JUDGMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

Heard

1. The present appeal is against the award dated 29.11.2018 passed by the Fourth Additional District Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Land Acquisition Case No.11/2011, whereby the Court in exercise of power under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'Act, 1894') has passed the award.

2. Admittedly, the land bearing Khasra No.755/1 ad-measuring 0.182 hectare and 755/2 ad-measuring 0.028 hectares situated at Village Mova, R.I. Circle, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur (C.G.) was acquired by the State. Being aggrieved by the original award dated 18.02.2011, a reference was filed under Section 18 of the Act, 1894. The Referral Court vide its award dated 29.11.2018 has modified the award to the extent that the compensation be calculated on the basis of market valuation of land at the rate of per square meter and an interest was awarded from the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, i.e. 06.08.2010 to 18.02.2011, i.e., date of award at the rate of 12% per annum. The appellant/land owner being not satisfied with the award has come up before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that though the referral Court had accepted the contention of the appellant that the award has to be passed by calculating the acquired area as per square meter, but failed to consider the fact that the land is situated at main road and according to the guideline, which was placed before the concerned Court, the compensation should have been granted at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per sq. meter instead of Rs.6,832/- per sq. meter. He would submit that in this case, the appellant along with Patwari and the Clerk of Sub Registrar were examined to demonstrate the fact that the land was situated at main road and at the main road, the average market rate according to the guideline was Rs.18,000/- per square meter. Consequently, as per the acquisition policy of the State, the maximum rate should have been applied for, which comes to Rs.18,000/- per sq. meter. He would further submit that the possession of the land was taken way back on 01.10.2007, whereas the interest has been granted from 06.08.2010, that is the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894. He would submit that the statement of the appellant/land owner and the document placed on record would show that the appellant has made various representations before the Land Acquisition Officer at the relevant time in the year 2007 to say that without proper acquisition of the land, the road was being constructed. He refers to Ex.P.-18 to submit that the land owner was left with no other option except to make such representation, therefore, the fact that the land was acquired in the year 2007 should have been accepted without there being any evidence to rebut the same. He placed his reliance in the matter of State of H.P. and others vs. Dharma Das reported in (1995) 5 SCC 683 to submit that the interest should have been awarded as per the statutory rates specified in the Act, 1894 and it cannot be varied. Consequently, the award dated 29.11.2018 passed by the referral Court be modified accordingly.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that initially the award was passed taking into consideration the area of the land on the basis of per hectare as also the interest was not awarded. However, the referral Court, while adjudicating the reference, came to a finding that the area so acquired was less than certain specified area, consequently, calculated the compensation as per the square meter. He would further submit that there is no evidence on record to substantiate the fact that the land was situated at main road and as per admission of the appellant, no main road exists near land. Consequently, the quantum of compensation, which was taken to the maximum one according to the guideline as per the average sale of the previous year, the amount of Rs.6832/- being maximum in the gui