Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 199 (UTT)

Collector, Saharanpur v. Ram Swaroop Maheshwari

2006-04-25

PRAFULLA C.PANT, RAJEEV GUPTA

body2006
Judgment Rajeev Gupta, J. Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Standing Counsel for the appellant. None for the respondents. Arguments heard. 2. This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, is against the judgment and decree dated 24-05-1985, whereby the compensation of Rs. 97,166.60/- awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was enhanced to Rs. 1,57,372.80/-. 3. The appellant's grievance in the appeal is two fold - one relating to the award of Solatium at the rate of 30% and the other in regard to the award of sum of Rs. 10,200/- and Rs. 4,080/- towards Loss of Business and Rent. 4. As regards the first submission, the learned counsel for the appellant, referring to the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of K. Kamalajammanniavaru (Dead) By Lrs. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in (1985) 1 SCC 582, submitted that as the award in the present case was passed on 02-03-1981, Solatium would be awardable at the rate of 15% only. 5. The Apex Court In the case of K. Kamalajammanniavaru (Dead) By Lrs. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (supra) has categorically held that Solatium at the rate of 30% was payable in those cases only where the award was made after April 30, 1982 and before September 24, 1984. In the present case, the award of the Land Acquisition Officer was made on 02-031981. Thus, we are satisfied that the Reference Court fell into error in awarding Solatium at the rate of 30% in place of 15%. The impugned judgment, therefore, is liable to be modified to the above extent. 6. As regards the appellant's other submission relating to award of sum of Rs. 10,200/- and Rs. 4,080/- for Loss of Business and Rent, we gather from para 8 of the judgment that the said sum of Rs. 10,200/- has been awarded for loss of earnings from the said building and Rs. 4,080/- for the loss of rent on account of advertisement boards of the agencies. 10,200/- and Rs. 4,080/- for Loss of Business and Rent, we gather from para 8 of the judgment that the said sum of Rs. 10,200/- has been awarded for loss of earnings from the said building and Rs. 4,080/- for the loss of rent on account of advertisement boards of the agencies. The award of compensation for loss of earnings is squarely covered by Clause (4) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, which reads as follows: "fourthly the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings;" We, therefore, do not find any substance in the above submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and decree is modified to the extent that Solatium awarded by the Reference Court at the rate of 30% is reduced to 15%. Consequently, the total amount of compensation of Rs. 1,57,372.80/- awarded by the Reference Court is reduced to Rs. 1,39,104.80/-. The interest awarded by the Reference Court at the rate of 9% is affirmed. No order as to costs.