Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1453 (GAU)

Tipak Tayeng v. Deputy Commissioner, Pasighat

2015-11-21

INDIRA SHAH

body2015
JUDGMENT : Indira Shah, J. Both appeals are against the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2013 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Pasighat, East Siang District in Psg. Money Suit No.16/2013 and subsequently reviewed by judgment and decree dated 16.4.2014 passed in Psg. Civil Review Application No.02/2014. 2. I have heard Mr. D. Baruah, learned counsel for the appellant in LA Appeal No. 01(AP) 2014 and respondent No.1 in LA Appeal No.02 (AP) 2014 as well as Mr. K. Ete, learned Addl. Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh appearing on behalf of the respondent-Deputy Commissioner and Mr. B. Pathak, learned CGC appearing on behalf of the appellants/Union of India in LA Appeal No. 02(AP) of 2014 and respondent No.2 in LA Appeal No.01 (AP) of 2014. 3. The appellant in L.A. Appeal No.01/2014 is owner and possessor of plots of land measuring 249.53 acres, 107.90 acres and 293.10 hectors situated at Sigar Village of Mebo Sub-Division of East Siang District. On 3.9.2002, an Army Officer from 5th Mountain Brigade approached the claimant and the claimant agreed to part with the land for purposed of setting up Army's Headquarters. In view of proposed acquisition proceedings, the claimant did not take steps for cultivation upon the lands. It was only in the year 2010, the Deputy Commissioner sought for willingness certificate from the claimant to part with her land. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner informed the claimant that the minimum requirement of land was 1,300 acres and that too in a single stretch and the claimant was asked to intimate the Deputy Commissions within two days if area of 1,300 acres in a single stretch is available. Though the claimant had more than 2,500 acres but the lands were not compact in nature. In order to have a compact land the claimant had to purchase various plots of land at a huge expense and for that she had to take loan with heavy interest. She made available a compact plot of land of more than 1,300 acres to the Deputy Commissioner. Accordingly, a joint survey was conducted and the Deputy Commissioner issued a land Calculation Certificate dated 24.8.2015, wherein value of the land was shown as Rs. 2,50,000 per acre exclusive of 2% contingency charges, 30% solatium and 12% interest. 4. The Deputy Commissioner by a subsequent communication dated 20.9.2010 and 11.2.2011 without any rhyme or reason reduced the market value from Rs. 2,50,000 per acre exclusive of 2% contingency charges, 30% solatium and 12% interest. 4. The Deputy Commissioner by a subsequent communication dated 20.9.2010 and 11.2.2011 without any rhyme or reason reduced the market value from Rs. 2,50,000 per acre exclusive of 30% Solatium and 12% interest to Rs. 2,50,000 per acre inclusive of 30% Solatium and 12% interest. 5. After the lapse of two years from the date when the market value of the land was assessed by the Deputy Commissioner, the Notification dated 9.8.2012 under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act was issued and published in the Gazette and local newspaper, whereas, the market value of the land ought to be the as on the date of Notification under section 4 of the Act, i.e., 9.8.2012. Subsequent thereto, on 12.9.2012, the final notification in terms of section 6 of the Act was published in the English dailies. On 21.11.2012, an Award was finalized and filed in the office of the Deputy Commissioner whereby total compensation of Rs. 18,69,84,640.98 P for 747.94 acres of land was awarded. On 3.1.2013 the possession of the land was handed over to the Army Authorities and on 9.1.2013 the payment to claimant vide cheque was made which the claimant received without prejudice to her rights as well as under protest. 6. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation the claimant sought for reference under section 18 of the Act for determination of the compensation by the Court. Accordingly a reference to the Court of District Judge was made by the Deputy Commissioner and the proceeding was registered as Money Suit No. ES (03)/2013. Later the proceeding was transferred to Pasighat and the case was renumbered as Psg. Money Suit No.16/2013. 7. The Union of India as well the Deputy Commissioner contested the reference case primarily on two grounds, viz., the Award being a consent award, there cannot be any reference questioning the adequacy of compensation paid and there is no evidence to justify a higher rate of compensation than the already awarded. 8. The learned reference court framed following issues for determination : (1) Whether the compensation granted to the claimant by the District Collector is adequate or reasonable under law or not? (2) Whether the Claimant is entitled for more compensation, if yes, the amount thereof? (3) Whether the Claimant is entitled to any interest, if yes, total interest thereof? 8. The learned reference court framed following issues for determination : (1) Whether the compensation granted to the claimant by the District Collector is adequate or reasonable under law or not? (2) Whether the Claimant is entitled for more compensation, if yes, the amount thereof? (3) Whether the Claimant is entitled to any interest, if yes, total interest thereof? (4) Any other relief ? 9. In course of proceeding, the claimant examined 4 witnesses and 2 witnesses were examined on behalf of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. 10. Upon hearing the parties and on consideration of the evidence led, the reference court vide its judgment held that the compensation awarded is not adequate and the rate was enhanced to Rs. 80 per sq. m. from the earlier awarded rate of Rs. 43.50 exclusive 30% Solatium and 12% interest. 11. The claimant-land owner filed a review application whereby she prayed for additional interest under sections 28 and 34 of Land Acquisition Act. The review application was allowed with the additional interest under section 28 as well as section 34 of the Act. 12. These two appeals under section 54 of the Act have been preferred against the aforementioned judgment. The claimant as appellant in L.A. Appeal No.01(AP)/2014 has assailed the judgment and decree on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is not a reasonable compensation and it ought to have much more. 13. The appellants in L.A. Appeal No.02 (AP)/2014 have challenged the judgment primarily on the ground that the learned Reference Court failed to take into consideration that the award in question was a consent award and as such the market value of the land or for that matter, the compensation could not have been enhanced by the Reference Court and that the compensation so awarded by the Reference Court was also much higher. That the benefit under sections 28 and 34 granted to the claimants was also bad in law. 14. In view of grounds urged by both the appellants, the following are the points to be determined in these appeals : (1) Whether the Award dated 21.11.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang was a consent Award? (2) Whether the compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court was just and adequate, if not, what should be compensation? 14. In view of grounds urged by both the appellants, the following are the points to be determined in these appeals : (1) Whether the Award dated 21.11.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang was a consent Award? (2) Whether the compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court was just and adequate, if not, what should be compensation? (3) Whether the claimant was entitled to interest under sections 28 and 34 of the Act? 15. The Claimant executed a 'Willingness Certificate' [Ex. 13 (1)] dated 4.10.2013 which is quoted as under : "Willingness certificate I, Mrs. Tipak Tayeng W/o Mr. Lombo Tayeng, resident of Village Mortum, RO. Mebo, Tehsil Mebo, Distt. East Siang, of Arunachal Pradesh willing to give my land measuring 1,500 acres (Approx.) to Army on payment of sufficient compensation/land value. Signature of Individual Sd/- (Tipak Tayeng) W/o Lombo Tayeng. Exhibit No. 13(1) Case No. 16/2013 Date 4.10.2013 Addl. District Judge at Pasighat, A.P. Witness: 1. Shri Obang Tayeng, Village Sigar 2. Shri Okar Megu, ASM, Motum Village. Executed before me in my Court on Dated 24.8.2010 Sd/- Executive Magistrate First Class: Pasighat." 16. The 'No objection Certificate' of Deputy Commissioner (Ex. 14) reiterates that the land owner has given written consent to part with the land subject to payment of sufficient compensation/land value. The Award dated 21.11.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner refers the notification under sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act inviting the persons so interested to stake claim if any in the land for determination of the compensation, etc. It also says that no claimant appeared before the District Collector within the stipulated mandatory period. Therefore, as per the mandate of under section 11 of the Act the Deputy Commissioner in accordance with the provisions under sections 15, 23 and 24 passed the award. Nowhere in the said award there is mention that award is consent award. 17. The provisions of section 11 being relevant, is quoted herein below : "5.21. Therefore, as per the mandate of under section 11 of the Act the Deputy Commissioner in accordance with the provisions under sections 15, 23 and 24 passed the award. Nowhere in the said award there is mention that award is consent award. 17. The provisions of section 11 being relevant, is quoted herein below : "5.21. Enquiry and award by Collector.- (1) On the day so fixed or any other day to which the enquiry has been adjourned, the Collector shall proceed to enquire into the objections (if any) which any person interested has stated pursuant to a notice given under section 9 to the measurements made under section 8, and into the value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1), and into the respective interests of the persons claiming the compensation and shall make an award under his land of - (i) the true area of the land; (ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and (iii) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims. He has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him: Provided that no award shall be made by the Collector under this sub-section without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorize in this behalf: Provided further that it shall be competent for the appropriate Government to direct that the Collector may take such award without such approval in such class of cases as the appropriate Government may specify in this behalf. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), if at any stage of the proceedings, the Collector is satisfied that all the persons interested in the land who appeared before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be included in the award of the Collector in the form prescribed by rules made by the appropriate Government, he may, without making further enquiry, make an award according to the terms of such agreement. (3) The determination of compensation for any land under sub-section (2) shall not in any way affect the determination of compensation in respect of other lands in the same locality or elsewhere in accordance with the other provisions of this Act. (3) The determination of compensation for any land under sub-section (2) shall not in any way affect the determination of compensation in respect of other lands in the same locality or elsewhere in accordance with the other provisions of this Act. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), no agreement made under sub-section (2) shall be liable to registration under that Act." 18. Thus, sub-section (2) to section 11 is an exception to sub-section (1) which says that all persons interested in the land who appeared before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be included in the award of the Collector, the Collector may, without making further inquiry, make an award according to terms of such agreement. Thus, to be an Award under section 11(2) of the Act, the persons interested in land must have appeared before the Collector and have agreed in writing on matters to be included in the Award in the form prescribed by the Rules. Such agreement must be during the course of acquisition proceeding. A discretion is vested upon the Collector either to accept the agreement in writing and pass the award in terms with such agreement without making further enquiry. 19. A cursory glance of the Award dated 21.11.2012 does not show that the Award was drawn in terms of sub section (2) to section 11. Rather it appears that the award was drawn in accordance with section 11(1) incorporating the three ingredients as required in terms of sub-section (1), i.e., (i) the true area of the land, (ii) the compensation which in the opinion of Collector should be allowed, and (iii) the apportionment of the said compensation. 20. The Award also contains the approval of Government as required under sub-section (1) of section 11. Moreover, there is no whisper of any agreement or consent in the award. 21. Defence witness No.2 in his cross-examination in reference proceeding, admitted that there is no record that there was any agreement between the claimant with the Acquiring Authority or with the Requiring Authority. He also admits that in the Award dated 21.11.2012, there is no mention of any consent by the claimant or about any Agreement made between the claimant with the Acquiring as well as with the Requiring Authority. 22. He also admits that in the Award dated 21.11.2012, there is no mention of any consent by the claimant or about any Agreement made between the claimant with the Acquiring as well as with the Requiring Authority. 22. The respondents have placed reliance on consent of the claimant dated 25.9.2012 to part with the land measuring 747.94 acres and final notification on payment of sanctioned amount conveyed by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence as land compensation/value without prejudice. 23. The respondent No.2 in his written statement took the plea on consent letter dated 25.9.2012, however, in examination-in-chief exhibited the consent letter dated 23.11.2012 as Ex.D2E. 24. It is submitted by Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for the claimants that the court cannot travel beyond the pleadings and no party can lead the evidence on an issue not raised in the pleadings and if any evidence has been adduced it is just to be ignored. He has placed his reliance in the case of Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and Another, (2012) 8 SCC 148 . 25. It is to be noticed that the said consent letter dated 23.11.2012 was issued with averment without prejudice. DW 2 in his cross-examination has admitted that "there was no undertaking given by the claimant that she would not prefer a Reference against the Award. The word 'without prejudice' which have been in the consent dated 25.9.2012 and 23.11.2012 would mean that the said consent was subject to legal proceedings. It is true that unless the consent to part with private land was not given by the claimant the Government of India would not release the funds as consent is mandatory". 26. To interpret the terms 'without prejudice' Stroud's Judicial Dictionary; Black's Law Dictionary has been referred and the case of Superintendent (Tech 1) Central Excise, I.D.D. Jabalpur and Others v. Pratap Rai, (1978) 3 SCC 113 and Chairman & M.S. NTPC Ltd. v. Reshmi Constructions, Builders or Contractors, (2004) 2 SCC 663 have been cited. 27. In the case of Superintendent (Tech I) (supra), it was held the term 'without prejudice' means (i) that the cause of the matter has not been decided on merits, and (ii) the fresh proceedings according to law was not barred. 28. 27. In the case of Superintendent (Tech I) (supra), it was held the term 'without prejudice' means (i) that the cause of the matter has not been decided on merits, and (ii) the fresh proceedings according to law was not barred. 28. In the instant case, the claimant had given the alleged consent letters dated 25.9.2012 and 23.11.2012 without prejudice to her rights and if the said consent letters were not issued, admittedly, the money to which the claimant is entitled to under the Act would not be paid. 29. Sections 18 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, also stipulates how a Reference can be sought for against an Award passed by the Collector. Sections 18 and 31 are quoted herein below : "18. Reference to court. - (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the appointment of the compensation among the persons interested. (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken: Provided that every such application shall be made, - (a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award; (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12 sub section (20), or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire. 31. Payment of compensation or deposit of same in Court.- (1) On making an award under section 11, the Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according to the award, and shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the next sub-section. 31. Payment of compensation or deposit of same in Court.- (1) On making an award under section 11, the Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according to the award, and shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the next sub-section. (2) If they shall not consent to receive it, or if there be no person competent to alienate the land, or if there be any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as to the apportionment of it, the Collector shall deposit the amount of the compensation in the Court to which a reference under section 18 would be submitted: Provided that any person admitted to be interested may receive such payment under protest as to the sufficiency of the amount: Provided also that no person has received the amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make any application under section 18: Provided also that nothing herein contained shall affect the liability of any person, who may receive the whole or any part of compensation awarded under this Act, to pay the same to the person lawfully entitled thereto. (3) Notwithstanding anything in this section, the Collector may, with the sanction of appropriate Government instead of awarding a money compensation in respect of any land, make any arrangement with a person having limited interest in such land, either by the grant of other lands in exchange, the remission of land revenue on other lands held under the same title, or in such other way as may be equitable having regard to the interests of the parties concerned. (4) Nothing in the last foregoing sub-section shall be construed to interfere with or limit the power of the Collector to enter into any arrangement with any person interested in the land and competent to contract in respect thereof." 30. A conjoint reading of above mentioned provisions show that either any person interested has not accepted the award or any person has received the awarded amount under protest shall be entitled to make an application under section 18 of the Act. 31. Herein in this case, the claimant received the money 'under protest'. A conjoint reading of above mentioned provisions show that either any person interested has not accepted the award or any person has received the awarded amount under protest shall be entitled to make an application under section 18 of the Act. 31. Herein in this case, the claimant received the money 'under protest'. DW 2 in his cross-examination has admitted that the amount received by the claimant was with endorsement 'under protest' in the Exhibit 21 as well as Exhibit 48. Thus, the amount in question was received without prejudice to the rights of the claimant and under protest and, therefore, the Reference as per second proviso to sub-section of section 31 was maintainable. The Award dated 21.11.2012 cannot be said to be a consent Award when the consent was without prejudice to the rights of the claimant. 32. Moreover, the principles of eminent domain are applicable in respect of all land acquisitions made by the State for public purpose under Land Acquisition Act. The power of the State to acquire land for the public purpose is unfettered and the landowner could only raise limited objections. The intention to acquire land of the claimant was already made by publication of preliminary notification as well as final notification issuing a declaration to all concerned that the land in question was required for public purpose, i.e., for Indian Army Headquarter. Under such circumstances, admittedly, unless and until consent was given, the money would not be released as consent was mandatory. Therefore, the consent given without prejudice, would not preclude the claimant seeking reference to court under section 18 of the Act. 33. Now the question is whether the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is just and adequate. Learned Court assessed the value of the land at Rs. 80 per sq. mtr. As per column No.9 of the Notification dated 4.1.2012 (Ex.40) which was issued in respect of Lower Dibang Valley District. 34. According to claimant the rate so assessed is much lower than the market value of the land. The respondents, on the other hand, have alleged that the rate of Rs. 43.50 on the basis of which the land was acquired was only just and reasonable. 35. Mr. 34. According to claimant the rate so assessed is much lower than the market value of the land. The respondents, on the other hand, have alleged that the rate of Rs. 43.50 on the basis of which the land was acquired was only just and reasonable. 35. Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for the claimant relying on the case of Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 11 SCC 141 and Acquisition Officer & Mandal v. Narasaian, (2001) 3 SCC 530 has submitted that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquired property is on the State that had acquired it for a particular purpose. It is further submitted on behalf of the claimant that the compensation provision of the Act is in the nature of a welfare stipulation and when the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, she is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction. 36. In the cited case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered) Faridkot and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, (2012) 5 SCC 432 . In paras 17 and 20, it has been observed as under : "17. It is dear that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied that it is a bona fide transaction, has to be considered and accepted. When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. In our view, it seems to be only fair that where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, the transaction representing the highest value should be preferred to be rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. It is not desirable to take an average of various sale deeds placed before the authority/court for fixing fair compensation. 20. Based on the above principle, we fix the annual increase at 12% per annum and with that rate of increase, the market value of the appellants' land would come to Rs. It is not desirable to take an average of various sale deeds placed before the authority/court for fixing fair compensation. 20. Based on the above principle, we fix the annual increase at 12% per annum and with that rate of increase, the market value of the appellants' land would come to Rs. 1,82,000 per acre as on the date of notification." 37. As per Ex. 18, the rate fixed by the Deputy Commissioner as on 24.8.2010 was Rs. 2,50,000 per acre exclusive of 30% Solatium and 12% interest. The said rate was reduced in the same year itself to Rs. 2,50,000 per acre inclusive of 30% Solatium and 12% interest and thereby reducing the market value of the land to Rs. 1,76,056 per acre. 1 Acre = 4046.856 sq. mtrs. Thus, the rate which has been given to the claimant is Rs. 43.50 P. 38. It is submitted that the Deputy Commissioner while justifying the value of the land vide Exts.21 and 22 himself admitted that the market value of Wet Rice Cultivation (WRC) in villages is not less than Rs. 5,00,000 per acre and this was the value in the year 2010. Exts.21 and 22 also show that the lands are not only fertile and good for agricultural purposes but also well accessible by roads. Other Exts.-9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 33 and 34 show that the acquired lands are valuable, fertile, accessible, build-able, free from any political, legal and religious angle. The lands also do not fall within any Reserve Forest, etc. 39. Section 23 of the LA Act stipulates that the market value of the land is to be taken as on the date of publication of the Notification under section 4 of the Act. Here in this case, the Award dated 21.11.2012 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner on the basis of the market value adjudged by him in the year 2010 whereas Notification under section was issued on 9.8.2012. 40. DW1 in his cross-examination could not say on what basis the rate of Rs. 2,50,000 per acre inclusive of 30% solatium and 12% interest was arrived at. He could not even say as to whether the Deputy Commissioner had taken into consideration nearby sale transaction or valuation report of approved valuer or any indicative rates. 40. DW1 in his cross-examination could not say on what basis the rate of Rs. 2,50,000 per acre inclusive of 30% solatium and 12% interest was arrived at. He could not even say as to whether the Deputy Commissioner had taken into consideration nearby sale transaction or valuation report of approved valuer or any indicative rates. He admitted that during the period from 2010 to 2012, there have been various developments in and around the area and the price of the land has definitely increased from 2010 to 2012. Respondent No.2 in his cross-examination admitted that 'the D.C. Pasighat' had in respect of the remaining 703 acres, wherein Acquisition proceeding is yet to be initiated had fixed Rs. 3,10,000 inclusive of 30% Solatium and 12% interest on 17.4. 2012. 41. Ext. 38, a Land Calculation Certificate dated 17.4.2012 show that the Collector had fixed the rate at Rs. 3,10,000 per acre in respect of adjacent land on a lump sum inclusive of 30% Solatium and 12% interest. 42. It is pertinent to mention here that the transfer of land in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, more particularly in the rural areas are done on oral basis without following the procedure laid down in the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, in order to arrive at a proper market value for acquisition of land, the Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh has issued Notifications in various Districts specifically for the purpose of calculation of quantum of compensation on acquisition of land for public purpose. Unfortunately, in the District of East Siang, there is no such notification. 43. The District of East Siang is situated adjacent to District of West Siang as well as District of Lower Dibang Valley. Admittedly, the topography of the acquired lands are plain fertile lands, mostly used for wet rice cultivation. The lands are connected by proper roads. From Exts.-9,14,15,16,17,19, 20, 33 and 34, it appears that the acquired lands are valuable, fertile, accessible, buildable, free from any political, legal and religious angle. 44. Ext.42 is the Notification dated 16.5.2012 issued in respect of land value of West Siang District and SI. No.6 of the said notification mentions value of cultivable land near motorable road at Rs. 200 sq. mtr. It is submitted on behalf of the claimant that Notification, i.e., Ex.42 is the nearest to the date of issuance of the preliminary Notification, i.e., 9.8.2012. 45. No.6 of the said notification mentions value of cultivable land near motorable road at Rs. 200 sq. mtr. It is submitted on behalf of the claimant that Notification, i.e., Ex.42 is the nearest to the date of issuance of the preliminary Notification, i.e., 9.8.2012. 45. It appears from the judgment passed by learned Reference Court that the court took into consideration the Notification dated 4.1.2012 issued in respect of Lower Dibang Valley District (Ex.40) and thereby awarded the compensation at a rate of Rs. 80 per sq. mtr. The reference court also took into consideration that though the land is cultivable and motor-able lands were underdeveloped. 46. It is further submitted that the valuation Report (Ex.44) of the valuer and sale transaction between the claimant and one Shri Lopak Megu dated 2.11.2005 in respect of 2 acres of land in the same locality were not taken into consideration by the Reference Court. The Deputy Commissioner in Ex.38, of his own calculated the value adjacent acquired of the lands which quoted as under : "Exhibit No. 38 Case No. 16/2013 Date 4.10.2013 Addl. District Judge at Pasighat, A.P. Government of Arunachal Pradesh Office of the Deputy Commissioner: East Siang District Pasighat. No.ESD/LM/D-79/09-10/Vol-II Dated Pasighat, the 17th April, 2012 Land Calculation of 703.09 Acres of Land Near Sigar Village Under Mebo Sub-Division of East Siang District. Arunachal Pradesh. SI. No. Name of owner Area (in acres) Estimated Land Value (in Rs. ) Estimated Total cost (Rs.) 1 Smt. Tipak Tayeng 703.09 acres 3,10,000 21,79,57,900 The above calculation is the estimated value of the land as per prevailing market rate which includes 30% solatium and 12% interest but excludes 2% contingency and 8% establishment costs./charges. NB : The indicative rate for 703.09 acres at Sigar area was proposed @ Rs. 2,50,000 per acre in the initial stage during the year 2010 but till date (almost after 2 years) the matter is yet to be settled. In this regard, it is to be mentioned that the 600 acres of land for establishment of Army Headquarter at Royang was purchased @ Rs. 1,75,00.00 per acre and there was a increase of Rs. 75,000 per acre in land value in this district. Thus, the percentage of increase of land value is 12% in every year in this district. Therefore, Rs. 2,50,000 x 12% = Rs. 30,000 per year. 1,75,00.00 per acre and there was a increase of Rs. 75,000 per acre in land value in this district. Thus, the percentage of increase of land value is 12% in every year in this district. Therefore, Rs. 2,50,000 x 12% = Rs. 30,000 per year. Now, after 2 years, the increase in land value is Rs. 30,000 x 2 = Rs. 60,000. Therefore, now, the proposed rate is re-calculated @ Rs. 2,50,000 + Rs. 60,000 = Rs. 3,10,000. Moreover, the rate per acre in other district is Rs. 3,00,000 per acre and it is intimated that in Upper Subansiri District of Arunachal Pradesh during last year, MoD approved purchased of land @ Rs. 3,00,000 per acre for defence Establishment. Thus, the proposed revised rate @ Rs. 3,10,000 per acre is justified. Exhibit No.38(l) Case No.16/2013 Date 4.10.2013 (TalemTapak), IAS Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District, Pasighat At Pasighat, A.P." Addl. District Judge 47. In view of above and considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered) Faridkot and Others (supra) the value of lands acquired approximately Rs. 200 per sq. mtr. seems to be fair exclusive of 30% solatium and 12% interest. 48. The third point is whether the claimant was entitled to interest under sections 28 and 34 of the Act which the Reference Court has allowed on Review Application filed by the claimant. The appellants in LA Appeal No.02 (AP) of 2014 have alleged that the benefits under sections 28 and 34 of the Act were impermissible. Sections 28 and 34 are quoted as under : "28. Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess compensation. The appellants in LA Appeal No.02 (AP) of 2014 have alleged that the benefits under sections 28 and 34 of the Act were impermissible. Sections 28 and 34 are quoted as under : "28. Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess compensation. - If the sum which, in the opinion of the Court, the Collector ought to have awarded as compensation is in excess of the sum which the Collector did award as compensation, the award of the court may direct that the Collector shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of nine per centum per annum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into court: Provided that the award of the court may also direct that where such excess or any part thereof is paid into court after the date of expiry of a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into court before the date of such expiry. 34. Payment of interest. - When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of nine per centum per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited: Provided that if such compensation or any part thereof is not paid or deposited within a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry." 49. In the case of Shree Vijay Cotton & Oil Mills Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, (1991) 1 SCC 262 , in para 16, it has been observed as under : "16. In the case of Shree Vijay Cotton & Oil Mills Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, (1991) 1 SCC 262 , in para 16, it has been observed as under : "16. There is inherent evidence in the wording of sections 28 and 34 to show that the framers of the Act intended to assure the payment of interest to the person whose land was acquired and it was not the intention to subject the said payment to procedural hazards. Section 34 lays down that "the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest at 6 per cent per annum" the legislative mandate is dear. It is a directive to the collector to pay the interest in a given circumstance. Section 34 nowhere says that the interest amount is to be included in the award-decree as prepared under section 23(1) read with section 26 of the Act. Similarly section 28 provides "the award of the court may direct that the Collector shall pay interest". Here also the award under section 23(1) read with section 26 has been kept distinct from the payment of interest under the section. The interest to be paid under section 34 and also under section 28 is of different character than the compensation amount under section 23(1) of the Act. Whereas the interest, if payable under the Act, can be claimed at any stage of the proceedings under the Act, the amount of compensation under section 23(1) which is an award-decree under section 26 is subject to the rules of Procedure and Limitation. The rules of procedure are hand-maiden of justice. The procedural hassle cannot come. In the way of substantive rights of citizens under the Act." 50. Again in the case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered) Faridkot (supra), it has been held in paras 25 and 26 as under : "25. This aspect has been considered and answered by the Constitution Bench in Sunder v. Union of India. While considering various decisions of the High Courts and approving the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in State of Haryana v. Kailashwati, this court held that the interest awarable under section 28 would include within its ambit both the market value and the statutory solatium. In view of the same, it is dear that the person entitled to the compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium. 26. In view of the same, it is dear that the person entitled to the compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium. 26. The above position has been further clarified by a subsequent Constitution Bench judgment in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India. Based on the earlier Constitution Bench decision in Sunder, the present Constitution Bench held that the claimants would be entitled to interest on solatium and additional market value if the award of the Reference Court or that of the appellate court does not specifically refer to the question of interest on solatium and additional market value or where the claim had not been rejected either expressly or I impliedly." 51. Thus, the interest payable under sections 28 and 34 can be claimed at any stage of the proceedings and, therefore, the Reference Court rightly allowed the Review Application extending the benefit under sections 28 and 34 of the Act. 52. In result the LA Appeal No.01(AP) of 2014 is allowed and thereby the market value of the acquired land of claimant be assessed at Rs. 200 per sq. mtr. in terms of Notification dated 16.5.2012. Findings of Reference Court or other issues are not interfered with and, thus, L.A. Appeal No. 02 (AP)/2014 is dismissed and disposed of. Parties shall bear their own costs.