Bachitter Singh (dead) through LRs. vs LAC and Another <BR> L.A.C. and Another Vs Bachitter Singh

Surjit Singh, J.—By this judgment, two appeals, particulars of which appear in the title of this judgment, are being disposed of by a common judgment, as both of them arise out of the same award, i.e. award dated 17.5.2001 of learned District Judge, Mandi, whereby rejecting the prayer of land owners for enhancement of compensation, a direction has been given to the Land Acquisition Collector to pay interest @ 6% per annum on the amount of compulsory acquisition charges from the date of dispossession to the date of payment of the said charges.

One appeal, RFA No. 323/2001, was filed by one of the land owners, namely Bachitter Singh, who died during the pendency of the appeal and whose estate is represented by his legal representatives, who were substituted, vide order dated 12.3.2009. Second appeal, RFA No. 37 of 2002, has been filed by the Land Acquisition Collector in which the order of the learned District Judge, directing him to pay interest @ 6% per annum, on the amount of compulsory acquisition charges, has been assailed.

Facts relevant for the disposal of the appeals may be noticed. Certain land of deceased appellant Bachitter Singh, one Parwati Devi and one Lajan Devi, situate in village Sarkaghat, had been utilized for construction of Sarkaghat- Maseran road, some time in the year 1977. Notification for acquisition of the said land was, however, issued on 4.1.1991 and was published in the Rajpatra on 9.2.1991. Land Acquisition Collector determined the compensation, vide award dated 6.9.1993. He assessed the market value of the acquired land at the following rates:

Rs.9,85,345/- per hectare for Barani Aval kind of land Rs.7,90,800 per hectare for Baran Doem kind of land Rs.12,63,260/- per hectare for Bagicha Barani Faldar Rs.1,89,480/- per hectare for Banjar Kadeem land.

Land Acquisition Collector awarded compulsory acquisition charges @ 30%, as per requirement of Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, besides awarding interest @ 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the remaining period from the date of dispossession, which was assumed to be 1.1.1977 upto 28.2.1993. In addition to that, he awarded additional amount @ 12% per annum from the date of deemed dispossession, i.e. 1.1.1977 to 28.2.1993, u/s 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act.

Deceased appellant Bachitter Singh and two land owners, named above, felt aggrieved by the quantum of compensation. They approached the Land Acquisition Collector to make references to the District Judge, u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Accordingly, references were made. Learned District Judge concluded that the evidence adduced by the petitioners did not prove that the market value of the acquired land was more than what had been determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. Therefore, the prayer of Bachitter Singh and other land owners for enhancement of compensation did not find favour with the learned District Judge. However, the learned District Judge observed that interest on the amount of compulsory acquisition charges had not been paid and issued a direction that the same be paid @ 6% from the date of taking over the possession to the date of its payment.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the representatives of deceased appellant Bachitter Singh as also the learned Deputy Advocate General.

Award of the Land Acquisition Collector suggests that 71 transactions of sale of land had taken place within one year before the issuance of Notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. He worked out the market value of different kinds of land, based on those transactions.

Land owners proved a few sale deeds pertaining to very small portions of land. All these sale deeds pertained to shops or sites of shops in Sarkaghat Bazaar, measuring a few square metres. Two sale deeds pertained to 11 square metres each and another to 27 square metres and 70 square metres. The fact remains that all these sites were situated in the bazaar. Acquired land is situated away from the locality, leave alone the bazaar. Therefore, the learned District Judge rightly did not rely upon the sale deeds proved by the land owners.

Learned Counsel for the representatives of deceased Bachitter Singh argued that market value of the acquired land of Bachittter Singh, assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector, was very low, inasmuch as it was only Rs. 1 lac per bigha. There being no evidence that the market value of the acquired land was more than Rs. 1 lac per bigha, submission merits outright rejection. Moreover, it is made out from the award of the Land Acquisition Collector that the land owners had been awarded additional compensation @12% per annum from 1.1.1977 (the assumed date of taking over the possession) to 23.2.1993, though they were not entitled to such increase. u/s 23(1-A) of the land Acquisition Act, 12% increase on the market value of the land is permissible from the date of the publication of notification to the date of the award of the Land Acquisition Collector or the taking over of the possession, whichever is earlier. Land owners are compensated for taking over of their possession prior to the publication of notification, by awarding interest @9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the remaining period from the date of taking over of possession to the date of payment of compensation. Thus, by awarding increase, u/s 23(1-A) of the Act, wrongly, the Land Acquisition Collector has paid the land owners excess compensation to the extent of 150% of the market value of the land. Hence, the land owners cannot be heard to say that compensation paid to them is on the lower side, even if it is assumed that the market value of land was more than rupees one lac per bigha, as alleged by them.

Land Acquisition Collector awarded interest @ 9% per annum for the first year and 15% for the remaining period from 1.1.1977 to 23.2.1993 on the sum total of market value of the acquired property and the compulsory acquisition charges. Therefore, learned District Judge was not justified in awarding 6% interest from the date of taking over of the possession on the compulsory acquisition charges. In any case, when the Land Acquisition Collector had wrongly paid increase, u/s 23(1)) of the land Acquisition Act to the extent of 150% of the amount of compensation, learned District Judge ought not to have awarded any further interest. Otherwise also, Act nowhere provides for payment of interest @ 6% per annum, u/s 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and further the observation by the learned District Judge that the land owners are entitled to interest @ 6%, u/s 23(2) of the Act is not correct.

In view of the above stated position, appeal filed by Bachitter Singh, i.e. RFA No. 323 of 2001 is dismissed and appeal filed by Land Acquisition Collector, i.e. RFA No. 37 of 2002 is allowed and the award of the District Judge to the extent it directs the Land Acquisition Collector to pay interest @ 6% on the amount of compulsory acquisition charges is set aside. Both the appeal stand disposed of.