Brij Lal Bishnoi vs State of Haryana

Swatanter Kumar, J.—The claimants in these 152 Regular First Appeals primarily claim that the compensation awarded by the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar vide award dated 2.2.1998 is inadequate. In order to substantiate their claim for enhancement, the learned counsel for the claimants have raised the following contentions.:

(a) The learned Additional District Judge, Hisar has fallen in error in adopting belting system for awarding different rates of compensation to the different claimants.

(b) Keeping in mind the location and potential of the acquired land supported by evidence of sale instances (including auctions of similar land by Government departments), the claimants would be entitled to get at least Rs.500/- per square yard for acquisition of their respective lands.

(c) The learned Additional District Judge, Hisar has erred in not relying upon judicial instances proved on the record and consequently, granting enhanced compensation to the claimants on that basis.

On the other hand, it is contended by the learned Advocate General for State of Haryana that the market value determined by the learned Additional District Judge is just and fair seeing from any method of computation and as such the appeals of the claimants are liable to be dismissed.

As 1 have already noticed that all these appeals have been preferred by the claimants alone and the State has not challenged the award of the learned Additional District Judge dated 2.2.1998, thus, practically accepting the correctness of the said award.

In order to examine the merits of contentions raised on behalf of the respective parties, reference to basic facts would be necessary. Government of State of Haryana issued a notification on 21.3.1991 u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for acquiring an area of 428.91 acre to which corrigendum was issued and the State intended to acquire 429.75 acres of land in Hadbast No. 146. Tehsil and District Hissar. Notification u/s 6 of the Act was issued on 18.3.1992. This land was acquired for development and utilisation of land for residential purpose for Section 16 and parts of Sectors 11, 13, 15 and 17. After inviting the objections, the Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 16.3.1994 classified the acquired land into three different categories and awarded the following rates of compensation to each kind of land :-

Category A (land adjoining Hisar-Tosham Road) Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre Category B (land abutting Hisar-Rajgarh railway line)Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre Category C (all other lands) Rs. 2.00,000/- per acre. 5. The claimants completely felt dissatisfied with the extent of the amount awarded for acquisition of their respective lands and preferred references u/s 18 of the Act, which were forwarded to the learned District Judge, Hisar, in accordance with law. The learned Additional District Judge, Hisar vide his award dated 2.2.1998 maintained the three different categories of the lands and awarded following compensation to the claimants:-

Category A Rs. 120/- per square yard (Rs.5,80,800/- per acre) Category B Rs. 100/-per square yard (Rs.4,84,000/-per acre) Category C Rs.62/-per square yard''(approx.) Rs.3,00,000/-per acre) 6. The claimants had examined documentary and oral evidence to substantiate their claim for enhancement. They produced awards Ex.P.67, Ex.P78, Ex.P.79, and Ex.P.80. They also produced and proved on record, amongst others, sale-deeds Ex.P.34, Ex.P.43, Ex.P.44, Ex.P.50, Ex.P.51, Ex.P.61 and Ex.P.62. Reliance was also placed upon the sales effected by Haryana Urban Development Authority, which were brought on record through the statement of.PW4. Ex.P.71 to Ex.P.73 were the bid-sheets of auction held by Rehabilitation Department in relation to the lands in the same revenue estate. In addition to this the claimants had examined 25 witnesses which included the experts, claimants, Patwari, Tehsildar and officials from the Revenue Department to prove the sale instances. To rebut this the respondents examined RW1 to RW4 and tendered in evidence Ex.R.4 to Ex.R.29 the sale instances, and produced on record Ex.R.30 to Ex.R.78. Besides this, the respondents also produced on record Ex.R.1 site plan and other two sale instances Ex.R.2 and Ex.R.3 to show the value of the land in the year 1988 and 1990 respectively.

Location and potential of the land:-

In order to comment upon the location and potential of the acquired land, it will be necessary to make reference to the site plan Ex.P.64 and Akshijra Ex.P.81, statements of claimants, PW-6, PW-20 and Ex.R.1. This can hardly be disputed that the lands in the revenue estate of Hisar were being acquired by successive notifications for the development of the colony by the Government and Haryana Urban Development Authority, hereinafter referred to as HUDA.. Ex.P.6 shows the acquired land being surrounded by minor (canal) on the northern side and Balsaman Distributary on the southern side. On the western side colonies like Patel Nagar, Sadar Police Station, Housing Board Colony and school etc. are located, while on the eastern side it is bounded by the State Highway leading from Tosham-Hisar Road to Dabra Chowk, in the heart of the town, where it joins National Highway leading to Delhi. Further it is shown by Ex.P.6 that on the northern side across the Dabra minor (canal) there is Sector 13 Part-I already developed, primary school, space reserved for institutional area, I.T.I., Jindal Hospital, Dayanand Colony, while across the State Highway on the eastern side there are factories, school, HUDA water works. In the midest of the acquired land Jambeshwar and Vishwas colonies are developed.

The oral and documentary evidence shows that the entire area of the acquired land forms part of much, larger development plan which is reflected in the Development Survey Plan Ex.P.64 and also reflected in Ex.P.81. The learned trial Court in its judgment while observing the plus points as well as the negative points of the acquired land clearly observed that the land was located in the Municipal limits and has the following advantages:-

(i) The land is situated within Municipal limits. Prominent localities in the north of acquired land:-

(ii) Sector 13 (Part-I) is situated along with northern boundary of the acquired land (but with Dabra minor canal dividing these two localities).

(iii) Across the Sector 13 (Part-I) described above is situated Model Town but with State Highway leading from Hisar to Tosham intervening these two localities.

(iv) Across the Model Town area described above is situated Urban Estate (II), MC Colony, but the National Highway intervenes said Model Town and the three localities detailed above.

(v) Eastern boundary of Model Town abuts Industrial Training Institute, Jindal Hospital and Dayanand Colony which latter mentioned colony extends upto the National Highway No. 10 and across which is situated HSEB Colony.

(vi) Eastern boundary of Dayanand Colony detailed above abuts the Model Town extension and is bounded in the National Highway No. 10. Prominent localities in the west of acquired land.

(vii) On its western side, the acquired land abuts Sadar Police Station area, Patel Nagar area, but a branch railway line leading from Raigarh to Hisar intervene the above described two localities from the acquired land. The said two localities are in turn bounded along the west thereof with police lines are (already acquired by HUDA), Housing Board Colony, and Sector 15-A which three colonies as above described are in turn bounded along their west which colonies as above described are in turn bounded along their east with defence colony and Jawahar Nagar abutting the road leading from Hisar to Rajgarh and across which road the Courts complex is situated."

As already noticed there were certain negative points also noticed by the Court, but the Court has to arrive at a reasonable conclusion on the basis of the documentary and oral evidence on record and give an interpretation based on the cumulative effect of such evidence which would not un-necessarily prejudice interest of either the State or the claimants.

Sector 13 (Part-I) is already a developed area and part of the acquired land falls across the Dabra Minor (canal) and forms an integral part of the land already developed, but has been acquired now for Sector 13 (Part-II). Some part of the acquired land abuts the State Highway, while rest of the land is not abutting any Highway. That probably persuaded the Court below to classify the land into three categories. Merits of this classification I shall shortly proceed to discuss in view of the respective contentions raised by the parties. Thus, 1 have no hesitation in arriving at a conclusion that the entire acquired land falls within the Municipal limits of District Hisar and has a good location with substantial potential for its development for residential and commercial purposes. (a) Merits or otherwise of adoption of belting system:-

The learned counsel appearing for the claimants relying upon various judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India as well as of this Court contended that keeping in view the location and potential of the land and particularly the fact that entire land was located within the Municipal limits of District Hisar, there was no occasion for the Court to qualify the land under three different Categories. It is contended that uniform rate of compensation ought to have been awarded to all the claimants irrespective of the nature and location of the land. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State while relying upon other judgments contended that adoption of belting system in the facts and circumstances of the case, to say the least, was a proper course of action followed by the Court. It is contended by the learned Advocate General on behalf of the State that compensation must be awarded depending on the nature and location of the land and awarding of uniform rate of compensation to all claimants would amount to infringement of basic principles governing the subject in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Meharban and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., 1997(2) L.A.C.C. 466 and Union of India and others etc. Vs. Mangatu Ram, etc., has held that adoption of belting system specially where the part of the land acquired fails adjacent to the National or State Highway, would be a proper recourse by the Court for awarding different rate of compensation to the various claimants. In another case titled Ludhiana Improvement Trust Vs. Brijeshwar Singh Chhal and Another, , the Hon''ble Supreme Court commenting upon the adoption of belting system while awarding compensation to the claimants held as under:-

"It is settled by decisions of this court that belting is a fair principle to determine just and adequate compensation lest unjust award would ensue. When large extent of land is acquired, land abutting the roads or developed area and interior land do not command the same market value. When it is proved that the lands are situated in low-lying area, obviously the lands situated at levelled area would command higher market rate than the lands situated in low-lying area."

In the case of Municipal Committee, Bhatinda and Others Vs. Balwant Singh and Others, , the Hon''ble Supreme Court heT8 that in appropriate cases where the evidence on record is available, the Court would be justified in fixing the belting and to determine the market value, of the land on that basis. The Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in this case emphasised the need for applying the belting system because part of the acquired land subject matter of the acquisition in that case was abutting the main road and there was evidence of sate instances available of variable amount for different parcels of the land in and around the acquired land.

However, the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gulzara Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., 1993(2) RL.R. 1 (S.C.) took the view that though belting system is legal, but should not be resorted to where the land is surrounded by roads and inhabited area. Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority and another v. M/s Dominion Land and Industries Limited and another, 1996 L.A.C.C. 132, where the Court held as under :-

" Because of the availability of the said genuine and bona fide agreement to sell pertaining to the very land acquired under the L.A. Act which reflected the real market value of the acquired land at about the time of acquisition, i.e. November 2, 1978, there was no scope for determining the market value of the said acquired land by resorting to the method of belting or hypothetical building layout or method of Comparable Sales in the vicinity of the acquired land or the like. Hence, in our view, the tribunal as well as the High Court had committed a manifest error in adopting the method of Belting for determining the market value of the aforesaid land acquired under the L.A. Act, with the market value of which we are concerned here."

There are judgment of Division Bench as well as of. Single Bench of this Court against and for this proposition.

Heavy reliance was placed by the claimants on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chander Parkash v. State of Havyana and Ors., (1994)107 P.L.R. 353 and Smt. Shanti and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, . It must be noticed that the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mangatu Ram etc. (supra) has over-ruled the view taken in the cases of Chander Parkash (supra) and Smt. Shanti and others (supra).

In the light of the above principles, it is unavoidable to refer to certain facts before arriving at a final conclusion regarding the application of belting system to the present case. Land measuring 430 acres was acquired by the same notification from the same revenue estate. It is not disputed that part of the land abuts the much developed area as well the National Highway, while the other portion across the minor canal is not abutting any main road or is not immediately adjacent to the planned developed areas. The location of Patel Nagar is certainly advantageous to some part of the land, but is not so advantageous as Sector 13 (Part-I), I.T.I., Model Town, Industrial factors and abutting highway. Lands abutting the railway track and on the other side by water canal being used primarily for agricultural purposes cannot be said to be having the same advantage as the other described lands. It is a case of huge acquisition and the land which is advantageous must get a better benefit in comparison to the other land. The principle of willing buyer and willing seller has to be essentially based upon the value which will be offered for sale depend upon the location and potential of the land.

Even the case of Balwant Singh (supra), which has been relied upon by the claimants categorically suggests that as a matter of principle the lands abutting the road and the lands interior to the road have different valuations and, thus, resorting to a belting system was proper. However, there appears to be no justification for classifying the land into three categories. I would prefer to categorise the land only into two segments

(a) the lands which are abutting the State Highway within a distance of 500 Feet, and

(b) rest of the lands which are far away from the State Highway and consequently, away from the full planned developed portions. In other words, applying the belting system the lands abutting the State Highway within 500 feet would be entitled to higher compensation than payable to the claimants of the other lands.

Fair market value of the land on the date of acquisition :-

It is a conceded case that except Ex.R.2 and Ex.R.3 all the sale instances produced by the respondents were not proved on record. In accordance with the law settled by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad Vs. P. Venkaiah and others, and Special Deputy Collector and another etc. Vs. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others, etc., , these sale instances cannot be taken into consideration. As far as Ex.R.2 is concerned, the same was disbelieved and rightly so by the learned trial Court because the witness deposed totally contrary to the contents of the sale deed. Similarly, Ex.R.3 was not considered to be relevant and again rightly so by the learned trial Court as being not comparable instance at all.

As far as the petitioners are concerned, they had produced number of sale instances, but could prove in accordance with law as per the principles enunciated by the Apex Court only Ex.P.34, P.43, P.44, P.50, P.51, P.61, P.62 and the awards Ex.P67, P.78, P.79 and P.80. As far as Ex.P.34 is concerned, this is a sale instance dated 23.7.1992, that is more than a year subsequent to the notification of acquisition in the present case. The sale instances cannot be treated as materially relevant keeping in view the date of sale deed and small extent of plot sold under this exhibit, which was only 160 square yards. Ex.P.50 and Ex;P51 have been proved by PW14 and both are sale instances of 1 Kanal each of area out of the acquired land, which was sold on 7.8.1990 and 21.8.1990 respectively for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

Ex.P.61 is the sale instance dated 19.6.1990 where 2 Kanals of land out of the acquired land was sold for Rs. 1,98,000/-. Ex.P.62 and P.43 were proved by PW10 and PW20 respectively. They were examined in relation to the genuineness of the transaction and the consideration paid there under. Vide Ex.P.62, 2 Kanals of land was sold on 5.12.1990 for the same amount i.e. Rs. 1,98,000/-. Ex.P.43 and Ex.P.44 are very close to the date of notification. Both these sale instances are of January, 1991 while the notification is of 21.3.1991. They appear to be very close to the date of notification. Probably by that time the acquisition must have been known to the public at large. Though there is hardly much of difference in regard to the valuation of the land, still I would prefer not to rely upon Ex.P.43 And Ex.P.44 for the purposes of determining the market value of the acquired land. In other words, Ex.P.50, P.51, P.61 and P.62 can be considered for determining the ultimate compensation payable to the claimants.

The learned counsel for the claimants referred to the judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the cases of Harcharan Vs. State of Haryana, ; Shakuntalabai (Smt) and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, and Punni Devi alias Basant Kaur Vs. Collector, Land Acquisition, Industries Department and Others, to contend that the sale instances are best evidence which should be relied upon by the Count while determining the fair market value of the land in question. It is a settled principle of law that out of the various methods accepted by law for computing the fair market value of the land and consequent compensation payable to the claimants, the foremost and best method of computation is reliance on relevant admissible and comparable sale, instances. Otherwise, the court, of course, could take resource to the expert opinion, capitalisation method and judicial precedents again of comparable lands.

The learned counsel appearing for the claimants while relying upon the judgment of this Court as well as the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case off. Ram Reddy etc. v Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad etc., 1995 L.A.C.C. 184 and Ujial Singh v. Union of India and Ors., (1980)82 P.L.R. 75 contended that they should be paid compensation on the average of the price received by the Rehabilitation Department and/or HUDA for selling the area in the same revenue estate after applying at best l/3rd cut or deduction on account of development at the rate of Rs.500/- per square yard.

PW25 had proved Ex.P71 to P.73 which are the auction sales conducted by the Rehabilitation Department on 7.2.1991 where lands of more than 4 kanals to 7 kanals were sold at the rate of nearly Rs.259.91 per square yard. While in the case of HUDA PW4 clearly admitted in his statement that HUDA had sold plot Nos.612, 613 and 615 measuring about 14 x 30 metres at the average rate of Rs.946.84 per square yard. I would not like to rely on any of these sale instances for determining the market value of the land for variety of reasons:-

(a) Auction terms and conditions have not been proved on record

(b) these public auctions have essentially an element of gambling and uncertainty inbuilt in them. The payments are to be made normally in instalments and the auction purchaser is not required to pay the amount instantly. No final sale deed of these plots executed by Rehabilitation Department had been produced on record by the claimants;

(c) These are developed plots and it is not possible for this Court to find out exactly the land cost element out of the figure given by PW.4, Admittedly, HUDA had sold fully developed plots which include development cost, element of interest, prospective development, margin money of the department providing and repeated maintenance etc. and general facilities.

(d) Where preferentially relevant evidence admissible in accordance with law and comparable instances having a direct bearing on the controversy in issue like sale-deeds and judicial instances exist, the Court may not prefer to take recourse to other known method of computation.

This Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Rajinder Kumar and Others, , decided on 3.6.1999 has already held that such auction/sale instances are normally not a preferential piece of evidence to be relied upon by the Courts. The Court held us under :-

"Serious expenditure and efforts are put in by the State or authorities like PUDA before the developed residential or commercial plots are put to public auction. Cost of land is one of the components of the minimum auction price fixed by the authorities. Auction price is not the price indicative only of the cost of land. It includes various other factors and components in its composition. It is a matter of public knowledge that it includes maintenance, construction and maintenance of roads in times to come, element of interest payable under different heads and other ancillary factors. An auction bid is primarily a speculative feature. The minimum price is already fixed by the authorities and it is only commercial attitude which the bidder bids in such auctions. An offer of bid, at best, could be concluded as an agreement to sell which, creates no evidence and in face of the provisions of Section 51 of the Act and it cannot be treated admissible and more so in the light of the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P. Ram Reddy v. L.A.O. HUDA, Hyderabad, 1995 L.A.C.C. 184, held that what are the terms and conditions of an auction and whether they ultimately culminated into a sale deed, there is no such evidence on record. The auction or bid of a developed plot cannot be equated to acquisition of land which either may be agricultural or may have even come up as haphazardly developed colony."

For the reasons afore-stated I would not like to rely upon any of the auction sale instances in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

The judicial instances which have been proved on record and which are relevant are Ex.P.78 to Ex.P.80. Ex.P.78 is the judgment of the learned Additional District judge, Hisar, where he had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.2320/- per square yard for the land acquired for construction of the fly over in the heart of the town vide notification dated 4.2.1993. This notification is much subsequent to the notification in the present case. Secondly, even compensation awarded by the learned Additional district Judge (Ex.P.78) was reduced by the High Court to Rs. 1,645/- vide judgment in the case of Rajinder Kumar (supra). Still, this judicial instance is not relevant because the location of the land was in a thickly populated and developed area. It is abutting the National Highway and the areas acquired were of small belt of existing house and commercial establishment.

Ex.P.67 and Ex.P.80 are the judgments of the learned Additional District Judge in relation to acquisition of the land in the revenue estate of Hisar where the land was acquired vide notification dated 23.5.1983. The Court had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.155/- downwards in Ex.P.80 while in Ex.P.67 compensation at the rate of Rs.211/- per square yard was granted. Ex.P.79 is again the award where land was acquired in the revenue estate of Hisar, vide notification u/s 4 of the Act dated 23.5.1983. The High Court had granted compensation at the rate of Rs.120/- per square yard where the learned Additional District judge had awarded Rs.l00/- per square yard.

Ex.P.67 cannot be considered to be a relevant guide for appropriate determination as the land acquired under this notification is only 1 Kanal, situated at Dabra Chowk, again in the midst'' of the town. This leaves this Court only with two judicial instances i.e. Ex.P.79 and Ex.P.80, which have a bearing on the subject matter of the present appeals. Reliance was placed on Annexure A.I to C.M.No.3074-C/-1 of 1999 in R.F.A. No.1477 of 1998, and application filed for additional evidence. As the same notification, same land and same award was subject matter of Annexure A.I to the application, I do not consider it inappropriate to permit the applicant to produce this evidence on record. In this case the learned Additional District judge has awarded Rs.235/- per square yard for the same land for which in the present case the Court had awarded Rs.120/- per square yard as the highest compensation.

There appears to be hardly any material difference between the evidence produced by the respective parties in the above cases and in the case of Ravi Kanta Jain v. State of Haryana, Annexure A-1 to the application and additional evidence. In fact, Annexure A-1 is based on Ex.P.17 (Ex.P.79 in the present case). In other words, the learned Additional District Judge has computed different amounts of compensation payable to the claimants after considering one and the same judgment i.e. Ex.P.79 which is the case of Roop Basant v. State of Haryana, R.F.A. No.l64 of 1991 decided on 24.2.1994. Therefore, 1 would also consider the effect of Annexure A-1 on the merit of the present case.

Exhibit P-79 could be adopted as a safe guide for determining the fair market value of the acquired land. This is for the reason that it relates to the land out of same revenue estate which was acquired for the same purpose. Another very pertinent fact which the Court must take note of is that the High Court had enhanced compensation awarded by the learned Court below vide Exhibit P-79 and the appeal preferred in the Hon''ble Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court (Exhibit P-79) was dismissed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Further, it is an undisputed position that the Court has to make appropriate provision for increase of compensation on account of the factor. The notification of Ex.P.79 is dated 23.5.1983 while the present notification is of 21.3.1991. In order to examine the comparability of location and potential, reference can be made to the statement of PW2Q, who has categorically stated that even the present land was subject matter of Ex.P.79 but the same was denotified subsequently and has been acquired by the present notification. RW4 also referred to this fact in his statement. Ex.P.81 is a direct evidence, which is the Akshirja of the composite development plan, and shows that the land acquired for development of Sector 13 (Part-I) is adjacent or opposite to the present land acquired for development of Sector 13 (Part -II) 1 would have no hesitation in rejecting the plea on behalf of the State that Ex.P.79 is not the proper basis for determining the compensation, payable to the claimants.

The present case is certainly one, where keeping the view the location, potential and increasing trend of the price of the land, the claimants could be awarded 12% simple increase for the period in question. Thus, Ex.P.79 being the basis, 8 years increase at the rate of 12% simple flat increase. would come to Rs. l15.02, thus a total of Rs.235/-per square yard. Now what needs to be considered is whether the claimants have led independent evidence entitling them to receive compensation to this extent. It is a settled principle of law that a clamant cannot get higher claim than the one proved by such claimant. .

The other possible method would be to determine the fair market value on the basis of sale instances. Out of the sale instance, which is the best evidence, Ex.P.51 is the most relevant piece of evidence. Ex.P.51 is nearly six months prior to the date of notification and 1 Kanal of land was sold for a sum of Rs.l,00,000/-. It is the highest sale instances produced by the claimants and is otherwise admissible and comparable instance. In other words, according to Ex.P.51 the land has been sold at the rate of Rs.8 lacs per acre. It is an agricultural piece of land sold and certain element of deduction would necessarily have to be applied on account of development activities, one time purchase, huge acquisition and other attendant circumstances accepted by various judgments. It has come in evidence vide Ex.P.6 that the surrounding areas are already developed and modern colonies have come adjacent to the acquired land. In view of this, minimum deduction has to be applied to the present case. As such applying a cut of 15% the claimants would been titled to get Rs. 140.50 per square yard i.e. Rs.6,80,000.00 per square acre.

The contents of Ex.P.79 cannot exceed the actual evidence produced by the parties on record. It was for the claimants to prove by direct evidence of sale instances that the price of the land was higher or at least what was granted by Ex.P.79 with added increase for the lapse of time. Having produced Ex.P.50 to Ex.P,62, where the minimum value comes to Rs.8 lacs per acre, the claimants cannot be permitted to retract there from and would be bound by their own evidence produced on record.

For the reasons afore-stated and having answered the respective question above, I am of the considered view that the lands falling within 500 feet from the State Highway would be entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs.140.50 per square yard i.e. Rs.6,80,000/- per acre, while the other lands would form a composite block and would be entitled, to get Rs.125/- per square yard i.e. Rs.6,05,000.00 with all statutory benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act.

As a result of the above discussion, the appeals filed by the claimants are partly accepted. They shall be emitted to the above relief with proportionate costs.