[2026:RJ-JD:8320]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 824/2010

1. Mohan Singh S/o Govind Singh Nenewati, R/o Bhilwara. 2. Mohan Singh S/o Dulah Singh Choudhary, R/o Bhilwara.

3. Jeewan Singh S/o Radkaran Choudhary, R/o Bhilwara.

----Appellants Versus

1. State of Rajasthan

2. Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Bhilwara.

----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Johari, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Hardik Kachhwaha Mr. Shekhar Nehra For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mohammad Aaman HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Order

13/02/2026

1. The present civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, challenging the reference order dated 02.06.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhilwara, in Civil Misc. Case No.14/86, “Mohan Singh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan”, whereby the original award dated 13.08.1986 was modified. Though the rate of compensation for the land was not increased, the respondents were directed to make the payment of solatium as well as interest. The appellants have filed the present appeal, being aggrieved against the judgment dated 02.06.1998, only to the extent of non-grant of additional compensation for the land in question.

2. Succinctly stated, the brief facts are that a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 26.05.1978. Thereafter, after inviting the objections, a notification under Section 6 was issued and subsequently, the award was passed on 05.05.1986. Two bighas of the land of the appellants’ land were acquired by way to the notification under award in question and for the same, a compensation of Rs.6,000/- per bigha was paid. However, no payment under the head of interest as well as solatium was made by the Land Acquisition Officer.

3. Being aggrieved against the award dated 05.05.1986, reference proceedings were initiated and post filing of reply by the respondents, the same came to be answered by way of judgment dated 02.06.1998, wherein, though the amount of compensation per bigha was not changed, however, the appellants were granted the benefit of solatium at the rate of 30% and interest from 26.05.1978 till 25.05.1979 at the rate of 9% per annum, and thereafter at the rate 15% per annum till the date of actual payment.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants asserts that the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the learned Reference Court failed to consider that the DLC rate of the land cannot be a determining factor for the purpose of grant of compensation. He further asserts that for the nearby land, compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- was paid in the year 1974, however, for the present land in question, while calculating the rate of the land for the year 1979, only Rs.6,000/- per bigha has been paid, which itself shows the arbitrary manner in which the compensation has been calculated. He further asserts that the land in question was situated near the Bhilwara Spinning and Ginning Mills, where the rate of land per bigha was shown to be Rs.15,000/- in the year 1979. However, as far as the present case is concerned, only Rs.6,000/- per bigha has been paid to the appellants. He further asserts that there was no proper basis of calculation undertaken by the Land Acquisition Officer, and even the learned Reference Court has failed to consider this aspect of the matter. Therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside, and the compensation per bigha needs to be enhanced.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants places heavy reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Jaw Ajee Nagnatham vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad & Ors.” reported in (1994) 4 SCC 595

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the order impugned and asserts that learned counsel appearing for the appellants himself had filed an application on 20.06.1979 before the Land Acquisition Officer and had demanded a compensation to the tune of Rs.6,000/- per big