Back
1987 Supreme(Raj) 601
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Farooq Hasan, J.
Bhagwan Das and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 40 of 1986. (against judgment dated 5.11.85 passed by Shri S.S. Gupta, Civil Judge, Jaipur Distt. Jaipur)
Decided On : 10-04-1987
For the Appellant :S.K. Keshote, Advocate.
For the Appellant :G.G. Sharma, Advocate.
For the State :N.L. Jain, L.K. Sharma, Dy. Govt. Advocate.
The Central Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, is applicable to the State of Rajasthan and repeals the repugnant provisions of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - COMPENSATION - MARKET VALUE - SOLATIUM - INTEREST - CENTRAL ACT - STATE ACT - REPEAL - POTENTIONALITY - URBAN CHARACTER - RELEVANT FACTORS - EVIDENCE - DOCUMENTS - JUDGEMENTS - AWARDS - SALE DEEDS - AGREEMENT TO SELL - NOTIFICATION - ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, Late Dwarka Das Kotewala and T.N. Sawhney, claimed compensation for their land acquired by the State Government under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 350/- per bigha. The appellants took proceedings in the Revenue courts for getting their rights decided in respect of the land which had been wrongly recorded as Siwai Chak in the Revenue record. Both the appellants were declared as Khatedars of the land claimed by them. On the basis of the decision by the High Court in writ proceedings, the compensation was claimed by the appellants.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the appellants were entitled to compensation for their land acquired at the rate of Rs. 10,500/- (Rupees ten thousand five hundred only) per Bigha. The appellants were also entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% of the total compensation awarded for the land acquired. The appellants were also entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the enhanced amount of Compensation from the date when the possession of the land was taken by the State from the appellants and at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of expiry of one year after the date of taking possession till the date of payment of compensation.
Issues: 1. Whether the market value of land in question at rate of Rs. 4000/-per Bigha awarded by the learned Civil Judge is grossly inadequate? 2. Whether, the solatium at rate of 30% on the market value should have been awarded to the appellants because the acquisition was compulsory in nature? 3. Whether, the amount of interest on the amount of compensation should also be awarded?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The market value of the land in question was grossly inadequate as it did not take into account the potential value of the land and the fact that it was situated in an urban area. 2. The appellants were entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% of the total compensation awarded for the land acquired as the acquisition was compulsory in nature. 3. The appellants were entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the enhanced amount of Compensation from the date when the possession of the land was taken by the State from the appellants and at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of expiry of one year after the date of taking possession till the date of payment of compensation.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed and the amount compensation, awarded by the learned Civil Judge was enhanced to the extent stated above. The appellants were also entitled to recover from the respondents the amount of courts fee paid by them in this Court as costs of their appeals.
(1) Was the objector, the owner of the land and as such an interested person in the compensation of the land acquired?
(2) If so, whether he is entitled to compensation as detailed in para No. 8-A of his application?
(3) What relief?
The following additional issues were also framed:
(4) Whether the petitioner is the rightful owner of the property acquired?
(5) What is the effect of the decision of the court of reference?
