STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. BABU RAMAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common question of law, which arises for adjudication i.e. these appeals filed against the judgment dated 28.1.1987 rendered by the learned Single Judge is whether benefit of Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has been rightly extended to the respondents.

(2.) For the purpose of deciding the aforementioned question, it is sufficient to take notice of the facts relating to L.P.A. No. 265 of 1987.

(3.) The proceedings for acquisition of 180 acres of land for establishment of residential urban estate at Bathinda were initiated vide notification dated 13.10.1970 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. Notification under Section 6 was issued on 7.2.1973. The Land Acquisition Collector. Urban Development, Punjab gave his award on 24.3.1973. On the applications filed by the landowners references were made under Section 18 of the Act, Vide his judgment dated 22.12.1977, the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda enhanced the amount of compensation. He also directed that the claimants will get 15 per cent solatium and interest @ 6 per cent per annum. In the first appeal filed by the claimants, the learned Single Judge upheld that rate of compensation determined by the learned Additional District Judge. He, however, declared that the .claimants would be entitled to solatium @ 30% per annum and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of taking of possession till expiry of, one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till payment. He also held that the appellants will be entitled to additional amount on the market price @ 12% per annum in terms of Section 23(1-A). Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge extending the benefit of Section 23(1-A) of the Act to the respondents the State of Punjab has filed LPA No. 265 of 1987. Similar appeals have been filed against the judgments rendered by the learned Single Judge in the appeals filed by other claimants.