Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1121 (PNJ)

Yudhbir Singh Lamba v. State Of Haryana

2004-10-01

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

body2004
Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 1804, 1699, 2110 and 2929 of 1989. R.F.A. Nos. 2110 and 2929 of 1989 have been filed by the State of Haryana and R.F.A. Nos. 1804 and 1699 of 1989 have been filed by the claimants. 2. Land in question was acquired for construction of Hissar-Kaimeri-Mangali-Saharwa-Miran road vide notification dated 1.10.1980 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act). The Collector vide his award dated 31.3.1986 determined compensation as per agricultural quality of the land classifying the land in five categories. The said categories have been set out in the application under Section 18 of the Act filed by Sheo Ram Aggarwal, one of the claimants, as under:- Category Per Acre Per Sq. yards Kind of land. 1. A 145280/- Rs. 30/- Nehri 2. B 121120/- Rs. 25/- Tal 3. C 96800/- Rs. 20/- Tibba 4. D 72640/- Rs. 15/- Gair Mumkin 5. E 33120/- - Gair Mumkin Plot. 3 The claimants preferred reference under Section 18 of the Act. The reference court enhanced the compensation in the case of claimant Sheo Ram Aggarwal to Rs. 80/- per square yard and in the case of claimant Yudhbir Singh Lamba at the rate of Rs. 60/- per square yard. The instance relied upon by the parties have been tabulated in paras 18 and 19 of the impugned award and the same are reproduced below:- "Sr. Sale Date Area in Sale Average price No. Deeds of sale sq.yds. consideration 1. Ex.P. 1. 16.05.74 260 Rs. 8000/- Rs. 30.76 per sq.yd. 2. Ex.P. 2. 09.12.81 144 Rs. 23240/- Rs. 161/- per sq.yd. 3. Ex.P. 3. 03.10.78 120 Rs. 6000/- Rs. 50/- per sq.yd. 4. Ex.P. 4. 17.01.75 153 Rs. 5000/- Rs. 32.67 per sq.yd. 5. Ex.P. 5. 04.11.81 240 Rs. 33000/- Rs. 137.50 per sq.yd. 6. Ex.P. 6. 04.12.81 276 Rs. 31500/- Rs. 114.13 per sq.yd. 7. Ex.R. 1. 30.05.80 6/9 Rs. 27000/- Approx Rs. 4000/- per kanal 8. Ex.R. 2. 14.04.78 14/4 Rs. 21000/- Rs. 1500/- per kanal 9. Ex.R. 3. 30.07.79 7-14 Rs. 40000/- Rs. 5000/- per kana 4 It was observed that market value could not be assessed at lesser price than Rs. 80/- per square yard, as sale deeds of the comparable period disclosed much higher value. 27000/- Approx Rs. 4000/- per kanal 8. Ex.R. 2. 14.04.78 14/4 Rs. 21000/- Rs. 1500/- per kanal 9. Ex.R. 3. 30.07.79 7-14 Rs. 40000/- Rs. 5000/- per kana 4 It was observed that market value could not be assessed at lesser price than Rs. 80/- per square yard, as sale deeds of the comparable period disclosed much higher value. As already observed, Sheo Ram Aggarwal was held entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 80/- per square yard and Yudhbir Singh Lamba was held entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 60/- per square yard. The claimants were held entitled to statutory solatium but they were held entitled to statutory interest from June 1970 on the ground that possession was taken in June 1970, though notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 1.10.1980. It was, however, observed that the claimants will not be entitled to additional amount at the rate of 12% PA on solatium, though additional amount from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act to the date of award, was allowed. 5. In the appeals filed by the State, it is stated that enhancement was unjustified, as the sale instance relied upon by the claimants for the period prior to acquisition are only Exhibits P1, P3 and P4 and even these sale deeds relate to small pieces of land which could not be the basis for determining compensation for large track of land acquired. It is further stated that award of interest from June 1970 was not justified when compensation was being given as per market value as on 1.10.1980 and there is no provision for interest for period prior to acquisition. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that higher compensation ought to be awarded in view of observations as mentioned in para 22 of the impugned award to the effect that compensation at the rate of Rs. 80/- per square yard was also on lower side because sale deeds of comparable period speak of much higher value. Learned counsel for the claimant Yudhbir Singh Lamba submitted that the Collector had placed him in category C and categorisation without indicating basis thereof was not justified. He submitted that land of Yudhbir Singh Lamba fell in municipal area as per notification Annexure Al and certificate Annexure A2 filed with application being CM. Learned counsel for the claimant Yudhbir Singh Lamba submitted that the Collector had placed him in category C and categorisation without indicating basis thereof was not justified. He submitted that land of Yudhbir Singh Lamba fell in municipal area as per notification Annexure Al and certificate Annexure A2 filed with application being CM. No. 447-CI of 1991, to which no reply has been filed. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record of the case. 8. Following questions arise for consideration:- i) Whether the reference court was justified in enhancing the compensation to Rs. 80/- per square yard and Rs. 60/- per square yard? ii) Whether compensation ought to be enhanced further? iii) Whether award of interest for the period prior to acquisition was liable to be paid on the ground that the possession had been taken ten years earlier in the year 1970 and whether such interest had to be calculated with reference to the principal amount awarded as per market value in the year 1980? iv) Whether additional amount on the amount of solatium is payable? Re: Question Nos: (i & ii) 9. Learned counsel for the claimants referred to para 22 of the impugned award, wherein it was observed that sale deeds of comparable period speak of much higher value than Rs. 80/- per square yard. Exhibits P2 and P5 relate to the year 1981 i.e. more than a year after the acquisition. No other evidence shows price to be more than Rs. 80/per square yard. Exhibits P2 and P5 cannot be held to be relevant being one year after the acquisition. Moreover, area covered by the said transaction is too small and insignificant to be made the basis for determining compensation for the acquired land. I, therefore, do not find any scope for further enhancement. I am, however, not inclined to reduce the compensation already awarded. On an overall view, even ignoring Ex.P5 and P6, compensation @ Rs. 80/- per sq. yd. can be upheld. In absence of any adequate material for differentiation, award of different rates does not appear to be justified. Compensation ought to be awarded at the same rate i.e. Rs. 80/- per square yard. 10. A reference to the scheme of the Act would show that there is no provision for payment of interest for the period prior to acquisition. In absence of any adequate material for differentiation, award of different rates does not appear to be justified. Compensation ought to be awarded at the same rate i.e. Rs. 80/- per square yard. 10. A reference to the scheme of the Act would show that there is no provision for payment of interest for the period prior to acquisition. Compensation is determined with reference to market value on the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The amount is required to be paid on taking possession i.e. after making of the award as provided under Section 16 of the Act except in case of emergency when possession is taken before the award of payment of estimated amount under Section 17 of the Act. Liability for payment of compensation arises under Section 31 of the Act on making of the award or on taking of possession under Section 17. Any compensation for taking of possession prior to acquisition is outside the purview of the Land Acquisition Act and is not governed by the provisions of the Act relating to interest, Liability to pay interest from the date of possession under Section 28 of the Act is referable to the possession taken under Sections 16 or 17 and the same does not refer to taking of possession prior to the commencement of acquisition proceedings. The reference court in para 27 has awarded interest for 10 years prior to the commencement of acquisition proceedings for which there is no warrant in law. Further, interest for 10 days prior to acquisition could be awarded only if it is held that liability to pay compensation arose on the date of taking of possession and at market value as on the date of notification (which is 10 years after the alleged taking of possession). In Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. (2002)1 S.C.C. 142, the Apex Court was dealing with the question whether a landowner is entitled to additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) of the Act for period prior to acquisition on the ground that possession had been taken earlier. In that case, possession was taken on 1.6.1977 and notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued 14 years later i.e. on 8.3.1991. Over-ruling contrary view earlier taken in Asstt. In that case, possession was taken on 1.6.1977 and notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued 14 years later i.e. on 8.3.1991. Over-ruling contrary view earlier taken in Asstt. Commr, Gadag Sub-Division v. Mathapathi Basavannewa, (1995) 6 S.C.C. 355, it was held that starting point for calculating the amount to be awarded, is the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act and where possession is taken prior to publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the same was not relevant. This judgment supports the view that prior to acquisition proceedings, no interest is payable. Liability to interest arises when principal becomes payable i.e. on making of award. Thus, no interest is payable prior to award i.e. 31.3.1986. The reference court has declined additional amount of 12% on the amount of solatium and confined the same only on the amount of compensation excluding solatium. There is no justification for the same. 11 Accordingly, it is held that while the claimants are not entitled to interest for the period prior to the award, they are held entitled to additional compensation at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount of solatium also. 12. Accordingly, State appeals are allowed to the extent that the land owners are not entitled to any interest for the period prior to 31.3.1986, the date of the award, which is the date on which the compensation is liable to be paid under the Act. State appeals for reduction of compensation are dismissed. Subject to this, appeals of the claimants are allowed to the extent that compensation will be payable at the rate of Rs. 80/- per square yard for the entire land and claimants will also be entitled to statutory benefits as per law. It is clarified that "additional compensation at the rate of 12% per annum on the solatium component of the compensation will also be payable. There will be no order as to costs.