Smt. Prem Mayee vs Collector and State of U.P.

Rajesh Tandon, J.—Heard Sri Abdul Wahid, counsel for the appellant and Standing Counsel for the respondents.

By the present appeal, the appellant-plaintiff has challenged the order dated 21.08.1982 by which a solatium has been awarded to the extent of Rs. 63,157.89 per acre along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

Briefly stated, according to the claimant-appellant, he was the owner of the following land, which was situated at Chukhuwala, Pargana Central Doon, Tehsil Dehradun, District Dehradun:

i) Khasra No. 30 - 0.480 acres ii) Khasra No. 31 - 0.840 acres iii) Khasra No. 32 - 0.580 acres iv) Khasra No. 33 - 0.530 acres v) Khasra No. 34 - 0.730 acres vi) Khasra No. 23 0.730 acres -------------------- Total 3.890 Acres.

The aforesaid land was acquired for purposes of constructing residences of employees working on Lakhwar Vyasi Scheme. Notification u/s 4 No. 1019 dated 19.11.1976 was published in the gazette on 11.12.1976 and notification u/s 6 of the Act dated 26.12.1976 was published in the Gazette on 29.11.1977. Possession u/s 17 of the Act was taken on 17.5.1977. For the acquisition of the aforesaid land, on 07.08.1978 compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 47,368.41 per acre by the Land Acquisition Officer along with solatium at the rate of 15% and interest at the rate of 6% per annum form the date of possession.

Dissatisfying with the said compensation along with solatium and interest, the claimant-appellant has prayed for reference to the competent Court for determination of the matter. In the reference the plaintiff-appellant sought compensation to the extent of Rs. 1,25,000/- per acre besides solatium and interest.

The respondents have contested the case by filing a written statement where he has denied all the averments made in the application filed for compensation and has stated that the compensation as well as solatium was wholly adequate.

The District Judge while hearing the reference has framed as many as three issues. Issue No. 1 was to the effect as to whether the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate and unreasonable?

Issue No. 2 was to the effect as to what amount the claimants are entitled? Issue No. 3 was framed to the effect as to whether Sri Surendra Prakash is not entitled to the compensation or make reference as alleged?

So far as Issues No. 1 and 2 are concerned, the court below has recorded a finding to the following effect:

The Special Land Acquisition Officer reduced the market value by 25% in view of the huge area of the same. He, however, totally over-looked the fact that the market value assumed related to January, 1973. It was, however, to be calculated as it was in December, 1976. There can be no doubt that there must have been escalation in the price of land since 1973 to 1976. However, there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate the percentage of such escalation. I am, therefore, of the view that under the circumstances market value of the land acquired should have been determined and calculated @ Rs. 63,157.89 per acre. without any reduction and I hold accordingly.

In view of what has been said above there is no option but to hold that compensation awarded was improper and inadequate. Calculating the game with regard to the area of 5.292 acre acquired it comes to Rs. 3,34,231/-. Solatium has also to be paid for compulsory acquisition at 15% of the above compensation. Interest too is payable @ 6% p.a. w.e.f. 7-5-77 on the entire amount of compensation as well as solatium inasmuch as solatium is integral part of compensation. The compensation so calculated with regard to the area of plot No. 21 shall, however, be paid to the Samiti in terms of the order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer.

Issues are decided accordingly.

However, both the issues to the some extent were decided in favour the appellant. The District Judge passed the order to the following effect:

The claimants are Surendra Prakash, Dev Dass and Smt. Prem Mai are entitled to additional compensation over and above the amount awarded and to be calculated and paid as specified above. They are also entitled to interest @ 6% p.a. with effect from 7-5-77 on the full amount of compensation as well as solatium.

Counsel for the appellant has confined his prayer to the extent of solatium to the extent of 30% in accordance with the dictum of the Apex Court.

Counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has relied upon the judgment of Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. Raghubir Singh (Dead) by Lrs. Etc., , where it in place of 15 per cent interest 30 per cent interest has been awarded. Relevant observations are as under:

We now come to the merits of the reference. The reference is limited to the interpretation of Section 30 (2) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act of 1984. Before the enactment of the Amendment Act, solatium was provided u/s 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act (shortly, "the parent Act") at 15 per cent on the market value of the land computed in accordance with Section 23(1) of the Act, the solatium being provided in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. The Land Acquisition Amendment Bill, 1982 was introduced in the house of the People on April 30, 1982 and upon enactment the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 commenced operation with effect from September 24, 1984. Section 15 of the Amendment Act amended Section 23(2) of the parent Act and substituted the words ''30 per centum'' in place of words ''15 per centum''. Parliament intended that the benefit of the enhanced solatium should be made available, albeit to a limited degree, even in respect of acquisition proceedings taken before that date. It sought to effectuate that intention by enacting Section 30(2) in the Amendment Act. Section 30(2) of the Amendment Act provides:

(2) the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 23...of the principal Act, as amended by Clause 9b) of Section 15...of this Act...shall apply and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation to, any award made by the Collector or Court or to any order passed by the high Court or Supreme Court in appeal against any such award under the provisions of principal Act after the 30th day of April, 1982 [the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, in the House of the People] and before the commencement of this Act.

In construing Section 30(2), it is just as well to be clear that the award made by the Collector referred to here is the award made by the Collector u/s 11 of the parent Act, and the award made by the Court is the award made by the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction u/s 23 of the parent Act on a reference made to it by the Collector u/s 19 of the parent Act. There can be no doubt that the benefit of the enhanced solatium is intended by Section 30(2) in respect of an award made by the Collector between April 30, 1982 and September 24, 1984. Likewise the benefit of the enhanced solatium is extended by Section 30(2) to the case of an award made by the Court between April 30, 1982 and September 24, 1984, even though it be upon reference from an award made before April 30,1982.

The question is: What is the meaning of the words "or to any order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court on appeal against any such award?" Are they limited, as contended by the appellants, to appeals against an award of the Collector or the Court made between April 30, 1982 and September 24,1984, or do they include also, as contended by the respondents, appeals disposed of between April 30, 1982 and September 24,1984 even though arising out of awards of the Collector or the Court made before April 30,1982. We are of the opinion that the interpretation placed by the appellants should be preferred over that suggested by the respondents. Parliament has identified the appeal before the High Court and the appeal before the Supreme Court by describing it as an appeal against ''any such award''. The submission on behalf of the respondents is that the words ''any such award'' mean the award made by the Collector or Court, and carry no greater limiting sense; and that in this context, upon the language of Section 30(2), the order in appeal is an appellate order made between April 30, 1982 and September 24, 1984-in which case the related award of the Collector or of the Court may have been made before April 30,1982. To our mind, the words ''any such award'' cannot bear the broad meaning suggested by learned Counsel for the respondents. No such words of description by way of identifying the appellate order of the High Court or of the Supreme Court were necessary. Plainly, having regard to the existing hierarchical structure of fora contemplated in the parent Act those appellate orders could only be orders arising in appeal against the award of the Collector or of the Court. The words ''any such award'' are intended to have deeper significance, and in the context in which those words appear in Section 30(2) it is clear that they are intended to refer to awards made by the Collector or Court between April 30, 1982 and September 24, 1984. In other words Section 30(2) of the Amendment Act extends the benefit of the words Section 30(2) of the Amendment Act extends the benefit of the enhanced solatium to cases where the award by the Collector or by the Court is made between April 30, 1982 and September 24, 1984 or to appeals against such awards decided by the High Court or the Supreme Court whether the decisions of the high Court or the Supreme Court are rendered before September 24, 1984 or after that date. All that is material is that the awards by the Collector or by the Court should have been made between April 30, 1982 and September 24,1984. We find ourselves in agreement with the conclusion reached by this Court in K. Kamalajammanniavaru v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, and find ourselves unable to agree with the view taken in Bhag Sigh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh. The expanded meaning given to Section 30(2) in the latter case does not, in our opinion, flow reasonably from the language of that sub-section. It seems to us that the learned Judges in that case missed the significance of the word ''such'' in the collocation ''any such award'' in Section 30(2). Due significance must be attached to that word, and tour mind it must necessarily intend that the appeal to the High Court or the Supreme Court, in which the benefit of the enhanced solatium is to be given, must be confined to an appeal against an award of the Collector or of the Court rendered between April 30,1982 and September 24, 1984.

In view of the aforesaid, the award of the Court below is modified to this extent that the solatium will be paid @ 30% of the compensation in place of 15% to the plaintiff-appellant. Rest of the award is confirmed.

Consequently, appeal partly succeeds and is allowed. No order as to costs.