Point of Law: Once the market value of the land as on the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act is so determined the land owner(s) shall be entitled to an amount @12% per annum therefrom to the date of the Award under Section 23(1A) and solatium @30% per annum thereon in view of the compulsory nature of the acquisition under Section 23(2) of the L.A. Act.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Addl. A.G., Mizoram appearing for the respondent No.1. Also heard Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC, appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘L.A. Act’ for short) read with Section 96 and Order 41 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (‘C.P.C.’ for short) and Section 17(1) of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act, 2005 has been preferred against the Judgment & Order, dated 19.11.2019, passed by the learned District Judge, Lunglei Judicial District in L.A. Case No. 2/2018 for enhancement of the market value of the lands belonged to the appellants which were acquired by Draft Award No.1/2015.

3. The appellants’ grievances, precisely, are that for the purpose of widening of road from Hnahthial to Saiha via Sangau road, the Revenue Department, Government of Mizoram published a preliminary Notification on 12.11.2012 under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act along with a notification dated 27.02.2015, that is, Declaration under Section 6 of the L.A. Act for the purpose of acquisition of the lands belonged to them. The lands were accordingly duly verified and demarcated and after complying with all the formalities required under the L.A. Act, the respondent No. 1/District Collector, Lawngtlai District, Lawngtlai published the Draft Award No.1/2015 awarding Rs.54,53,205/-(Rupees Fifty Four Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand and Two Hundred and Five) only to the appellants by fixing the market value of the lands belonged to them @ Rs.80/-per square metre. The aforesaid Draft Award was approved by the Government of Mizoram vide a letter dated 17.08.2015.

4. Being aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded to them, the appellants had preferred a Reference Petition under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, which was registered as L.A. Case No. 2/2018 in the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, Lunglei Judicial District praying for enhancement of the market value of their lands as fixed by the respondent No. 1 and enhancement of the amount awarded in respect of the buildings belonged to them along with payment of solatium and interest payable under Section 23 (1A) and (2) and payment of interest under Section 34 of the L.A. Act.

5. The respondent No. 1 by filing a written objection/statement contested the Reference Petition claiming that the said reference application was received on 28.06.2017 and as such, the application was barred by limitation and that while determining the market value of the acquired lands all relevant factors were taken into consideration and as such, the value so fixed @ Rs.80/-per square metre by the Award was reasonable.

6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the reference Court had framed the following issues-

(i) Whether the reference application/case is barred by law of limitation or not?

(ii) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to enhancement of market value of their respective lands @Rs.500/-per sq. metre or not. If so, to what extent and reasons.

(iii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to enhancement of value of their respective buildings at least by three folds of the already awarded amount. If so, to what extent and reasons.

(iv) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to payment of solatium as per section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 @30% of the market value of their respective lands or not.

(v) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to payment of interest @ 12% per annum as per the market value of their lands for the period commencing on and from the date of publication of the notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the date of the award or the date of taking possession of the land whichever is earlier or not.

(vi) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to payment of interest u/s 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or not.

(vii) Whether there