Mohammod Shafiq vs State of Uttar Pradesh

J.P. Semwal, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the appeal u/s 381 of Nagar Mahapalika Adhmiyam against Je judgment of U P. Nagar Mahapalika (Tribunal) (District Judge), Allahabad dated 18-6-1977 sawaking compensation at enhanced rate of Rs. 4/- per square yard for plot No. 413 and Rs. 2/-per square, yard for plot nos. 401403 430, 431, 432 and 440 alongwith the solatium at 15% and interest at 6% p. a.

The land for Govindpur Housing Scheme was acquired by Nagar Mahapalika, in Allahabad in November 1967 for Housing Colony. The Notification u/s 357 of the aforesaid Act was made on 28th October, 67 4th November ''67 and Uth November ''67 for acquiring land measuring 97 bighas 9 biswas 6 dhoors including the land of the Appellants situated in village Govindpur. The Notification u/s 363 of the said Act was issued on 20-12-69. The possession of the lapd was taken on 11th July 1975. The Special Land Acquisition Officer adopting belt system assessed the compensation at Rs. 9000/- per bigha for the first belt; Rs. 6000/- per bigha for the second belt and Rs. 4500/- per bigha for the third belt. He found that plot No. 413 of the Appellants was within the first belt while the rest of the plots were within second and third belts and thus calculated the compensation at Rs. 30932.50 and also awarded 15% solatium and 6% interest.

The Appellants-claimant not being satisfied from the aforesaid award filed objection which was referred to the Nagar Mahapalika (Tribunal) Allahabad u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Tribunal allowed partly the objections of the Appellants-claimant and awarded Rs. 4/ -- per square yard for plot No. 413 and Rs. 2/ -- per sq. yd. for other plots and also awarded 15% solatium and 6% interest from 1-8-75 till the date of realisation.

Aggrieved by this Judgment, the claimant-Appellants has preferred this appeal on two grounds: firstly that the land had potential value of building site and it has been wrongly treated as agricultural land: secondly that solatium and interest should have been awarded from the date of Notification u/s 4.

I have heard Sri M. A. Qadir, learned counsel for the Appellants and Sri P. K. Misra, learned Standing Counsel at considerable length.

The first contention of the learned counsel for the Appellants is that the Tribunal has wrongly adopted the belt system and has wrongly treated the land as agricultural land though the entire acquired land of the Appellants has building potential value. It is urged that the Tribunal itself has given funding under issue No. 2 that the land had potential value as a building site but inspite of the funding, the Appellants has not been awarded adequate compensation to which he is entitled. Learned counsel has relied on certain judgments awarding compensation to other owners whose land was acquired under the same scheme and under the same Notification. The Appellants has filed certified copies of the judgments which had been admitted as additional evidence. There is one judgment of this Court in First Appeal No. 178 of 1976 Rahmat Ulla v. State of U.P. regarding the land under the same scheme and in which this Court has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 6/ -- per sq. yd. by its judgment dated 29-10-1980. The other judgments are of the Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal dated 27-6-77 in Land Acquisition Reference No. 3276, judgment dated 14-11-75 in Land Acquisition Reference No. 19 of 1975, judgment dated 26-9-80 in Land Acquisition Reference No. 14 of 1990; judgment dated 11-11-1980 in Land Acquisition Reference No. 12 of 1980, judgment dated 7-10-1985 in Land Acquisition Reference No. 14 of 1983.

It was, however, fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the Appellants that the appeal has been filed in this High Court in respect of L.A. Reference No. 12/80 which is First Appeal No. 153 of 1981 pending in this Court. The argument of the learned counsel for the Appellants is that in the subsequent judgments of the Tribunal, compensation has been awarded at the rate of Rs. 15/- per sq. yd. and that the Appellants should get the benefit of these subsequent judgments which have become final and against which no appeal has been filed by virtue of section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act.

The learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed this contention '' of the learned counsel for the Appellants and argued that since the matter regarding the subject matter of the land of that scheme is sub-judice in this High Court, hence the benefit of the other judgments cannot be given to the Appellants even though no appeal has been filed by other claimants. Learned counsel, however, fairly conceded that the judgment of this Court in First Appeal No. 178 of 1976 has become final and, therefore, the Appellants is entitled to the benefit of this judgment by virtue of section 28A. It wait urged by the learned counsel for the Appellants that the compensation which'''' has been awarded by the High Court at the rate of Rs. 6/- per sq. yd. is in respect of land under scheme without adopting any belt system and, therefore, the Appellants is also entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 6/- per sq.'': yd. in respect of his land of plot nos. 401, 403, 413, 430, 431, 432 and 440.

This contention has force. As already mentioned, the tribunal itself '' has given finding that entire land of the Appellants had potential value as the building site hence the contention of the learned counsel for the Appellants has substance and the Appellants is also entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 6/- per sq yd in respect of all acquired land and he cannot be discriminated with by the Nigar Mahapalika in awarding compensation at lesser rate with no fault of his

Regarding second point the learned counsel for the Appellants vehemently argued that the Appellants is entitled to solatium at the rate of '' 30% u/s 23(1-A)(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and interest at '' the rate of 15% per annum under the proviso to section 28 of the Land'' '' Acquisition Act and proviso to section 34 of the said Act.

Learned Standing Counsel, Shri P. K. Misra, has repelled this argument by referring to the transitary provisions u/s 30 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act No. 68 of 1984 and argued that the benefit regarding 30% solatium is available only between 30-4-1982 and 24-9-1984. This contention has force and is supported by a latest ruling of the Supreme Court case of Union of India v. Raghubir Singh 1990 (1) CRC 192 , wherein the larger bench of Supreme Court has over ruled the earlier statement of law laid down in the case of Bhag Singh and Others Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh through the land acquisition collector, Chandigarh, and State of Punjab Vs. Mohinder Singh and Another, , and has preferred the interpretation of section 30(2) of the Amendment Act rendered in K. Kamalajammanniavaru (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, The Supreme Court bas held in para 34 of the report "We think that what Parliament intends to say is that the benefit of Section 30(2) will be available to an award by the Collector or the Court made between the aforesaid two dates or to an appellate order of the High Court or of the Supreme Court which arises out of an award of the Collector or the Court made between the said two dates. The word ''or'' is used with reference to the stage at which the proceeding rests at the time when the benefit u/s 30(2) is sought to be extended. If the proceeding has terminated with the award of the Collector or of the Court made between the aforesaid two dates, the benefit of sec tion 30 (2) will be applied to such award made between the aforesaid two dates. If the proceeding has passed to the stage of appeal before the High Court or the Supreme Court it is at that stage when the benefit of section 30(2) will be applied. But in every case the award of the Collector or of the Court must have been made between 30th April 1982 and 24th September, 1984.

The contention of the learned counsel for the Appellants has thus no . force that solatium should be awarded at the rate of 30% from the date of notification. Tho Appellants has already been awarded 15% solatium to which he is legally entitled. He will further get solatium at the rate of 15% on the enhanced compensation. The claimant Appellants has been awarded interest at the rate of 6% from 1-8-1975. As already stated, the notification u/s 357 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam was issued on 28th October, 1967, 4th November 68 and 11th November 67 and possession was taken on 11-7-75. It is not disputed before me that the claimant Appellants is entitled interest at the rate of 9% u/s 34 of Land Acquisition Act for a period of one year from the date on which Collector took the possession of the land and is also entitled to interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of expiry of the period of one year from the date on which possession was taken by the Collector on the amount of compensation not paid or deposited before the expiry of one year from the date of taking possession.

In the result, the appeal is allowed partly as stated above. The claimant Appellants is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 6/- per sq. yd. in respect of his entire acquired land namely plot nos. 401, 403, 413,� 430, 431, 432 and 440 measuring 5 bighas 15 biswas. The claimant Appellants is further entitled to get solatium at the rate of 15% on the enhanced compensation. The claimant Appellants is entitled to get interest u/s 34 of the Land Acquisition Act at the rate of 9% per annum for a period of one year from the date on which the Collector took possession of the land and interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of compensation, which has not been paid to the Appellants or deposited before the date of expiry of one year from the date of taking of possession.

The% appeal is allowed partly. No order as to cost is made.