TULSI RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1649 of 1988, decided on April 25, 1988, set aside the judgment and decree of this Court passed in Regular First Appeal No. 421 of 1976 and remanded the case to this Court for fresh decision on merits, the dispute between the parties. Further direction is that this Court is also to consider the alleged compromise between the parties. It is after the aforesaid remand that the appeal is for disposal. In this Court, a compromise-deed Exhibit C/1 was produced, on which statements of the parties have already been recorded. As per this compromise, the two land-ladies, also to be described as lessors, who are legal-heirs of Ganga Devi, namely, Smt. Bimla and Suit. Kirpa Devi have agreed to accept a sum of Rs. 38,000/- out of the amount of compensation for the acquired land and the remaining amount is to be taken by three appellants, namely, Tulsi Ram, Bishan Dutt and Satya Parkash.

(2.) Shri M.S. Jain, Senior Advocate, has argued that as far as the market value earlier fixed is concerned, he would accept the same, as the value was fixed on the basis of another compensation case. His contention is that since the present appeal is deemed to be pending when Land Acquisition Act was amended in 1984, thus, the amount of compensation now should be determined by applying the amended provisions of the Act, thereby allowing 30% solatium, 12% additional compensation and interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year of acquisition and 15% per annum thereafter.

(3.) After carefully considering the argument, I am of the view that there is force in the contention of counsel for the appellants. Perusal of the Grounds of Appeal filed in the Supreme Court, copy of which has been shown, reveals that in paragraph 6(b) it was specifically mentioned as under: