Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1130 (PNJ)

Union of India v. Bhan Singh

2003-08-13

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2003
JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - The Union of India has filed the instant Regular First Appeal against the award dated 28.2.1984 passed by the District Judge, Gurdaspur vide which the market value of the acquired house/structure of the respondent was assessed as Rs. 16,800/- and the claimant-land owner was held entitled for enhanced compensation after deducting from the aforesaid amount the compensation already awarded to them by the Special Land Acquisition Collector. On the enhanced amount of compensation, the claimant/land owner was also awarded solatium at the rate of 15% and interest at the rate of 6% from the date of taking over possession of the acquired house/structure till the deposit of the enhanced amount in Court. 2. Vide notification dated 2.12.1977 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Government of India acquired certain land along with structures/houses for expansion of Pathankot Cantonment at village Athotarwan, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur. For the agricultural lands and the sites under the houses/structures, separate awards were passed by the Special Land Acquisition Collector and regarding the structures/houses, a separate award was passed. The instant appeal pertains to the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Collector with regard to the structures/houses only. This award was made by the Special Land Acquisition Collector on 30.5.1981. The compensation was assessed for different houses/structures of different land owners separately. Feeling dissatisfied, the land owner-respondent No. 1 filed reference under Section 18 of the Act which was referred to the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur. As stated above, the learned District Judge on consideration of the evidence available on the record, evaluated the market value of the structure/house of the respondent at the rate of Rs. 16,800/- vide award dated 28.2.1984. Against this award, Union of India has filed the instant appeal with the contention that the value of the structure/house, as evaluated by the learned District Judge is excessive, therefore, the award made by him is liable to be set aside. 3. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the record of the case, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the fixation of the market value of the acquired structure/house of the respondent. 3. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the record of the case, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the fixation of the market value of the acquired structure/house of the respondent. The Special learned Acquisition Collector had assessed the market value of the acquired structure/house of the respondent-claimant on the basis of an inventory prepared by the Sub Divisional Engineer, Defence Estate Office, Pathankot, on the basis of P.W.D. schedule of rates for the year 1962. The learned District Judge has determined the market value on the basis of the annual rental value of the property. The annual rental value of the acquired house of the respondent-claimant was assessed as Rs. 1680/- and after applying the multiplier of 10, the market value of the acquired house was assessed as Rs. 16,800/-. The learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any illegality or defect in the calculation of the market value of the acquired land by the aforesaid methods. The learned District Judge discarded the estimates prepared by the Experts of the appellant while observing that the value worked out by the Experts was on the lower side. After rejecting the estimates of the Experts, the learned District Judge evaluated the market value of the acquired structure/house of the respondent- claimant on the basis of the rental value. I am of the opinion that the assessment of the market value of the acquired structure/house at the aforesaid rates is just and reasonable. Therefore, I do not find any valid reason for interfering in the market value of the acquired property as determined by the learned District Judge. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent-claimant has argued that the District Judge has illegally awarded only 15% solatium on the enhanced amount of compensation and interest at the rate of 6% from the date of taking over possession till the date of deposit of the enhanced amount, whereas per Section 30 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 [Act No. 68 of 1984], the claimant should have been awarded solatium at the rate of 30% on the enhanced amount and interest at the rate of 9% for one year and 15% for subsequent years under the provisions of Sections 23(2) and 28 of the Act, respectively. He submitted that in this case, the award was made by the learned District Judge on 28.2.1984. Therefore, in view of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 30 of Act No. 68 of 1984, the claimant-land owner was entitled to the benefit of the amended provisions of Sections 23(2) and 28 of the Act. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the respondent-claimant relied upon the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, 1989(2) SCC 754 and K.S. Paripooram (II) v. State of Kerala and others, 1995(1) SCC 367. The learned counsel for the respondent-claimant further argued that even if the claimants have not filed any appeal or cross-objection, this relief pertaining to the grant of statutory benefits can be allowed to the claimants while disposing of the appeal filed by the Union of India against the award passed by the learned District Judge. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Shri Narain Dass Jain (Since deceased) by Legal Representatives v. The Agra Nagar Mahapalika, Agra, 1991 LACC 199 in which it has been observed as under :- "The importance of the award of solatium cannot be undermined by any procedural blocades. It follows automatically the market value of the land acquired, as a shadow would to a man. It springs up spontaneously as a part of the statutory growth on the determination and emergence of market value of land acquired. It follows as a matter of course without any impediment. That it falls to be awarded by the "in every case" leaves no discretion with the court in not awarding it in some cases and awarding in others. Since the award of solatium is in consideration of the compulsory nature of acquisition, it is hanging mandate for the court to award and supply the omission at any stage where the Court gets occasion to amend or rectify. This is the spirit of the provision, wherever made." 5. Similar view was taken by the Honble Supreme Court in Shree Vijay Cotton and Oil Mills Limited v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1991 SC 656 while observing as under :- "The rules of procedure are handmaiden of justice. The procedural hustle cannot come in the way of substantive rights of citizens under the Act. Similar view was taken by the Honble Supreme Court in Shree Vijay Cotton and Oil Mills Limited v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1991 SC 656 while observing as under :- "The rules of procedure are handmaiden of justice. The procedural hustle cannot come in the way of substantive rights of citizens under the Act. Therefore it would not be necessary for the appellant-claimant to have filed separate appeal/cross-objections before the High Court for the purpose of claiming interest under Section 28 or Section 34. He could claim the interest in the State-appeal. The fact, that he filed cross-objections which were dismissed as time barred, is wholly irrelevant. Learned counsel for the appellant could not controvert the entitlement of the claimant for enhanced solatium at the rate of 30% under the amended provisions of Section 23(2) and enhanced rate of interest at the rate of 9% for one year and 15% for the subsequent years under the amended Section 28 of the Act. However, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-claimant cannot be granted the benefit under the amended provisions as he did not file any appeal against the award of the District Judge nor he filed any cross-objection in the appeal filed by the Union of India. 6. I do not find any force in the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The statutory benefits like solatium and interest provided under the Act are mandatory. These benefits have to be provided by the civil Court on the enhanced amount of compensation, determined by the Court. Under the Act, no discretion has been provided to the Court in this regard. Every claimant/land owner is entitled for the statutory benefits on the enhanced amount of compensation. It is the bounden duty of the Court to grant these benefits to the land owners. If the aforesaid benefit has not been granted to the land owner/claimant by the civil Court while determining the market value under Section 23 of the Act, these benefits can be granted to the land owner/claimant at the time of hearing of the appeal against the said award under Section 54 of the Act, even though the said appeal was not filed by the claimant/land owner and even no cross-objection has been filed by the land owner/claimant in the appeal filed by the State or the Union of India. This view of mine is fully supported by the Honble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, K.S. Paripoornam (II) and Shree Vijay Cotton and Oil Mills Limited cases (supra). 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant- Union of India is dismissed. However, the respondent-claimant shall be entitled for solatium on the enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of 30% under Section 23(2) of the Act and interest at the rate of 9% per annum for one year from the date on which the possession of the acquired structure/ house was taken and interest at the rate of 15% per annum for the subsequent years till the amount is deposited in the Court. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.