RAVINDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This is claimant's appeal. It arises out of acquisition of claimant's land under Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam. The Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur, issued two notifications under Sections 357 and 363 of Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959, for acquisition of the land in village Gujaini, district Kanpur. The aforesaid notifications were issued in April 1962 and October, 1963, respectively. The land of the appellant comprises in khata No. 103, having an area of 21 bigha 6 biswa, is spread over in Plot Nos. 436, 737, 741, 742, 746, 747, 771, 772, 775, 777 and 1178. The Special Land Acquisition Officer issued notices after 17 years on 30.9.1980 under Sections 9 (1) and 9 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act. The appellant claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 60 per sq. yard. The Presiding Officer, Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur Tribunal, enhanced the valuation of the land from Rs. 714.29 per bigha to Rs. 2,000 per bigha for uneven land and Rs. 3,000 for even land. It also granted solatium at the rate of 15% and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of dispossession till the deposit of the amount. The order of the Presiding Officer, Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal is dated 29.9.1984. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order and decree the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

(3.) THE second and third questions, as mentioned above, are no longer res integra. It is concluded by authoritative pronouncement of Supreme Court in Union of India v. Raghubhir Singh, 1989 (2) AWC 833 (SC) : AIR 1989 SC 1933. It has been held therein that the benefit of enhanced solatium is to be given under amended provision, to an appeal against which award of the Collector or of the Court rendered between 30.4.1982 and 24.9.1984. 30th April, 1982, is the date of introduction of the Bill and 24.9.1984 is the date of its passing. This is a Constitution Bench judgment of Supreme Court, which has been consistently followed subsequently. THE latest judgment of Supreme Court is Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Anoop Singh and another, 2003 (2) AWC 884 (SC) : AIR 2003 SC 1004. In view of these authoritative pronouncements I find sufficient force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant. It is held that the appellant is entitled to solatium at 30% and not at 15%, as awarded by the Tribunal. Similarly, the appellant is entitled to receive interest at the rate of 9% for first year from the date of taking possession and at the rate of 15% for the subsequent period till the date of actual payment in the Court. THE order of the Tribunal dated 29.9.1984 is modified to that extent. Matter was pending before the reference court (Tribunal) on 24.9.1984, the date with effect from the Amendment Act was enforced.