Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1393 (PNJ)

Umrao Singh v. State of Haryana

2003-10-08

M.M.KUMAR

body2003
JUDGMENT M.M. Kumar, J. - This appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, the Act) challenges judgment dated 25.3.1983 passed by District Judge, Faridabad awarding compensation to the appellant at the rate of Rs. 18/- per square yard. Learned District Judge has also awarded solatium at the rate of 15 per cent on the enhanced compensation as well as interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of taking possession till the date of payment. 2. The respondent-State had issued notification under Section 4 of the Act on 7.12.1976 and the Land Acquisition Collector in his award dated 20.1.1981 had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 8/- per square yard. On reference made under Section 18 of the Act, the District Judge vide his judgment dated 25.3.1983 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 18/- per square yard. Feeling aggrieved, the claimant-appellant has approached this Court by filing the instant appeal. 3. Mr. Adarsh Jain, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in Puran v. State of Haryana, AIR 1986 Punjab and Haryana 305 this Court has laid down a principle that in developing towns like Faridabad increase of Re. 1/- per square yard per year should be the rule because the phenomenon of development is continuous on account of proximity of the town to Delhi. The aforementioned principle has been followed by this Court in Regular First Appeal No. 957 of 1985 wherein reference has been made to the view taken in earlier two judgments rendered in Regular First Appeal Nos. 583 and 1537 of 1977. In Regular First Appeal No. 583 of 1977, the land was acquired in 1972 and compensation at the rate of Rs. 17/- per square yard was awarded and in Regular First Appeal No. 1537 of 1977, the land was acquired in 1973 and compensation at the rate of Rs. 18/- per square yard was given and similarly in Purans case (supra), the land was acquired in the year 1977 and compensation at the rate of Rs. 22/- per square yard was given. The aforementioned judgments consistently followed the view that increase of Re. 1/- per square yard per year should be granted. Mr. 18/- per square yard was given and similarly in Purans case (supra), the land was acquired in the year 1977 and compensation at the rate of Rs. 22/- per square yard was given. The aforementioned judgments consistently followed the view that increase of Re. 1/- per square yard per year should be granted. Mr. Jain has further argued that he is entitled to the enhanced benefits in view of the amended provisions regarding solatium and interest as has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Raghbir Singh, AIR 1989 SC 1933. 4. Mr. N.K. Joshi, learned State counsel has pointed out that the claimant- appellant cannot claim anything beyond what he had claimed in the appeal i.e. Rs. 1600/- over and above determined by the learned District Judge. The learned counsel has also pointed out that it was the sale instance produced by the appellant which has been made by basis by the learned District Judge to award compensation at the rate of Rs. 18/- per square yard and, therefore, no other argument could be raised by the claimant-appellant. 5. After hearing the learned counsel and perusing the record, I am of the considered view that if 1972 is taken as the base for awarding the compensation, the appellant would become entitled to the determination of market value of his land at the rate of Rs. 21/- per square yard because in 1972 Rs. 17/- per square yard was awarded. If Re. 1/- per square yard is enhanced per year, the total compensation in 1976 would come to Rs. 21/- per square yard. Therefore, the compensation is enhanced to Rs. 21/- per square yard. The other claim of the appellant is also meritorious inasmuch as the judgment of learned District Judge is dated 25.3.1978, whereas in Raghbir Singhs case (supra), the Supreme Court has fixed the date of 30.4.1982 and for all the orders which are passed subsequent to that date the benefit of amended provisions would be available. Therefore, the appellant would become entitled to the benefit of amended provisions of Sections 23(2) and 28 of the Act. Accordingly, the claimant-appellant shall be entitled to solatium at the rate of 30 per cent and interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum for the first year and 15 per cent per annum thereafter. 6. The appeal stands allowed in the above terms. Accordingly, the claimant-appellant shall be entitled to solatium at the rate of 30 per cent and interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum for the first year and 15 per cent per annum thereafter. 6. The appeal stands allowed in the above terms. The respondent-State shall release all the benefits to the claimant-appellant within a period of four months, from the date a certified copy of this order is presented to them. Appeal allowed.