Collector vs Abdul Matin Ahmed

I.A. Ansari, J.—This appeal has been preferred u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the judgment and award, dated 10.2.1997, passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Dhubri, in Misc. (L/A) Case No. 108/92, which arose out of L/A Case. No. 16/87-88.

The material facts leading to this appeal may, in a nutshell, be stated thus : In L/A Case No. 16/87-88 aforementioned, the appellant, namely, Collector, Dhubri, acquired 1(one) bigha of land belonging to the respondent of this appeal, namely, Abdul Matin Ahmed for the purpose of protecting Brahmaputra Dyke. For the land so acquired, appellant fixed an amount of Rs. 23,453.79p as compensation, the market value of the land having been assessed by the appellant at Rs. 3,804.00 per bigha. Feeling aggrieved by the compensation amount so fixed, respondent sought enhancement of the said amount by demanding that he be paid a sum of Rs. 2,10,847.00 as compensation. As the appellant did not acceded tot he request so made by the respondent, the matter was brought up by way of reference before the learned Addl. District Judge, Dhubri. In the reference so made before the learned Addl. District Judge, Dhubri, the appellant contended, inter alia, that the assessment of the compensation amount awarded was correct and reasonable.

Following issues were framed by the learned Court below for adjudication :-

(i) Whether there is any cause of action?

(ii) Whether the petition is time-barred?

(iii) Whether the compensation was properly assessed? If not, what should be the reasonable compensation?

The respondent adduced both oral as well as documentary evidence by examining himself and one more person as witnesses. No evidence was adduced by the appellant. Upon hearing both sides, learned Judge delivered the impugned judgment and award, whereby the issue No. 1 was decided in the affirmative and issue No. 2 in the negative. While dealing with issue No. 3, the learned Judge determined the market value of the land at Rs. 12,000.00 per bigha and accordingly, awarded to the respondent compensation of Rs. 12,000.00 per bigha for the acquired land. In addition to this amount, the learned Judge also fixed solatium at the rate of 30% on the market value of the land with effect from the date of taking possession of the land till payment thereof and fixed interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the excess amount awarded as compensation. Aggrieved by the award so delivered, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

I have carefully perused the relevant records including the impugned judgment and award. I have heard Mr. P. .S. Deka, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. S. C. Biswas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

Mr. Deka has contended that the respondent could not adduce any credible evidence to show that the compensation determined by the appellant was incorrect or unjustified and, hence, in this view of the matter, learned Court below ought not to have interfered with the amount of compensation awarded by the appellant.

Controverting the above submissions, made on behalf of the appellant, Sri Biswas has pointed out that according to the admitted position on record, the land measuring 1(one) bigha, which was acquired by the appellant, had a pucca house and many valuable trees standing thereon, but these factors were not taken into consideration at all by the appellant while determining the amount of compensation.

It has also been pointed out by Mr. Biswas that according to Ext. A, which is valuation certificate in respect of the properties standing on the acquired land, valuation of the said pucca house of the respondent was a high as Rs. 2,07,948.00. Relying of Ext. A, Mr. Biswas has contended that since this estimate was submitted by none other than the Sub-Divisional Engineer (Building), Dhubri, the valuation so estimated, could not have been ignored and in the face of such valuation, the amount fixed by the learned Addl. District Judge is too meagre and, hence, the award needs no interference.

On a pointed query made by this Court, Mr. Deka could submit nothing to show as to how the valuation certificate (Ext.A) could have been ignored by the learned Court below. Be that as it may, since the respondent has not prayed in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation amount fixed by the learned Court below, this Court cannot enhance the awarded amount,

However, in view of the admitted facts on record that the acquired land had a pucca house standing hereon, that there were also valuable trees on the said land and that the value of the house aforementioned was as high as Rs. 2,07,948.00, I find that the compensation fixed by the learned Court below is really too meagre and cannot be interfered with. I, therefore, hold that the compensation amount of Rs. 12,000.00 per bigha fixed by the learned Court below needs no interference.

In the above view of the matter, the fixed solatium of 30% granted on the said compensation amount also, I hold needs no interference at all.

Coming to the portion of the impugned award, which relates to granting of interest, it needs to be noted that u/s 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the interest shall be fixed at the rate of 12% per annum, on the market value of the acquire land, on and from the date of publication of the relevant notification u/s 4(1) of the Act upto the date of the award given by the Collector or the date of taking over of possession of the land, whichever is earlier.

In the present case the relevant notification was published on 7.1.1991 and the award was delivered by the appellant on 27.11.1991. Since the possession of the land, in question was taken over before the award was made, the respondent is entitled to receive, in the light of the provisions of Section 23(1A) of the Act, interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the market value of the land from the date of publication of the notification (i.e., on and from 7.1.1991) till the date of the award, i.e., till 27.11.1991. I am guided to adopt this view from the law laid down in Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and Another Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and anr,

With the modifications of the award as indicated hereinabove, this appeal is disposed of with the direction that the compensation along with solatium and interest, as fixed hereinabove, shall be paid to the respondent within a period of two months from today.

Send back the case records with copies of this judgment and order.