Back
2016 Supreme(All) 1643
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.
KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI ....Appellant
Versus
Smt. KAILASHWATI AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(First Appeal Nos. 341, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 372, 371 of 1996, decided on 21st December, 2016)
Counsel :
B.D. Mandhyan and Satish Mandhyan for the Appellant; S.C., M.D. Singh, N.K. Sharma, N.S. Chaudhary, V.K.S. Chaudhary, S.K. Singh, V.K. Singh and V.S. Chaudhary for the Respondents.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 23—Compensation—Determination—Comparable sale instance—Two sale-deeds show transaction of sale of land at Rs.49,200/- and Rs.33,740.48 respectively per bigha—These sale-deed exemplars and certified copies of sale-deeds were also duly proved—On the facts held, there is no infirmity in impugned judgment of reference court—Market value of land has been considered as Rs.33,740.48 and Rs.49,200/- and Rs.34,984.60 per bigha—However reference court took a lenient view in favour of State appellants and determined compensation @ Rs.27,000/- per pakka bigha cannot be said to be excessive. [Para 11]
(B) Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 23(1–A)—Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act of 1984—Section 30(1)—Land Acquisition—Additional compensation—Justifiability of awarding—Acquisition was made and award was passed by S.L.A.O. much prior to coming into force amending Act 68 of 1984—Hence provisions of Section 23(1-A) of Act shall not be applicable to tenure holders—Judgment of reference court to the extent it granted benefit of Section 23(1-A) of the Act, 1894 to tenure holders set aside. [Para 17]
(C) Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 23(2)—Land Acquisition—Compensation—Solatium—Awarding @ 30% instead of 15%—Illegality/Legality—Held, reference court has correctly granted solatium @ 30% as per amended provisions of Section 23(2) of the Act. [Para 20]
Result; Appeals Partly Allowed.
Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—This bunch of First Appeals was heard at length on 8.12.2016 and 9.12.2016. Arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants were noted in the order dated 9.12.2016 as under :
“Heard Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri Madhav Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant.
No one appears on behalf of the claimant-respondent even in the revised call.
Learned senior advocate refers to various paragraphs of the impugned judgment as well as the award of the S.L.A.O. and submits as under :
(i) Reference Court also found the sale-deed instance at serial No. 9 before the S.L.A.O. to be the correct exemplar for determination of market value of the acquired land of village Kukra by the notification in question and yet enhanced the compensation to Rs. 27,000/- per bigha without pointing out any discrepancy in the determination of market value by the S.L.A.O..
(ii) Reference Court has committed a manifest error of law and facts to enhance the compensation more than twice without there being any relevant evidence before it for determining the market value of acquired land at Rs. 27,000/- per bigha.
(iii) The reference Court has erred in relying upon the statement of P.W. 2, namely, Sri Indrajeet Singh, who was merely a power of attorney holder of one of the claimants.
(iv) The reference Court awarded additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 despite the fact that the acquisition was made by notification under Section 4 of the Act, published on 29.11.1975 and the award was made by the S.L.A.O. on 25.2.1977, which dates are much prior to the amendment by Act 68 of 1984. He relied upon the decision of Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another v. Raghubir Singh (dead) by LRs. etc., (1989) 2 SCC 754 and Major Pakhar Singh Atwal and others v. State of Punjab and others, AIR (1995) SC 2185 (para 9).
(v) The reference Court has committed a manifest error of law in awarding solatium @ 30% instead of 15%, despite the fact that the acquisition was made and the award was declared by the S.L.A.O. much prior to the amending Act 68 of 1984 and as such the provisions were not applicable to award solatium at the enhanced rate of 30%.
(vi) While determining the compensation on the basis of various sale-deed instances, the reference Court has not considered the smallness of the area sold under the sale-deeds and the largeness of area under the acquisition and as such determination of the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 27,000/- per bigha is wholly erroneous and most excessive.
Judgment reserved.”
2. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants. No one is present on behalf of the claimants-respondents.
3. Perusal of the facts of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants give rise to the following questions :
(i) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the market value determined by the reference Court @ Rs. 27,000/- per bigha with respect to the acquired land of village Kukra, is excessive?
(ii) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the reference Court is justified to award additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) of the Act?
(iii) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the reference Court has committed error of law in awarding solatium @ 30% instead of 15%?
Facts :
4. Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 29.11.1975 to acquire 102 bighas 12 biswas equivalent to 52 acres land of village Kukra, Pargana and Tehsil and District Muzaffarnagar. However, finally, only 44.684 acres were acquired. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 29.11.1975. The S.L.A.O. made the award on 25.2.1977 offering compensation @ Rs. 11,671.05 per bigha for ‘’Tod’ quality land and Rs. 7565.79 per bigha for ‘’Khaki’
