LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR Vs. CHAMPA BEWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - In this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the Land Acquisition Officer has challenged the award passed by the Subordinate Judge, First court, Cuttack, in a reference under. Section 18of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

(2.) Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, Was published for acquisition of land in revenue village, Baharbisinagar within the Cuttack Municipality. Land had been acquired for construction of staff quarters of Post and Telegraph Department. The Land Acquisition Collector had awarded compensation at the rate of. Rs. 1,25,000/- per acre. The claimant-respondent demanded higher compensation and in a reference under Section 18 of the Act, the Subordinate Judge keeping in view the award passed in similar cases arising out of the same notification awarded, at the rate of Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre,i.e. to say, at the rate of Rs. 10,000/-per gunth. The aforesaid award of the civil court under Section 18 of the Act is being impugned in the- present appeal. The Subordinate Judge in his judgment had referred to the judgment passed in L.A. Case No. 105 of 1979. The aforesaid judgment in L.A. Case No. 105 of 1979 was the subject matter of First Appeal No. 173 of 1984 wherein this court after referring to the earlier decision of the High Court (State of Orissa represented by the Collector Cuttack v. Urrnila Mohanty) determined the market value at the rate of Rs. 2.00.000/- per acre. at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per gunth. Since it has been fixed at the rate of Rs. 2,00,000/ per acre by the High Court in a matter arising out of the very same notification, it is Just and proper to fix the compensation payable in the present case at the same rate, i.e. to say, at the rate of Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre or Rs. 8,000/- per gunth.

(3.) The acquisition was of the year 1973 and the Land Acquisition Officer had given an award which is prior to 30.4.1982. the date on which the Bill relating to Act 6.8 of 1984 was introduced in the Parliament. In the impugned award the Subordinate Judge has directed for payment of additional market value at the rate of twelve per cent annum, evidently under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984; However, keeping in view the principle of law decided in (K.S. Paripooman v. State of Kerala & Ors.) and K.S. Paripooman v. State of Kerala & Ors. the decision of this court in (Arjun Sethi v. L.A. Collector, Cuttack & Ors) the benefit under Section 23(1-A) as amended by Act 68 of 1984 is not available to cases where the award of the Collector was prior to 30.4.1982 i.e. the date on which the Bill was introduced in the,Parliament. Similarity, the direction regarding the payment of interest at the rate of enhanced interest is also not sustainable. However, the claimant is entitled to solatium at the rate of thirty per cent as the reference was pending before the Subordinate Judge at the time when the Act 68 of 1984 was introduced.