Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Bholabhai Ramjibhai and Another

D.N. Patel, J.—With the consent of the parties, these First Appeals as well as these Cross Objections have taken up for their final hearing.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the land of the claimants, is situated at village Karsanpura, Taluka Kheralu, Dist. Mehsana. This land was acquired for the purpose of Karsanpura approach road. Notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 21.7.1990 and thereafter, Notification u/s 6 was published on 19.9.1990. Necessary procedure was followed. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer pronounced compensation award on 27.1.1992 and awarded price at Rs. 1.95Ps. per Sq. Mtr. The claimants received certified copy of this order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 10.5.1993. It appears that Reference cases were filed through Collector. It also appears that looking to the evidence on record especially Exhibit 10 and looking to the award passed by the concerned District Court in Land Acquisition Reference No. 196 of 1986 to 199 of 1986, wherein ultimately, this Court in First Appeals No. 410 of 1994 to 413 of 1994 with Cross Objections, fixed the price at Rs. 18/- per Sq. Mtr. for the land, which was acquired and situated at village Undhai situated in the same taluka Kheralu, Dist. Mehsana. It appears that geographically this land is similar to the land, which acquired in facts of the present case. It also appears that both the lands, one of village Undhai and another of village Karsanpura are situated in the same Taluka. The distance between these two lands are approximately 9 kms. Looking to the Notification issued u/s 4 for village Undhai is 1984, whereas in the present case, Notification u/s 4 is of the year 1990. Thus, the land, which is situated and acquired at village Undhai, Ta. Kheralu, Dist. Mehsana, for which this Court has fixed the compensation at Rs. 18/- per Sq. Mtr., while delivering the judgment of First Appeals No. 410 of 1994 to 413 of 1994 along with Cross Objections therein, appears to be comparable with the land situated at village Karsanpura. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the trial Court. Looking to the overall situation of the land, it appears that in the present case also, Rs. 20/- per Sq. Mtr. ought to have been awarded by the trial Court as compensation because for the village Undhai, Notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is of the year 1984, whereas in the present case, Notification u/s 4 of the Act, was issued on 23.7.1990. Thus, looking to this difference in Section 4 Notification, the total compensation at Rs. 20/- per Sq. Mtr. is hereby awarded. In fact, it is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents in First Appeals and on behalf of claimants in Cross Objections that they are entitled for more than Rs. 20/- per Sq. Mtr., but, the claimants have prayed Rs. 20/- per Sq. Mtr. before the trial Court and therefore, if this Court fixes the compensation at Rs. 20/- per Sq. Mtr., it will be in fitness of the facts and circumstances of the case.

As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts that as per the judgment delivered by this Court in First Appeals No. 410 of 1994 to 413 of 1994 with Cross Objections, at Rs. 18/- per Sq. Mtr. is awarded as compensation for the village Undhai, Ta. Kheralu, Dist. Mehsana, in which, Notification u/s 4 in the present case, on 21.7.1990 and looking to the proximity of distance between these two lands, in my opinion Rs. 20/- per Sq. Mtr. is correct assessment of the compensation. Therefore, I award Rs. 20/- per Sq. Mtr. as compensation. Even otherwise, Rs. 20/- was demanded by the claimants before the trial Court.

It also appears from the facts of the case that the trial Court has awarded solatium, but looking to the directions given in the impugned judgment and award, interest on award of additional amount payable under Sections 23(1)(a) of the Land Acquisition Act and solatium u/s 23(2) of the Act, no interest has been awarded. This is error apparent on the face of the record, looking the judgment delivered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court (Constitutional Bench) in the case of Sundar v. Union of India reported 2001 (3) GLH 446, especially paras 23 and 26, they read as under:

In deciding the question as to what amount would bear interest u/s 34 of the Act a peep into Section 31(1) of the Act would be advantageous. That Sub-section says : "On making an award u/s 11, the Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested or entitled thereto according to the award, and shall pay it to them unless prevented by someone or more of the contingencies mentioned in the next Sub-section". The remaining Sub-sections in that provision only deal with the contingencies in which the Collector has to deposit the amount instead of paying it to the party concerned. It is the legal objection of the Collector to pay "the compensation awarded by him" to the party entitled thereto. We make it clear that the compensation awarded would include not only the total sum arrived at per Sub-section (1) of Section 23 but the remaining Sub-sections thereof as well. It is thus clear from Section 34 that the expression "awarded amount" would mean the amount of compensation worked out in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 23 including all the Sub-sections thereof.

We think it useful to quote the reasoning advanced by Chief Justice S.S. Sandhawalia of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in State of Haryana v. Smt. Kailashwati and Ors. (Supra): "Once it is held as it inevitably must be that the solatium provided for u/s 23(2) of the Act forms an integral and statutory part of the compensation awarded to a landowner, then from the plain terms of Section 28 of the Act, it would be evident that the interest is payable on the compensation awarded and not merely on the market value of the land. Indeed the language of Section 28 does not even remotely refer to market value alone and in terms talks of compensation or the sum equivalent thereto. The interest awardable u/s 28 therefore, would include within its ambit both the market value and the statutory solatium. It would be thus evident that the provisions of Section 28 in terms warrant and authorize the grant of interest on solatium as well.

In view of the aforesaid position as well as looking to the decision rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vasant Rao and Ors. reported in 2003 (1) GLH 140, especially para 53 reads as under:

Civil Appeal Nos. 6590 to 6592 of 2001 were partly allowed by this Court by order dated September 19, 2001 in so far as the claim for interest on the enhanced solatium u/s 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act is concerned. Their claim to interest on the sum payable under Sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act must also be allowed in view of the judgment of this Court in Sundar v. Union of India (supra). Accordingly these appeals are allowed and it is held that the claimants are also entitled to interest on the amount payable to them under Sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. The respondents are directed to compute and pay the interest payable to the appellants in accordance with law as enunciated in Sundar v. Union of India (supra).

In view of the aforesaid decision, the claimants are entitled to interest upon the amount of compensation awarded u/s 23(1-A) and on the amount of solatium u/s 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act to the aforesaid extent. The judgment and award passed by the trial Court is hereby modified to the aforesaid extent and rest of directions given by the trial Court, shall remain intact as they are. Instead of Rs. 18/-, the amount will be paid Rs. 20/- per Sq. Mtr. and claimants are entitled to interest upon the aforesaid amount awarded u/s 23(1-A) and 23(2) of the Act. Thus, the Cross Objections are allowed to the aforesaid extent and the First Appeals are hereby dismissed.

The aforesaid amount of compensation will be deposited by the appellants of First Appeals within a period of 10 (ten) weeks from the date of receipt of the order of this Court.