Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 288 (HP)

Ram Devi v. Land Acquisition Collector

2007-07-06

SURJIT SINGH

body2007
JUDGMENT : Surjit Singh, J. (Oral) : 1. The two appeals are directed against the award of the District Judge, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, whereby market value of the acquired land has been enhanced by Rs.62,250/- and it has been ordered that the enhanced amount of compensation be paid alongwith solatium at the rate of 30 per cent and increase, under Section 23(1-A), at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 1.1.1960 when the possession was taken over and interest at the statutory rates from the date of the award to the date of the payment of the enhanced amount of compensation. 2. Relevant facts may be noticed first. Land measuring 2 bighas 1 biswas, belonging to Ram Devi, appellant in RFA No.266 of 2000, hereinafter referred to as claimant, was utilized by the Land Acquisition Collector, in the year 1960, in connection with the construction of Bilaspur- Swarghat road. No steps, in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, were taken by the Land Acquisition Collector for acquisition of the land. Notification for the acquisition of land was issued on 19.2.1996 and thereafter proceedings for assessment of compensation were initiated by the Land Acquisition Collector. Market value of the land was assessed at Rs.15,000/- per bigha and compensation was paid accordingly. Claimant felt aggrieved by the quantum of compensation assessed and paid, and so she approached the Land Acquisition Collector for making reference, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Accordingly, the reference was made. 3. In the Reference Petition, claimant submitted that the market value of the land was Rs.5,00,000/- per bigha and she claimed the compensation accordingly. She also claimed interest and increase under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act from the date of the taking over of the possession upto the date of the payment of the compensation. 4. District Judge, after recording the evidence adduced by the parties, assessed the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.45,000/- per bigha and ordered the payment of enhanced compensation in the aforesaid terms. 5. Claimant is still not satisfied. According to her, the market value assessed by the District Judge is on the lower side. 6. The second appeal, i.e., RFA No.11 of 2001, has been filed by the Land Acquisition Collector. 5. Claimant is still not satisfied. According to her, the market value assessed by the District Judge is on the lower side. 6. The second appeal, i.e., RFA No.11 of 2001, has been filed by the Land Acquisition Collector. His grievance is that increase under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act is not permissible under the law. Also, he is aggrieved by the assessment of the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.45,000/- per bigha by the District Judge. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The only evidence that was led before the Land Acquisition Collector is with respect to a small piece of land, measuring 2 biswas, which was sold for Rs.9,000/- in the year 1994 or say prior to the issuance of the notification, pursuant to which the land was acquired. The learned District Judge has held that since the transaction proved by the claimant pertains to a very small piece of land, a cut of 50 per cent is required to be made, on account of development charges, to work out the market value of the acquired land the area of which is much larger. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the cut should not have been at a rate higher than 40 per cent. 9. I find merit in the submission because normally a cut of 33 per cent is made in the retail price of land to work out the wholesale price of land prevailing in the area, which is also called reduction in retail price on account of developmental charges. In hilly areas development is normally costlier and, therefore, cut of 40 per cent may be made. Retail price of land, as per transaction proved on record, is Rs.90,000/- per bigha. With 40 per cent cut, as aforesaid, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs.54,000/- per bigha. Accordingly, it is held that the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation amounting to Rs.80,700/- (Rs.1,10,700/-, the amount of market value at the rate of Rs.54,000/- per bigha, minus Rs.30,000/-, the amount of market value assessed and paid by the Land Acquisition Collector). 10. Accordingly, it is held that the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation amounting to Rs.80,700/- (Rs.1,10,700/-, the amount of market value at the rate of Rs.54,000/- per bigha, minus Rs.30,000/-, the amount of market value assessed and paid by the Land Acquisition Collector). 10. Learned District Judge has ordered the payment of increase at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 1.1.1960, supposed date of taking over the possession, to the date of the payment of the enhanced amount of compensation, under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. The increase is not permissible. A bare reading of Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act shows that this increase is payable from the date of the publication of the notification, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which is 19.2.1996 in this case, to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of the taking over of possession of the land, whichever is earlier. In the present case, possession of the land had been taken before the passing of the award and, therefore, the increase is not payable even upto the date of the award. In this view of the matter, I find support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and another versus Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, (2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 142. Hence, the award of the District Judge, so far as it orders the payment of increase at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 1.1.1960 to the date of the payment of the amount of enhanced compensation, under Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, is not sustainable and, hence, liable to be set aside. 11. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the interest at the statutory rates has been awarded by the District Judge only on the market value of the land whereas under the law it is payable on the aggregate amount of the market value and the amount of solatium. It is well settled that interest at the statutory rates is payable not only on the market value of the acquired property but the amount of compensation, which includes the amount of solatium. Thus, the award of the District Judge needs to be modified/clarified so that the claimant gets interest on the aggregate amount of market value and the solatium. 12. Thus, the award of the District Judge needs to be modified/clarified so that the claimant gets interest on the aggregate amount of market value and the solatium. 12. Another submission made on behalf of the claimant is that the interest has been awarded from the date of the award by the Land Acquisition Collector, i.e., 15.3.1997, whereas under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, it is payable, in the case of the present type, where the possession is taken over even before the issuance of the Notification, from the date of the Notification. The contention of the learned counsel is supported by the law laid by a Division Bench of this Court in State of H.P. and another versus Kalawati and others, 2003(1) Shim. L.C. 474, and by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Land Acquisition Officer & Asstt. Commissioner and another versus Hemanagouda and others, (2005) 12 Supreme Court Cases 443, and R.L. Jain (D) By LRs versus DDA and others, (2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 79. So, the claimant is held to be entitled to interest at the statutory rates on the entire amount of compensation, whether enhanced or the original, from the date of the notification to the date of its payment. 13. In view of the abovestated position, both the appeals are partly accepted. Compensation, on account of market value of the acquired land, is enhanced from Rs.62,250/-, as ordered by the District Judge, to Rs.80,700/- and this amount is ordered to be paid together with solatium at the rate of 30 per cent. Further, it is ordered that on the aggregate amount of market value and the amount of solatium, including the amount of market value and solatium paid by the Land Acquisition Collector, the claimant shall be paid interest at the rate of 9 per cent for the first year and at the rate of 15 per cent for the remaining period from the date of publication of the notification, i.e., 19.2.1996, to the date of the payment of the aforesaid amount of money. The award of the District Judge to the extent it awards increase, under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, is set aside. 14. Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly.