Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1344 (PNJ)

State of Punjab v. Balwant Singh

2003-09-24

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2003
JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - This judgment shall dispose of Regular First Appeals No. 217 and 218 of 1980, which have been filed by the State of Punjab against the awards dated 20.10.1987 passed by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, vide which compensation for the acquired land of the respondent-claimants has been determined at the flat rate of Rs. 24,000/- per killa. They have also been awarded solatium 30% and the benefit of enhanced interest 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum from the subsequent years, under Sections 23(2) and 28 of the Act. 2. Vide notification dated 11.1.1982 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the State of Punjab acquired 0.34 acres of land, situated in Village Khawaspur, Tehsil Tarn Taran, District Amritsar, for widening the road leading from Khadoor Sahib to Goindwal. The Land Acquisition Collector, vide his award dated 30.9.1995, determined the market value of the acquired land a Rs. 19,000/- per acre. 3. Feeling dis-satisfied with the aforesaid award, the respondents-claimants sough two separate references under Section 18 of the Act, which were disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar by the impugned awards in the aforesaid manner. Before the learned Reference Court, the respondents- claimants pleaded for the determination of the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 55,000/- per acre. To establish their claim, they proved on record the sale deed Ex. A2, but the learned Reference Court did not place reliance on the same by observing that it does not reflect a fair picture of the correct assessment of the market value of the acquired property at the relevant time because vide the said sale deed the land was sold for the purpose of construction of shellers which was situated at a distance of 2 Kms. from the acquired land. However, on the basis of site plan Ex.A1 it was found that the acquired land was abutting to the Fatehabad Khadur Sahib Road and the Industrial Complex of Gobindwal was situated just two three kilometers away from the acquired land. It was also found that the time of acquisition, looking to the potential value of the acquired land, the market value of the acquired land was increasing day by day. It was also found that the time of acquisition, looking to the potential value of the acquired land, the market value of the acquired land was increasing day by day. While relying upon the statement of P.W.1 Dalbir Singh Patwari, who stated in the cross-examination that the market value of the acquired land at the time of acquisition was near about Rs. 24,000/- or Rs. 25,000/- per killa, the learned Reference Court determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 24,000/- per killa. 4. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant State, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the determination of the market value at the aforesaid rate by the learned Reference Court. The compensation awarded to the respondents-claimants at the aforesaid rate was a just and reasonable compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any material or evidence on record on the basis of which the market value of the acquired land, as determined by the learned Reference Court, could have been reduced. 5. However, while considering this case, I found that the learned Reference Court has not awarded the benefit of additional amount @ 12% per annum to the respondents-claimants under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In the instant cases, the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector is dated 30.9.1985, which is after the cut off date i.e. 30.4.1982. Therefore, in view of Section 30(1)(b) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act 68 of 1984), the respondents-claimants were entitled to the aforesaid benefit of additional amount. It is settled proposition of law that even if the claimants have not filed any appeal or cross-objection, this relief pertaining to the grant of statutory benefit can be allowed to them while disposing of the appeal filed by the State against the award passed by the learned Reference Court. In this regard, it has been observed by the Honble Supreme Court in Shri Narain Dass Jain (since deceased) by Legal Representatives v. The Agra Nagar Mahapalika, Agra, 1991 LACC 199, 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 the land acquired. 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 the land acquired. It follows as a matter of course without any impediment. That if falls to be awarded by the Court "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 a 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." 6. Similar view was taken by the Honble Supreme Court in Shree Vijay Cotton and Oil Mills Ltd. 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." 7. Learned counsel for the appellant could not controvert the entitlement of the respondents-claimants for the additional amount @ 12% per annum under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. However, she submitted that the respondents- claimants cannot be granted the benefit under the amended provisions as they did not file any appeal against the award of the learned Reference Court nor they filed any cross-objection in the appeals filed by the State of Punjab. 8. I do not find any force in the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The statutory benefit like the additional amount provided under the Act is mandatory. This benefit has 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 benefit on the enhanced amount of compensation. This benefit has 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 benefit on the enhanced amount of compensation. It is the bounden duty of the Court to grant this benefit to the land owners. If the aforesaid benefit has not been granted to the land owner/claimants by the Civil Court while determining the market value under Section 23(1)(b) of the Act, it 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. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals filed by the State of Punjab are dismissed. However, the respondent-claimants shall also be entitled for the benefit of additional amount 12% per annum under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. 10. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.