Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1309 (PNJ)

State of Haryana v. Malti Devi

2003-09-17

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2003
ORDER Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - The State of Haryana has filed the instant appeal against the award dated 8.12.1987 passed by learned District Judge, Faridabad, by alleging that the benefit of additional amount @ 12% per annum under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been wrongly granted to the respondents-claimants. 2. Vide notification dated 24.3.1971 published on 30.3.1971 under Section 4 of the Act, the State of Haryana acquired 137.42 acres of land for the purpose of planned development of Sector 19 in Ballabgarh-Faridabad. The Land Acquisition Collector, vide his award dated 12.1.1973, determined the market value of the acquired land. Feeling dissatisfied against the aforesaid award, the respondent-claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation. The learned District Judge, vide his award dated 8.12.1987, determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 16/- per square yard on the basis of two judgments (Ex.P1 and P2) passed by this Court. The respondents-claimants were further granted the benefit of enhanced solatium @ 30% under Section 23(2) of the Act and interest @ 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the subsequent years under Section 28 of the Act. They were also held entitled for the additional amount @ 12% per annum on the aforesaid market value under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. Against this award, the State of Haryana has filed the instant appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant State has submitted that since the award dated 12.1.1973 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector was prior to the cut off date i.e. 30.4.1982, therefore, the respondents-claimants were not entitled for the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act is view of Section 30(1)(b) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act 68 of 1984) as has been interpreted by the Honble Supreme Court in Union of India and another v. Raghubir Singh etc., (1989)2 SCC 754, K.S. Paripoornam (II) v. State of Kerala and others, (1995)1 SCC 367 and Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, 2002(1) SCC 142. 4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant State and have perused the records of the case. 5. The matter in controversy is squarely covered by the various decisions of the Honble Supreme Court. 4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant State and have perused the records of the case. 5. The matter in controversy is squarely covered by the various decisions of the Honble Supreme Court. Since in the instant case, the award dated 12.1.1973 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector is prior to the cut off date i.e. 30.4.1982, the respondents-claimants are not entitled for additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act in view of Section 30(1)(b) of the Act No. 68 of 1984. However, since the Reference Court had made the award on 8.12.1987, therefore, the respondents-claimants are entitled for the solatium @ 30% under Section 23(2) of the Act and the enhanced rate of interest @ 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the subsequent years under Section 28 of the Act in view of the sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Act No. 68 of 1984 and the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court in Union of India and another v. Raghubir Singh etc., K.S. Paripoornam (II) v. State of Kerala and others, and Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another (supra). 6. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is partly allowed and the grant of additional amount of compensation @ 12% per annum to the respondents- claimants under Section 23(1-A) of the Act is hereby set aside. Except this modification, rest of the award passed by the learned District Judge is made absolute. Appeal partly allowed.