Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2764 (RAJ)

Riico Ltd v. Shiv Lal

2019-10-30

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2019
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - No one has put in appearance on behalf of the appellant-Corporation even in the second round. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the respondents, the matters have been heard finally. 3. These Civil Misc. Appeal as well as Civil Cross Application have been preferred by the appellant-Corporation claiming the following reliefs: CMA No.891/2001: "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed, impugned judgment and decree dated 14.3.2001 passed by the learned Reference Court may kindly be quashed and set aside and the order of the Land Acquisition Officer may kindly be restored." Civ. Cross. App. No.15/2002: "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed this cross objection may be taken on record and may be allowed and enhance the award passed by Reference Court by awarding solatium and enhancing interest and increasing the amount awarded against the standing trees and fencing." 4. The pleaded case of the appellant is that a notification for acquisition of land was issued under Section 4 (1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act which was published on 08.02.1990 in Rajasthan Gazette. By the aforesaid acquisition proceedings, the land measuring 4 bighas in Khasra No.886/1 situated in Tehsil Dungarpur was to be acquired for the present appellant. On 24.1.1991, notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued and thereafter, SDO, Dungarpur was appointed as Land Acquisition Officer. After considering the material available on record, the Land Acquisition Officer vide his order dated 7.2.1992 came to the conclusion that normal land price in Dungarpur was Rs.55,000/- per bigha only, but looking to the nature of the land and considering the other aspects, the Land Acquisition Officer held that respondent is entitled for the compensation of Rs.41,250/- per bigha. 5. As the pleaded case would reveal that the land which was sought to be acquired was 4 bighas, and thus, the total amount for which the respondent was entitled as cost of land was Rs.1,65,000/-. The Land Acquisition Officer also awarded interest as provided under Section 23(1-A) of the Act and solatium at the rate of 30% as per Section 23(2) of the Act, and thus, the total amount for which the respondent was held entitled was assessed as Rs.2,54,100/-. The award was thereafter sent to the Collector, Dungarpur for approval which was given him on 15.02.1992, and accordingly, the award was issued on 19.02.1992. The award was thereafter sent to the Collector, Dungarpur for approval which was given him on 15.02.1992, and accordingly, the award was issued on 19.02.1992. Thereafter, The claimants filed an application under Section 18 for making a reference before the Civil Court. The respondents claimed compensation to the extent of Rs.80,000/- per bigha as well as Rs.10,000/- for trees and Rs.5,000/- for fencing. 6. The present appeal by RIICO is against the order of the Reference Court made on 14.03.2001, and simultaneously, there is cross objection on the part of the claimants, who are seeking solatium. The appellant's only ground of preferring appeal is that once a conclusion was derived for the land in question costing Rs.55,000/- per bigha, then the learned court below ought not to have granted the compensation @ Rs.80,000/- per bigha. 7. Learned counsel for the claimant however, seeks solatium. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the respondents and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the reference order passed by the learned court below on 14.03.2001 is well reasoned and justified and the compensation of Rs.80,000/- per bigha was a range of price that was already expressed by learned Land Acquisition Officer, and thus, has rightly been granted by the Reference Court. The amount of Rs.10,000/- for trees and Rs.5,000/- for fencing has also been awarded, which is justified and does not call for any interference. The solatium was also granted by the Land Acquisition Officer, and thus, the cross objection also has no merit. 9. In view of the above, both Civil Misc. Appeal as well as Civil Cross Application are dismissed. All the pending applications stand disposed of.