SECRETARY JHANSI Vs. CHANDRA PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. These two land acquisition appeals have arisen out of the same judgment dated 18.1.2006 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Jhansi. Hence, these two appeals are being taken and decide together.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved, objections were filed before Collector, Jhansi, who referred it to District Judge, Jhansi which was numbered as Reference Case No. 211 of 1992. The matter was transferred to the 1st Additional District Judge, Jhansi. After hearing the parties and going through the objections and evidence. The reference Court decided the reference vide order dated 18.1.2006 and fixed the compensation of the land of Chandra Prakash and Deepak Kumar, area measuring 0.87 1/2 acre at the rate of Rs. 7.50 paise per Sq. feet after deduction of 40% from the rate of Rs. 12.50 per sq. feet as shown in sale deeds filed by objectors and for construction over the land Rs. 6,30,160/-, loss of earning Rs. 50,000/- and solatium and interest according to Section 23 and 28 L.A. Act. Feeling aggrieved, Chandra Prakash, Deepak and Secretary, Jhansi Vikash Pradhikaran filed the above appeals.

(3.) It has been argued by the learned counsel of appellant in the First Appeal No. 224 of 2006 that condition precedent for maintaining a reference under Section 18 of the Act is non-acceptance of the award by the claimants/respondents, however, having accepted the award and received the compensation without any protest, their reference application itself was not maintainable. Merely, because the Collector in a routine manner, has forwarded the reference application of the respondents/claimants for adjudication before the Court will neither make it maintainable nor will take away the effect of the agreement and acceptance of the award. The learned Court below has erred in law and facts both in holding the compensation amount awarded by the Collector as inadequate or insufficient and has also erred in enhancing the same in an arbitrary, excessive and exorbitant manner. Ordinarily 30% to 40% deductions towards development charges have been held as just and lawfully permissible by the Apex Court, but even 10% deductions allowed by the Collector for the development charges and levelling work have been held as impermissible by the learned Court below, which is wholly illegal and arbitrary. Sale deed of a very small area of land cannot be made basis for determining the market value of land. The learned Court below has erred in placing reliance on the sale deed dated 2.7.1985 relating to an area of only 3200 Sq. Feet. The valuation report of the Private Architect relied on by the claimants was not proved by the claimants or the Architect. The valuation report submitted by the appellants were of the approved and departmental Executive Engineer of Public Works Department and was based on relevant data and calculation. The rate and amount of interest awarded by the learned Court below is highly excessive, arbitrary. The learned Court below has erred in awarding the interest on the amount of solatium.