondents were deprived of the opportunity of cross-examination. The transactions are of two to three months earlier to the date of the notification and the people of the area can reasonably become aware that this land is likely to be acquired by the Government because adjoining to these lands the camp of CRPF is already located. Further these transactions are of village Raipur Khurd which is at some distance from some of the acquired area and is on the opposite side of the road. 19. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, submitted that these transactions be ignored totally. I am not inclined to accept the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents. I have already stated above that these transactions can still be looked into for limited purposes such as about the location of the land and after giving some discount and benefit to the State, an idea can be formulated about the market value of the land in question. To my opinion, market value of the acquired land should be Rs. 4,50,000/- (Rupees for lacs and fifty thousand only) per acre and I assess it accordingly. 20. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents relied upon the tractions R.1 and R.2 and submitted that land measuring 8 Kanals was sold for a sum of Rs. 1,45,000/- on 4.2.1992 much subsequent to the notification under Section 4 of the Act. Similarly, the land measuring 8 Kanals 18 Marlas was sold for a sum of Rs. 1,55,000/- on 28.2.1992. Therefore, the compensation has already been paid in excess to the land owners. 21. I cannot subscribe to the argument of the learned Counsel for the respondents because these very transactions have not even been relied upon by the learned Collector, who awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,65,000/- (Rupees one lac and sixty five thousand only) per acre which amount was enhanced by the Reference Court to Rs. 2,47,160/- per acre. The respondents have not shown the distance of the aforesaid land from the acquired area. Even otherwise, I have stated above that the land which has been acquired abuts the Chandigarh-Ambala Road and the frontage of about six acres of the acquired area abuts the main road itself. 2,47,160/- per acre. The respondents have not shown the distance of the aforesaid land from the acquired area. Even otherwise, I have stated above that the land which has been acquired abuts the Chandigarh-Ambala Road and the frontage of about six acres of the acquired area abuts the main road itself. The transactions which have been relied upon by the claimants are of the land near to the main road and, therefore, these can give a definite idea about the market value of the land in question. 22. The learned Counsel for the respondents further submitted by inviting my attention to Annexure A-15 that District Judge, Chandigarh, vide judgment dated 5.2.1988, had awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,67,000/- per acre with regard to the land falling within the revenue limits of village Hallo Majra acquired on 20.11.1985 under Section 4 of the Act and, therefore, the award of lower Court should be affirmed which has given a reasonable increase over and above the judgment dated 5.2.1988. 23. The argument is not acceptable. In fact the lower Court fell in error by giving too much importance to the decision dated 5.2.1988. It did not take into notice properly that the aforesaid acquisition is of the year 1985, whereas, the present acquisition is of the year 1989. Much water had flown during these four years. Chandigarh developed and galloped like anything. It is one of the finest cities of the Northern India. Every inch of the land of Chandigarh is so valuable that it is difficult to define. Every person wants to build up his property in Chandigarh whether residential or commercial or shop-cum-flats because of its environment and location etc. Less said the better about beauty of this town, its surrounding and its environment. From 1985 to 1989, there was a high increase in the prices of the land in and around Chandigarh because of the disturbed condition in Punjab and a judicial notice can always be taken of this fact. 20% increase, given by the Court on the basis of the judgment Ex.A.15, dated 5.2.1988, was not justified. Rather the decision Ex.A.15 could not be made the basis. Otherwise also, it is also stated at the bar by the counsel for the appellants that the judgment dated 5.2.1988 is under appeal and has not attained the finality. 24. 20% increase, given by the Court on the basis of the judgment Ex.A.15, dated 5.2.1988, was not justified. Rather the decision Ex.A.15 could not be made the basis. Otherwise also, it is also stated at the bar by the counsel for the appellants that the judgment dated 5.2.1988 is under appeal and has not attained the finality. 24. Be that as it may, I have independently formed an opinion that the market value of this land could be Rs. 4,50,000/- (Rupees four lacs and fifty thousand only) per acre, on the date of its acquisition. 25. The learned Counsel for the appellants wanted to take the advantage of the Government auctions with regard to the plots auctioned in the year 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990 and submitted that after giving a reasonable discount the market value of the land in question should be assessed not less than rupees six lacs per acre. 26. I am not in a position to accept the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants. The developed plots, which were auctioned in the years, 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990, are located in the heart of the city of Chandigarh. The area is small. Those plots are fully developed whereas the area of the acquired land is 25.81 acres and admittedly is at a distance of 7/9 kms. from the Bus Stand of Chandigarh. 27. In this view of the matter, I reverse the finding of the lower Court on issue No. 1 and hold that the market value of the acquired land at the time of the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was Rs. 4,50,000/- (Rupees four lacs and fifty thousand) per acre irrespective of its location and that the claimants are entitled to the enhanced compensation at this rate. 28. In view of my finding on issue No. 1, the claimants/appellants are awarded compensation at the enhanced rate of Rs. 4,50,000/- (Rupees four lacs and fifty thousand) per acre. 4,50,000/- (Rupees four lacs and fifty thousand) per acre irrespective of its location and that the claimants are entitled to the enhanced compensation at this rate. 28. In view of my finding on issue No. 1, the claimants/appellants are awarded compensation at the enhanced rate of Rs. 4,50,000/- (Rupees four lacs and fifty thousand) per acre. In addition to the market value as assessed above, the claimants shall also be entitled to 12% interest per annum on this market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier as provided by Section 23(1-A) of the Act. The claimants shall also be entitled to 30% solatium over and above this compensation. They shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation for the first year and 15% per annum onwards till its payment. The appellants shall also be entitled to costs of appeals. With the aforesaid observations, all the aforesaid 12 appeals stand disposed of. Appeals allowed.