Judgment :-

R.V. Raveendran, J.

Leave granted. Heard the parties.

2. The first batch of appealsis filed by the Haridwar Development Authority (the Authority, for short), the beneficiary of an acquisition. The connected appeals are filed by the claimants-landowners whose lands measuring 38.68 Bighas (8,45,174 sq.ft.) in village Jwalapur, Tehsil and District Haridwar, were acquired for planned development of a housing colony, under preliminary notification dated 7.12.1991 and final notification dated 16.5.1992. As the ranks of parties in the appeals and counter-appeals vary, the appellant in the first batch (who is the second respondent in other appeals) will be referred to as the "Authority". The respondents in the first batch (who are the appellants in the other appeals) are referred to as the "claimants".

3. The Land Acquisition Collector made an award dated 9.5.1994. He divided the acquired lands into three belts and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 26.25 per sq.ft. for the lands falling in the first belt, Rs. 17.50 per sq.ft. for lands falling in second belt and Rs. 13.12 per sq.ft. for the lands falling in the third belt. The Reference Court however limited the division of the acquired lands into only two categories, that is lands falling within 500 metres from the National Highway and lands falling beyond 500 metres from the National Highway. In regard to the first category, it awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 26.25 per sq.ft. and for the second category Rs. 17.50 per sq.ft. Feeling aggrieved, both sides filed appeals. The High Court awarded a uniform rate of Rs. 26.25 per sq.ft. for all the acquired lands and rejected the belting system adopted by the collector and the categorization adopted by the Reference Court. The High Court also confirmed that claimants will be entitled to all statutory benefits, that is additional amount under section 23(1A), solatium under section 23(2) and interest under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act for short).

4. Neither the Reference Court nor the High Court increased the base rate of compensation arrived at by the Collector, that is Rs. 26/25. While the collector divided the acquired lands into three belts and reduced the rates for lands in the second and third belts (interior lands), the Reference Court restricted the division of the acquired land into two belts and adopted the rates fixed by the Collector for the first and second belts. The High Court treated all the acquired lands uniformly and awarded the same compensation for all lands by adopting the base rate of Rs. 26/25 fixed by the Collector. The Authority challenges the award on the following two grounds: (i) The High Court ought to have retained the three belt categorisation adopted by the collector instead of awarding a uniform rate for all the lands. (ii) The High Court ought not to have awarded interest under section 28 of the Act, when the Reference Court had not awarded any interest under the said section. On the other hand, the claimants in their appeals have contended that the compensation awarded was low and the Reference Court and High Court ought to have increased the compensation to at least Rs. 40/00 per sq.ft. They also contend that the high Court was justified in awarding compensation at a uniform rate for all the acquired lands and in awarding interest under section 28 of the Act.

5. On the contentions urged, the following questions arise for consideration :

(i) Whether the High Court ought to have adopted the belt method for award of compensation?

(ii) Whether the compensation awarded requires to be increased?

(iii) Whether the award of interest under section 28 of the Act is not sustainable?

Re : Question (i)

6. The question whether the acquired lands have to be valued uniformly at the same rate, or whether different areas in the acquired lands have to be valued at different rates, depends upon the extent of the land acquired, the location, proximity to an access road/Main Road/Hi