MAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter has close affinity to the one decided in RFA No. 1702 of 1979 which was decided on November, 19, 1980, by a Single Judge of this Court. Parties' counsel are agreed that the rate of compensation awarded to the landowners in RFA No. 1702 of 1979 needs to be awarded in the instant case. To clarify the position, some facts would not be out of place.

(2.) A large chunk of land was acquired by the Union of India for constructing a Cantonment at Faridk at. Preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) was issued on August, 28, 1974. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on August 29, 1974. Some land of the appellants was involved therewith. The Collector made the award on May 18, 1975. The appellants being dissatisfied sought a reference to the District Judge and on the matter being so referred, the Additional District Judge, Faridkot, vide his award dated March 18, 1980, now appealed against, fixed compensation of land depending on the quality of its use as reflected in the revenue papers. It appears that some other affected land owners who were similarly granted a variegated rate, approached this Court in RFA No. 1702 of 1979 and were successful in having a flat rate of Rs. 20,000/- per acre as compensation for their lands. On the same principle, the instant appeal needs to be and is hereby allowed a flat rate of Rs. 20,000/- per acre to the appellants for the acquisition of their land.

(3.) It follows as a matter of course that the appellants would have the benefit of the amendment caused in Section 23(2) of the Act so as to have 30 per cent solatium instead of the 15 per cent awarded by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot. It also logically follows that the appellants would have the benefit of the amended Section 28 of the Act in having 9 per cent per annum interest from the date of taking of possession of land upto a period of one year and thereafter at the rate of 15 per cent per annum for subsequent period till payment is made, on the rightfully determined compensation. Sequely, it follows that the appellant shall have, on the allowance of their appeal, proportionate costs.