KAMAL KANT SHRIVASHTVA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal preferred under Section 54'of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') the appellants as legal representatives of the original owner, namely, Ramratanlal Shrivastava have called in question the pregnability of the award dated 11-1-1999 whereby the reference court has determined the quantum at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per acre in respect of the acquired land in question.

(2.) The facts which are necessary to be stated are that a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh for the purpose of acquisition of the land admeasuring 5.84 acres situated at Ward No.7 Bina Itava. It is relevant to state here that the beneficiary, namely, M.P Electricity Board had entered into correspondence with the predecessor-in-interest and others for indicating the price so that the Board could take steps for acquiring the land. One Anand Kumar agreed to sell the land at the rate of Rs. 17,800/- per acre to the Board. The possession of the land was taken over on 21-11-1980. After the notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Act steps were taken by completing the formalities and eventually the award was passed under Section 11 of the Act. As far as Anand Kumar was concerned the land acquisition officer passed an award at the rate of Rs. 17,800/- per acre. Similar amount was awarded in favour of Ratanlal Shrivastava. Ratanlal Shrivastava accepted the award under protest. On the basis of the reference application by Ratanlal and others the Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act.

(3.) In the application preferred under Section 18 of the Act an application was filed stating that the land owner should be awarded compensation on the basis of valuation per square foot. The grievance was also agitated with regard to non-granting of solatium and interest. The reference court on the basis of evidence fixed the rate at Rs. 18,000/- per acre. In addition the reference court allowed the interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of taking over the possession till the date of payment. The reference court declined to grant solatium as envisaged under Section 23(2) and 28 of the Act. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid award the present appeal has been filed. Be it noted, no appeal has been preferred by Anand Kumar.