UNION OF INDIA Vs. BHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Union of India has filed the instant Regular First Appeal against the award dated 28.2.1984 passed by the District Judge, Gurdaspur vide which the market value of the acquired house/structure of the respondent was assessed as Rs. 16,800/- and the claimant-land owner was held entitled for enhanced compensation after deducting from the aforesaid amount the compensation already awarded to them by the Special Land Acquisition Collector. On the enhanced amount of compensation, the claimant/land owner was also awarded solatium at the rate of 15% and interest at the rate of 6% from the date of taking over possession of the acquired house/structure till the deposit of the enhanced amount in Court.

(2.) VIDE notification dated 2.12.1977 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Government of India acquired certain land along with structures/houses for expansion of Pathankot Cantonment at village Athotarwan, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur. For the agricultural lands and the sites under the houses/structures, separate awards were passed by the Special Land Acquisition Collector and regarding the structures/houses, a separate award was passed. The instant appeal pertains to the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Collector with regard to the structures/houses only. This award was made by the Special Land Acquisition Collector on 30.5.1981. The compensation was assessed for different houses/structures of different land owners separately. Feeling dissatisfied, the land owner-respondent No. 1 filed reference under Section 18 of the Act which was referred to the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur. As stated above, the learned District Judge on consideration of the evidence available on the record, evaluated the market value of the structure/house of the respondent at the rate of Rs. 16,800/- vide award dated 28.2.1984. Against this award, Union of India has filed the instant appeal with the contention that the value of the structure/house, as evaluated by the learned District Judge is excessive, therefore, the award made by him is liable to be set aside.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent-claimant has argued that the District Judge has illegally awarded only 15% solatium on the enhanced amount of compensation and interest at the rate of 6% from the date of taking over possession till the date of deposit of the enhanced amount, whereas per Section 30 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 [Act No. 68 of 1984], the claimant should have been awarded solatium at the rate of 30% on the enhanced amount and interest at the rate of 9% for one year and 15% for subsequent years under the provisions of Sections 23(2) and 28 of the Act, respectively. He submitted that in this case, the award was made by the learned District Judge on 28.2.1984. Therefore, in view of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 30 of Act No. 68 of 1984, the claimant-land owner was entitled to the benefit of the amended provisions of Sections 23(2) and 28 of the Act. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the respondent-claimant relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, 1989(1) R.R.R. 552 : 1989(2) SCC 754 and K.S. Paripooram (II) v. State of Kerala and others, 1995(1) R.R.R. 40 : 1995(1) SCC 367. The learned counsel for the respondent-claimant further argued that even if the claimants have not filed any appeal or cross-objection, this relief pertaining to the grant of statutory benefits can be allowed to the claimants while disposing of the appeal filed by the Union of India against the award passed by the learned District Judge. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri Narain Dass Jain (Since deceased) by Legal Representatives v. The Agra Nagar Mahapalika, Agra, 1991 LACC 199 in which it has been observed as under :-