STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SARASTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos; 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 and 50 of 1988 as the question of law and fact arising in all these petitions is common.

(2.) Land situated in Village Depur and 13 other villages was acquired for a public purpose i.e. for constructing Mukerain Hydel Channel Project, Talwara. Land-owners felt aggrieved by the award of the Land Acquisition Collector dated 11.8.1981, who awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 8,010.40 per acre (Equivalent to 6080 per Ghumaon) apart from solatium at the rate of 15%, and consequently sought references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, by his award and decree dated 3.3.1983 came to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per ghumaon for their respective areas, besides solatium at the rate of 15% and interest at the rate of 6% per annum. It seems that this award became final as learned counsel for the parties did not bring to my notice any other subsequent order or award in this behalf. It seems that claimants moved an application under Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the award dated 3.3.1983. According to the claimants/ applicants, they were entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% besides other benefits under Section 23(1-A), solatium at the rate of 30% under Section 23(2) of the Act and interest as per the mandatory provisions of the Act. The learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur by order dated 7.8.1987 allowed the applications. It was held that the claimants are entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the market value of the acquired land under Section 23(2) of the Act and interest at the rate of 9% from the date of possession till the date of actual payment. It is this order of the learned Additional District Judge, which is under challenge in these revision petitions at the instance of the State of Punjab.

(3.) Mr. Hemant Gupta, Additional Advocate General, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur has wrongly noticed in his order dated 7.8 1987, that the award in this case was given on 3.3.1983. According to the learned counsel the award in this case, in fact, was given by the learned Acquisition Collector on 11.9.1981. This factual position could not be: disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents.