AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.N. Phukan, C.J.—By this judgment, we dispose of the appeal as well as Cross- Objections registered as R.F.A.(LA) No. 173 of 1982 and Cross Objections No. 666 of 1982 arising out of the award dated 21.11.1981 passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge Solan in Land Reference case No. 6-S/4 of 1980.
The Government of Himachal Pradesh issued a Notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ''the Act'') on 14.3.1974 for the purpose of acquiring land for a public purpose, namely, pooled accommodation for Government employees within Solan town. There was a considerable delay in issuing the Notification under Sections 6 and 7, which were issued on 2.3.1977. The award by the Collector was also made only on 20.3.1980. The total area of land acquired was 6094 Sq. metres out of which 4600 Sq. metres were ''Banjar Kadim'', 447 Sq. metres''Todda and 1047 Sq. metres''Ghasni". The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the value of ''Banjar Kadim'' land at the rate of Rs. 9/- per Sq.metre and for other types of land at Rs. 7/per Sq.metre. Being aggrieved, reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was sought for, which was allowed and accordingly the impugned award was made. The learned Land Acquisition Judge after re-classification of the land awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 40/per Sq.metre for an area of 1494 Sq.metres''Todda and Ghasni'' land and for the remaining part of the land i.e. 4600 Sq.metres, the compensation was assessed at Rs. 60/- per Sq.metre. Interest was also awarded at the rate of Rs. 6% per annum from 14.3.1977 and in addition solatium at the rate of 15% on the amount assesed as market value of the land was also awarded. In addition, interest at the rate of 6% was awarded till payment of compensation on the market value of the entire acquired land including the solatium at the rate of 15%.
Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed by the State and also the Cross Objections by the owner of the land.
Heard the learned Advocate General for the Appellant and Mr. Bhupinder Gupta for the Respondents.
From the evidence on record, more particularly, P Ws 1, 6, 8, 9 and 11, we find that the acquired land has potentiality for residential building as it is within Solan town, which is fast developing town after it was created a separate District in the year 1972. The very fact that the land has been acquired for the purpose of pooled accommodation for the Government employees would show that the land is ideally situated for the purposes of construction of buildings. We also find from the evidence on record that in the adjoining area, construction activities have been going on. That apart, near the acquired land, there is one old building named''Khalifa Lodge'' and also newly constructed house of private individual and also Government officers, such as, Superintendent of Police, Superintending Engineer, Executive Engineer, H.P. PWD, S.D.O..S.D.M. and others. Tehsil Office, Police station Post office, District Hospital, Boys High School nnd Lakkar Bazar area are also within the close vicinity of the acquired land and the town water supply tank is just on the top of the adjoining land. The land is also situated at a point where two motorable roads meet. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the acquired land is a very valueable piece of land having high potentiality.
The value of the land was assessed by the Collector on the basis of average price statement Ex.R-1. On going through this statement, we find that this statement was prepared on 22.7.1974 by the revenue officials only on the basis of statements of agricultural land of different classification, from the year 1969 to 1974. In the statement, it has been stated that the sale transactions, which included the structures have been excluded.
Regarding the land classified as ''Banjar Kadim'' measuring 4600 Sq.metres, the learned Land Acquisition Judge after taking into consideration the revenue record marked as Ex.PW-11/A which was proved by the town Patwari found that the land was recorded as ''Banjar 1st''. The learned Land Acquisition Judge has taken into consideration of the Settlement Manual as well as the fact of cultivation in the above area and classified the entire area as ''Banjar 1st Class Land''
Before the learned Land Acquisition Judge, as many as seven sale deeds were exhibited and marked as Exs. PW-3/A, PW-4/A, PW-5/A, PW-7/A, PW-10/A, PW-12/A and PW - 13/A and these sale deeds were for the years 1973 and 1974. For the sale deed marked as Ex.PW-3/A, the price per Sq.metre was Rs. 150/-. Similarly, price per Sq.metre for sale deed marked as Ex.PW-4/A was Rs. 94, Rs. 180 for sale deed Ex.PW-5/A, Rs. 55/-for sale deed marked as Ex.PW-7/A, Rs. 60/- for sale deed marked as Ex.PW-10/A, Rs. 166/- for sale deed marked as Ex.PW-12/A and Rs. 119/- for sale deed marked as Ex.PW-13/A. The purchasers of these plots were also examined to prove the sale transactions and we find that the Sale deeds marked as Ex.PW-3/A, Ex.PW-4/A, Ex.PW-5/A, Ex.PW-12/A and Ex.PW-13/A are within the Lakkar Bazar area and these plots were smaller in size and have better location being in the commercial area. The land in respect of the sale deeds marked as Ex.PW-7/A and Ex.PW-10/A is adjacent to the acquired land and these transactions were for the purpose of construction of the houses.
The learned Advocate General has raised serious objection as the learned Land Acquisition Judge calculated average price of all the sale deeds which comes to Rs. 118/- per Sq.metre, but to be fair to the learned Land Acquisition Judge, we find that the learned Land Acquisition Judge also took into consideration the sale deed marked as Ex.PW-10/A and Ex.PW-12/A, as the land sold by two sale deeds were for residential purposes. While '' assessing the market value on the basis of the average price, the learned Land Acquisition Judge took note of the fact regarding the location of the plots sold, which are in commercial area, as compared to the acquired land and therefore, deducted 50% for the purpose of equating the acquired land with the land sold by the sale deeds marked as Ex.PW-3/A, Ex.PW-4/A, Ex.PW-5/A, Ex.PW-12/A and Ex.PW-13/A and came to the conclusion that the market vale for the acquired land would come to Rs. 60/- per Sq.metre. The learned Land Acquisition Judge separately took note of twc other sale deeds marked as Ex.PW-10/A and Ex.PW-12/A as the plots sold were for residential purposes and also from the said sale deeds, the learned Land Acquisition Judge found that the price would be Rs. 60/- per Sq.metre.
The assessment of the market value of the land for ''Banjar 1st Class'' at Rs. 60/per Sq.metre by the learned Land Acquisition Judge cannot be faulted as he has taken into consideration all the aspects of the matter including the location and nature of the acquired land.
Regarding the remaining area classified as ''Todda and Ghasni'', the learned Land Acquisition Judge found that this land is not fit for cultivation and also sloppy. Therefore, for the purpose of construction of buildings, cutting and levelling would be involved. For this reason, the learned Land Acquisition Judge deducted 1/3rd of the value of the land worked out at Rs. 60/- per Sq.metre and assessed the value of the remaining part of the land at Rs. 40/- per Sq.metre.
It has been urged on behalf of the learned Counsel for the Respondents that deduction of Rs. 20/- per Sq.metre only for the purpose of cutting and levelling and making it suitable for construction of buildings is on the higher side and this remaining part of the land should have also been assessed at Rs. 60/per Sq. metre. In our opinion, there is some force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondents and we are of the opinion that deduction of Rs. 20/- is on the higher side and we assess the value of the remaining part of the land classified as ''Todda and Ghasni-Gairmumkin'' at Rs. 45/- per Sq. metre. Accordingly, the award stands modified.
The next question is regarding awarding of interest from the date of taking possession of the land i.e. on 14.3.1977 at the rate of 6% per annum. While dealing with Issue No. 2, the learned Land Acquisition Judge came to the finding that the Government started constructing a road on the acquired land in the year 1974 i.e. immediately on the issuance of Notification u/s 4 of the Act. A plea was taken on behalf of the Collector that the Respondent was getting the benefit of cutting grass from the ''Ghasni'' land and therefore, the land owner was not entitled to get interest from that date. The fact that the road was constructed on the acquired land in the year 1974 has not been disputed and, therefore, we hold that the possession was taken over on 14.3.1974(sic 14.3.1977) as decided by the learned Land Acquisition Judge.
Now the next question is whether the owner of land is entitled to get interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of taking possession of land.
The learned Advocate General has placed reliance in a decision of the apex Court in State of U.P. and Another Vs. Dr. S.K. Sinha and Others, wherein the apex Court considered as to whether the claimant will be entitled to additional amount in terms of Section 23(1A) of the Act from the date of taking possession and held that though possession was taken over on 15.2.1965, Notification u/s 4 was issued on 6.3.1980, therefore, the claimant would be entitle to get interest only from the date of Notification and till the date of the award and not from the date of taking over the possession. This was the decision of the two Hon''ble Judges of the apex Court.
In a recent decision of the apex Court in Assistant Commissioner, Gadag SUb-Division, Gadag Vs. Mathapathi Basavannewwa and others, the apex Court considered the same question and held that the object of introducing Section 23(1A) is to mitigate the hardship caused to the owner of the land who has been deprived of the enjoyment of the land by taking possession from him and using it for the public purpose, because of considerable delay in making the award and offering payment thereof. To obviate such hardship the above Section was introduced. This judgment was also delivered by two Hon''ble Judges of the apex Court.
We quote below the relevant paragraph of the Judgment:
But strict construction leads to unjust result, hardship to the owner and defeats legislative object. Take a case like one in hand. Possession was taken long before publication of the notification. In the meanwhile the owner was deprived of enjoyment of his property. In other words, if the possession is taken earlier and notification is issued later but the award is subsequently made, the owner or the claimant is entitled to the compensation from the date of taking possession till date of the award, though possession was taken before the notification u/s 4(1) was published. The expression ''whichever is earlier'' has to be construed in that backdrop and the claimant would be entitled to additional amount from the date of taking possession.
Though in M.A. Jabbar''s Case (Supra), a different view was expressed but in view of the subsequent decision and reasoning given in the subsequent decision, namely The Assistant Commissioner, Gadag Sub Division, Gadag (Supra). We accept the ratio laid down in the subsequent decision. Therefore, we hold that as in the case in hand the possession was taken over on 14.03.1977, interest awarded from that date by the learned Land Acquisition Judge is legal and proper.
As stated earlier the learned Land Acquisition Judge has also awarded 6% interest from the date of the award till the payment of compensation not only on the market value of the acquired land but also on the solatium at the rate of 15%. Though various decisions of the different High Courts have been cited before us the learned Counsel for the responuents, but we find that this law has been settled by the apex Court that solatium cannot be included while awarding interest on the compensation amount on the market value of the land. We may refer to the decision of the apex Court in Union of India (UOI) Vs. Shri Ram Mehar and Others, wherein it was held that solatium cannot form part to the market value of the land. Therefore the learned land acquisition Judge erred in law in awarding interest at the rate 6% from the date of award till the payment of compensation and on solatium also The award stands modified accordingly.
For the reasons stated above, we dispose of both the appeal and the cross Objections by amending the award of the learned Land Acquisition Judge as follows:
The Respondent-claimants shall be entitled to get compensation at the rate Rs. 60/- per sq.metre for an area of the land measuring 4600 sq.metres.
The market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 45/- per Sq.metre shall be paid as compensation to the claimants for 1494. Sq.metres of ''Todda and Ghasni'' land.
Interest shall also be paid at the rate of 6% per annum from 14.3.1977 till the award was announced by the Land Acquisition Col lector.
Interest at- the rate of 65K per annum shall be payable on the awarded amount minus solatium at the rate of 15%, from the date of the award till the payment of the compensation.
Parties to bear their own costs.