Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2094 (GUJ)

GENERAL MANAGER v. THAKOR JENAJI MAGANJI

2024-11-28

NISHA M.THAKORE

body2024
JUDGMENT : NISHA M. THAKORE, J. 1. By these appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, the acquiring body Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (for short “ONGC or Corporation”) has assailed the common judgment and award dated 13.09.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) of Mahesana at Mahesana in Land Reference Case Nos. 2392 of 2003 to 2396 of 2003 (main L.A.R. No. 2396 of 2003), whereby the reference at the instance of the land owners of the acquired lands came to be partly allowed by fixing the market price of the acquired land in L.A.Q. Case No. 12 of 1995 at the rate of Rs. 40/- per sq. mtrs. The Court further declared that each of the claimants shall be entitled to the aforesaid market value determined at the rate of Rs. 40/- per sq. mtrs. after applying deduction of the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act. The claimants were also held entitled to solatium at the rate 30% of the additional compensation as determined. The opponents were also directed to pay the amount of additional compensation which includes the amount awarded under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act and solatium as per the above order with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of publication of Notification under Section 4 of the Act up to the date of the award passed by the Land Acquisition officer in L.A.Q. Case No. 12 of 1995 dated 04.09.1997 under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. The Court had also directed the opponents to pay the amount of additional compensation again which includes the amount awarded under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act and solatium as per the above order with running interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of one year from the date of taking over of the possession of the acquired lands. Further directions were also issued to the opponents to pay 15% interest on the aforesaid amount after the period of expiry of one year from the date of taking possession till the entire amount is paid or deposited. The opponents were also held liable to pay proportionate costs to each claimants. 2. Further directions were also issued to the opponents to pay 15% interest on the aforesaid amount after the period of expiry of one year from the date of taking possession till the entire amount is paid or deposited. The opponents were also held liable to pay proportionate costs to each claimants. 2. Before examining the merits of the present appeals, it would be appropriate to look into the relevant facts, which read as under: 2.1 The lands of respondents-original agricultural land owners situated at village Kasalpura, Taluka-Mahesana, District-Mahesana were acquired by the appellant-ONGC for the public purpose as crude oil was found by the ONGC in the aforesaid acquired lands. Hence, the Notification in this regard under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in L.A.Q. Case No. 12 of 1995 was published on 30.09.1995. The notification under Section 6 was, thereafter, published by the competent authority on 08.08.1996. The objections were invited as per the provisions of the Act, 1894 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer who had followed the due process of law by serving notices under Section 9 of the Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer had determined the market value of the lands at the rate of Rs. 2/- while passing an award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894. 2.2 The original claimants-owners of the respective parcels of lands being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid amount, though had accepted the amount of compensation, had raised the objection before the competent authority by seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act. The references were received by the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) of Mahesana at Mahesana on 18.03.1998 which were registered as Land Reference Case Nos. 2392 of 2003 to 2396 of 2003 by treating the L.A.R. No. 2396 of 2003 as the main case. Rest of the cases were consolidated and heard together by common judgment and award. 2.3 By seeking reference, the original claimants have prayed for additional amount of compensation by seeking fixation of the market value of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 190/- per sq. mtrs. The learned Judge framed following issues at Exh.5: “[1] Whether the applicant proves that the compensation awarded is inadequate? [2] What additional compensation, if any, he is entitled to? [3] What award and decree?” My findings of the above issues are as under: “[1] In the affirmative. 190/- per sq. mtrs. The learned Judge framed following issues at Exh.5: “[1] Whether the applicant proves that the compensation awarded is inadequate? [2] What additional compensation, if any, he is entitled to? [3] What award and decree?” My findings of the above issues are as under: “[1] In the affirmative. [2] The claimants are entitled for additional compensation as per final order? [3] What order and decree? as per final order?” 2.4 The learned Judge upon appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence produced on behalf of the claimants while determining the issues, had observed as under: “[11] The claimants have produced the Judgment delivered by this Court of Mahesana in LAR Case No. 3654/03 to 3660/03 dated 05-11-2004. Incidently the said above LA.R Case No. 3654/2003 has been decided by me and till today no stay has been obtained by the O.N.G.C. from superior or appellate court. This land acquisition proceeding was arise out of award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in LAQ Case No. 13/98. In this land acquisition proceeding the land acquisition officer has acquired certain land of village Kasalpura for the purpose of public purpose for O.N.G.C. In this Judgment delivered by me the market value has been fixed at Rs. 57/- per sq. mtr. as on the date of notification u/s.4 of the Act on 16-02-99. In that case the claimants had relied upon one sale-deed of village Santhal dated 29-04-1986/30-04-1986 of block No. 382/1. The price of area 0-18-21 Hector is Rs. 30,000/-. It means that the price of land per sq. meter at village Santhal was Rs. 16-47 Ps. On 30-04-86. In that L.A.R. Case No. 3654/2003 the said evidence of sale deed was believed by me and market value was fixed on its basis. Here in the present case the present case, the claimants have relied upon the said transaction of sale-deed in fixation of market value of village Kasalpura. A copy of Index of Registration of sale deed has been produced at Ex.31. I havbe believed the said evidence in aforesaid L.A.R. case and hence I have no alternative to except to believe and follow the said evidence and calculating 10% increase every year up to the date of publication of notification u/s. 4 dated 30-09-95, it comes to Rs. 40-39 Ps. and calculating in round figure it come to Rs. 40/- per sq. mtr. 40-39 Ps. and calculating in round figure it come to Rs. 40/- per sq. mtr. The claimants have produced the substantial material and reliable documentary evidence of sale instance of adjoining and neighbouring village Santhal and hence I am duty bound to consider it. The boundaries of both the villages i.e. village Santhal and village Kasalpupa is one and the distance between these two villages is hardly two kms.and it is established by the map of village Kasalpura produced at Ex.27. This fact has not been challenged by the opponent. It appears very clear from the contents and writings of award itself that the land acquisition officer has tried to fix the market value of the acquired land as possible as less under the guise of average market value of transactions stated in award. The land acquisition officer appears to be acted on the face of it arbitrarily, not in judicial manner and not according to settled principle of law, as required under the provisions of Sec.23 of the Land Acquisition Act. In fixation of market value of the acquired land. The reason assigned by the land acquisition officer for fixation of market value of land in LAQ Case No. 12/95 is not rational and reasonable, if this court will not observed such facts in this judgment which is on record it would amount of failure in discharging judicial duty. Hence in view of this evidence it is crystal clear that the market value of the acquired land was on 30-04-86 at Rs. 16-47 paisa per sq. mtr. This price can be adopted as a base of fixation of market value on the date of publication of notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The notification u/s 4(1) is dated 30-09/95 i.e. subsequent to the transaction of land bearing block No. 382/1 of village Santhal produced at Ex.37. It is well settled principle of law that when some base has been adopted for fixation of market value of the land for the purpose of Sec.23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 10% increase in price of land per year should be calculated up to the date of publication of notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act Calculating 10% increase in price of land per year, it would be Rs. 40-39 Ps. per sq. mtr. on the date of publication of notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. 40-39 Ps. per sq. mtr. on the date of publication of notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Hence, on the date of publication of notification u/s. 4 the market value of the acquired land is Rs. 40-39 Ps. per sq. mtr. Considering on round it would be Rs. 40-00 Ps per sq. meter.” 2.5 With these observations, the learned Judge had partly allowed the reference cases preferred by the original claimants essentially declaring the market value of the lands acquired at the rate of Rs. 40/- per sq. mtrs. with all consequential statutory benefits. Hence, these appeals at the instance of the acquiring body-ONGC under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. 3. This Court, after considering the submissions made and the grounds raised in the appeal, by order dated 07.03.2006, had admitted these appeals and the ad-interim relief was granted in terms of Para 3(a) of the applications seeking stay preferred by the original appellant staying the impugned judgment and award pending the hearing of the interim application for stay. The aforesaid interim relief came to be confirmed by order dated 20.04.2006. Thereafter, these appeals were notified from time to time for final hearing. 4. Learned advocate Ms. Aishwarya Reddy has appeared with learned advocate Mr. Yash Modi on behalf of Gupta Law Associates for and on behalf of the appellant-Corporation. Learned AGP Mr. Manohar Rahevar has appeared for the respondent no. 2-Special Land Acquisition Officer. 5. From the cause list of the board, it transpires that the notice issued upon the original claimants-respondents herein in few of the appeals, has remained unserved whereas in few of the appeals, though served, they have chosen not to appear and contest the present appeals. Noticing the old matters pending for adjudication since year-2006 and the original acquisition of year-1999, this Court has proceeded with final hearing of the appeals in absence of other side with the assistance of the learned advocate representing the appellant-Corporation and learned AGP Mr. Manohar Rahevar has appeared for the respondent no. 2-Special Land Acquisition Officer. 6. Learned advocate Ms. Aishwarya Reddy representing the appellant-Corporation has invited my attention to the relevant observations of the learned Judge while arriving at the fixation of the market value of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 40/- per sq. mtrs. Manohar Rahevar has appeared for the respondent no. 2-Special Land Acquisition Officer. 6. Learned advocate Ms. Aishwarya Reddy representing the appellant-Corporation has invited my attention to the relevant observations of the learned Judge while arriving at the fixation of the market value of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 40/- per sq. mtrs. According to her, the learned Judge has relied upon the earlier decision in L.A.R. No. 3654 of 2003 to 3660 of 2003 decided on 05.11.2004 for determining the market value of the acquired lands of village-Kasalpura. Learned advocate has submitted that the learned Judge committed serious error by finding the judgment in the case of village- Ichhapura as the best exemplar instance for the purpose of determination the market value of the acquired lands in the present case, as the same is not comparable and no evidence was brought on record to suggest that they are comparable. It was further submitted that the reference court has erred in not giving the importance to the sale instances of the same village-Kasalpura, which were brought on record by the appellant. She therefore, submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer while determining the market value of the acquired lands under Section 11 of the Act, called for no interference in the reference proceedings. 6.1 On the other hand while disputing the comparison of the exemplar in the form of earlier decision in L.A.R. No. 3654 of 2003 and allied matters decided on 05.11.2004 by the same court, learned advocate for the appellant-Corporation has pointed out that in the aforesaid reference case, the reliance was placed on the sale instance of the neighbouring village-Santhal which was two kilometers away from the village-Kasalpura. In the aforesaid case, the date of Section 4 notification was published on 16.02.1999 whereby the additional amount of the compensation was determined as on the date of such notification as Rs. 57/- per sq. mtrs. She has further submitted that the learned Judge committed further error to follow the said evidence inasmuch as 10% increase every year was considered up to the date of publication of notification under Section 4 dated 30.09.1995, and had thereby erroneously fixed the market value of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 40/- per sq. mtrs. mtrs. She has further submitted that the learned Judge committed further error to follow the said evidence inasmuch as 10% increase every year was considered up to the date of publication of notification under Section 4 dated 30.09.1995, and had thereby erroneously fixed the market value of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 40/- per sq. mtrs. The comparative chart has been placed on record as directed by the Court for considering the aforesaid submissions of the learned advocate for the appellant. The same is reproduced hereunder: S. No. Case Section 4 Notification Section 6 Notification Section 11 Notification Award 1. First Appeal No. 492-496 of 2006 (LAR No. 2392- 2396 of 2003) 30.09.1995 08.08.1996 04.09.1997 Rs. 40/- per square metre 2. First Appeal No. 5-11 of 2006 (LAR No. 3654-3660 of 2003) 16.02.1999 25.02.2000 30.04.2001 Rs. 39/- per square metre 3. Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 2872 of 2003 07.04.1994 31.05.1995 05.01.1996 Rs. 18.55/- per square metre 6.2 Apart from the aforesaid submissions made on merits of the case, by referring to the comparative chart, it is submitted that Section 4 Notification in the present case was issued on 30.09.1995 and Section 4 notification in L.A.R. No. 3654 of 2003 upon which the reliance was placed by the learned Judge was on 16.02.1999. It is further submitted that in L.A.R. No. 2392 to 2396 of 2003 which was relied upon, the price of the land village-Santhal at the rate of Rs. 16.47/- per sq. mtrs. related to 30.04.1986. The learned advocate for the appellant-Corporation has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maya Devi (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2018) 2 SCC 474 . Learned advocate has also placed reliance upon oral judgment dated 24.08.2011 passed in the case of Deputy General Manager vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others delivered in First Appeal No. 4506 of 2007 and allied matters. It was pointed out that an award wherein the Notification under Section 4 is subsequent to the date of Section 4 notification in a given case, then the same could not be relied upon. It was pointed out that an award wherein the Notification under Section 4 is subsequent to the date of Section 4 notification in a given case, then the same could not be relied upon. 6.3 Alternatively, learned advocate for the appellant-Corporation has urged that at the most this Court may apply 8% annual increase with cumulative effect as considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Warehousing Corporation vs. Thakur Dwara Kalan Ul-Maruf Baraglan Wala (Dead) and Others, 2023 SCC Online SCC 1361 can be considered. 6.4 Learned advocate for the appellant-Corporation has also placed reliance upon the order dated 10.07.2015 passed by the reference court in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 2872 of 2003, and has submitted that in case of compensation of the acquired lands of the same village Kasalpura where the date of issuance of Section 4 Notification was 07.04.1994, the reference court has determined the market value of the lands at the rate of Rs. 14.65/-. Learned advocate has, therefore, urged to remand the matter back to the reference court. 6.5 By making the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate for the appellant-Corporation, has urged to allow the appeals and to quash and set aside the impugned order. 7. Learned AGP Mr. Manohar Rahevar has appeared for the respondent no. 2-Special Land Acquisition Officer and has supported the judgment of the trial court. He has, therefore, urged to pass appropriate order. 8. Having heard the learned advocate for the appellant- Corporation and having carefully examined the impugned judgment and award in light of the aforesaid submissions, the reading of the relevant observations of the reference court as quoted earlier and recorded in Para 11, it clearly transpires that though the learned Judge has made reference to its earlier decision in L.A.R. Case No. 3654 of 2003 and allied matters dated 05.11.2004 i.e. in the case of acquisition of the lands of village-Ichhapura, in my opinion, except for reference the Court has not considered it as an exemplar for the purpose of determination of market value in the present case i.e. for the acquired lands of village- Kasalpura. The Court has considered the case of the claimants who have heavily relied upon the sale transaction of land bearing block no. 382/1 admeasuring 0-18-21 hector sq. mtrs for a consideration of amount of Rs. The Court has considered the case of the claimants who have heavily relied upon the sale transaction of land bearing block no. 382/1 admeasuring 0-18-21 hector sq. mtrs for a consideration of amount of Rs. 30,000/- of village- Santhal which was registered on 29.04.1986/30.04.1986 and produced on record and the index of registration of such sale deed being produced on record being produced at Exh.31. 9. According to me, learned advocate misdirected herself by reading the judgment that the learned Judge has given 10% increase every year by considering the exemplar in the form of a decision which is L.A.R. No. 3654 of 2003 and allied matters wherein the date of Section 4 Notification was four years i.e. 16.02.1999 after the date of notification in the present case which is 30.09.1995. Reading of the observations of the learned Judge as recorded in Para 11 clearly indicates that learned Judge, after considering the sale instance produced at Exh.31 to be the exemplar for the purpose of fixation of market value of the acquired lands of village-Kasalpura which comes to Rs. 16.47/- as on 30.04.1986, has applied 10% increase every year up to date of publication of notification under Section 4 i.e. 30.09.1995 on and which comes to Rs. 40.39/- and the learned Judge has considered round figure of Rs. 40/- per sq. mtrs. With these observations of the learned Judge, the judgments relied upon by learned advocate for the appellant-Corporation in the case of Maya Devi (supra) and of this Court in the case of Deputy General Manager (supra), would not be applicable. 10. During the hearing, a fragile attempt is made by the learned advocate for the appellant-Corporation, by making the submissions that the learned Judge committed serious error in interfering with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer while ignoring the sale instances produced on record, no substantive arguments have been canvassed by the learned advocate for the appellant-Corporation in this regard by referring to any such sale instance. In absence of any other arguments being canvassed by the learned advocate for the appellant-Corporation and for the reasons recorded by the learned Judge, this Court does not find any error in the impugned judgment and award passed by the reference court. 11. In absence of any other arguments being canvassed by the learned advocate for the appellant-Corporation and for the reasons recorded by the learned Judge, this Court does not find any error in the impugned judgment and award passed by the reference court. 11. As regards the submissions of learned advocate for the appellant-Corporation for remand of the proceedings in light of the judgment of the reference court in L.A.R. Case No. 2872 of 2003 is concerned, learned advocate has fairly conceded that said decision was delivered subsequently after passing of the impugned judgment. The facts of the aforesaid case suggest the date of notification under Section 4 as 07.04.1994, whereby the learned Judge has placed reliance upon the previous judgment produced on record at Exh.27 decided on 15.01.2002 in group of Land Reference Case Nos. 127 of 1997 and 843 of 1998 passed by the Reference Court, Mahesana which relates to the lands of village Balol. The learned Judge upon appreciation of the evidence had treated village Kasalpura as nearby village having common boundary, noticing the time gap of reverse of one month has applied 10% deduction and has accordingly determined the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 14.65/- per sq. mtrs. The decision of the reference court in earlier land reference case of village Balol is decided subsequently. Therefore, for the first time at appeal stage, this Court is called upon to treat it as best exemplar. In the present case as against that the original claimants have brought on record the sale instance of nearby village-Santhal which is hardly two kilometers away. No application seeking production of additional evidence has been brought on record by the Corporation in the present appeal. It is general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is a bona-fide transaction has to be considered and accepted when the land is compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to accept the aforesaid submissions of learned advocate for the appellant-Corporation to remand the proceedings. 12. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to accept the aforesaid submissions of learned advocate for the appellant-Corporation to remand the proceedings. 12. This brings me to the last alternative submissions being made by learned advocate for the appellant-Corporation in case of Central Warehousing Corporation (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was seized of the matter whereby the Corporation had assailed the correctness of the judgment of the High Court whereby the appeals preferred by the land owners were partly allowed and the appeals of the State were dismissed raising the amount of compensation. In the process, the High Court had considered cumulative annual increase at the rate of 15% for the period of 11 years. 13. In the aforesaid decision, the reference court had taken into consideration the earlier decision relating to acquisition of lands of same village of year-1989, as against the acquired lands in the present case of year-2000. The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that the High Court had relied upon the earlier judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Another delivered in Civil Appeal No. 5192 of 2002, whereby the court had considered the determination of compensation on the basis of annual increase with cumulative effect. The Hon’ble Supreme Court put a word of caution that such annual increase can be taken only for 4 to 5 years as beyond that it would be unsafe to uniform to apply the same rate for increase and that too with cumulative effect. The Hon’ble Supreme Court took notice of the paragraph 15 of the aforesaid decision by noticing that the Court had ultimately considered the cumulative annual increase at the rate of 7.5% for the period of 5 years. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, thereafter, took into consideration various other decisions, whereby the Courts in the facts and circumstances of the case have applied formula of 12% annual increase cumulatively for a period of 5 years. Thus, the rate of annual increase has varied from 8% to 15% per year as noticed in its last decision reducing it to 10%. The Court thus observed as under: “23. Thus, the rate of annual increase has varied from 8% to 15% per year as noticed in its last decision reducing it to 10%. The Court thus observed as under: “23. From the above, we notice that the consistent view taken by this Court for awarding annual increase to determine the just compensation varies from case to case and the period to be applied is a major factor to be considered. In the present case, the period is 11 years which is pretty large as compared to the time period considered in the cases referred to above. 24. Taking an overall view in the matter and the consistent view of this Court, the fair and reasonable compensation in the present case would be best determined if we apply 8% annual increase with cumulative effect. This is for the reason that the gap is huge i.e. 11 years. For shorter period of 3-5 years, it could have been 10% or 12%. But in no case 15% would be justified for a period of 11 years as awarded by the High Court in the impugned order. In the present case, given the 11 years gap, 8% would be considered just and proper. 25. On rough assessment, the compensation would be equivalent to compensation awarded by the Reference Court. The High Court fell in error in enhancing the compensation by applying the cumulative annual increase of 15%. 26. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 01.06.2016 is set aside. The Land Acquisition Collector to calculate the compensation at the rate as determined above.” 14. Applying the aforesaid principles in the facts of the present case, indisputably the learned Judge has determined the base price by considering the best exemplar available on record which is a registered sale deed dated 30.04.1986 of village-Santhal situated two kilometers away from the village-Kasalpura of the present case. The date of notification published under Section 4 of the Act in the present case is 30.09.1995. Hence, there is a gap of period of 9 years and not 11 years as was the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Warehousing Corporation (supra). 15. The date of notification published under Section 4 of the Act in the present case is 30.09.1995. Hence, there is a gap of period of 9 years and not 11 years as was the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Warehousing Corporation (supra). 15. While examining the rate of annual increase to be applied where no exemplar of relevant time i.e. on the date of Notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Warehousing Corporation (supra) had put a word of caution that for shorter period of three to five years, the annual increase with cumulative effect could be considered at 10% to 12%. Hence, in light of the aforesaid principles considering the gap of more than five years viz. 9 years, the annual increase of 10% as considered by the learned Judge while determining the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 40/- per sq. mtrs. of the acquired lands of village-Kasalpura is hereby reduced. Taking overall view in the matter, in opinion of this Court it would be fair and reasonable to determine compensation by applying the rate of 8% instead of 10% annual increase with cumulative effect from the date of the registered sale deed i.e. from 30.04.1986 till the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 30.09.1995. 16. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment and award dated 13.09.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) of Mahesana at Mahesana in Land Reference Case Nos. 2392 of 2003 to 2396 of 2003 is hereby modified to the extent by determining the market value of the acquired lands of village- Kasalpura in L.A.Q. Case No. 12 of 1995 on 30.09.1995 as Rs. 28/- per sq. mtrs. (Rs. 30.43/- Rs. 2.43/-). All the consequential benefits available under the Act shall follow on such additional amount of compensation. Hence, the Appeal stands partly allowed in aforesaid terms. 17. During the course of arguments and upon perusal of the order-sheets, it transpires that the Corporation has not paid a single penny towards the amount of compensation of the lands acquired way back in the year-1995. The original claimants are awaiting the fruits of their acquired lands whereas the appellant has already taken over the possession. 17. During the course of arguments and upon perusal of the order-sheets, it transpires that the Corporation has not paid a single penny towards the amount of compensation of the lands acquired way back in the year-1995. The original claimants are awaiting the fruits of their acquired lands whereas the appellant has already taken over the possession. In light of the aforesaid circumstances, the appellant-Corporation is directed to deposit the entire amount of compensation including the consequential benefits which may be derived upon such additional amount of compensation forthwith within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Upon deposit of such amount of compensation, the reference court is directed to disburse the entire amount of compensation in favour of the original claimants, after due verification. In case of failure of deposit of the amount of compensation within stipulated period, the respondents-original claimants shall be entitled to the additional amount of interest at the rate of 9% from the date of such default till its actual realization. 18. With these observations and directions, the present First Appeals stand disposed of, in aforesaid terms.