LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR Vs. SATYA BHUSHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeal has been filed against the award of compensation made by the learned District Judge, Solan in his award dated 14.10.1992 in Land Reference No. 61 -S/4 of 1992 made at the instance of the claimant/owner of the land acquired. The acquisition as a whole was by the Public Works Department for the purpose of constructing the road known as Solan -Jaunaji -Dharja road, which passes through the lands of ten villages, namely, Sheely, Sheel Shamlog, Mashiwar, Bhajon, Fagon, Layan, Kotla, Nahar, Bagur and Ser -Banera. The land in question are situated in village Ser -Banera. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued in respect of this land on 25.2.1989, but published in the Himachal Pradesh Rajpatra on 15.4.1989 and in the daily Newspaper on 7.5.1989. The Land Acquisition Officer assessed the market value of the acquired land by classifying it in different categories. The claimant was not satisfied with the quantum of compensation determined and awarded for the lands acquired and consequently he sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act and it is in such circumstances, the reference case came to be entertained by the learned District Judge, Solan.

(2.) The learned District Judge, Solan came to the conclusion that having regard to the last date of publication, namely, the publication in the Newspaper, the market value of the acquired lands is to be assessed on 7.5.1989. Relying upon the copy of the award marked in the case as Ex. PY rendered in respect of another item of land in the village and dealt with by a different award, the learned District Judge fixed the market value of the land in question also at Rs. 45,000/ - per Bigha. In addition to such determination of the market value of the land acquired at Rs. 45,000/ - per Bigha, the learned District Judge awarded the following sum: "(a) Compulsory acquisition charges at the rate of 30% on the market value assessed above; (b) Additional compulsory acquisition charges at the rate of 12% per annum on the market value assessed above with effect from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, that is, 7.5.1989, till the date of the award, that is, 31.1.1991; (c) Interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the compensation assessed above with effect from 18.12.1968 till the date of payment of the amount of compensation in terms of the orders of the Honble High Court in CWP No. 147 of 1988; (d) Interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of possession, that is, 18.12.1968 till the expiry of one year thereafter, that is, 17.12.1969; (e) Interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the enhanced amount with effect from 18.12.1969 till the date of payment of the amount of Court."

(3.) Aggrieved, the State has filed the above appeal. Heard the learned Advocate General for the appellants and Mr. Praneet Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent -claimant. Though the learned Advocate General was vehemently challenging the rate of land fixed by the Court below at Rs. 45,000/ - per Bigha on the ground that the reasoning of the learned District Judge to apply the principles enshrined in Section 28 -A of the Act is not correct and the same could not have been applied to the case on hand and that there was no evidence as such to prove that the lands which were the subject matter of acquisition under the award marked as Ex. PY and the present lands were similar and identical in nature. The learned Advocate General, in our view, to some extent is correct in objecting to the reasoning of the learned District Judge based on the provisions of Section 28 -A of the Act. Section 28 -A while providing for re -determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of an earlier award of the Court covered by the same notification under Section 4(1) of the Act also stipulates under sub -section (3) that any person, who has not accepted the said award may seek for the determination by the Court and in which case the provision of Sections 18 to 28 shall so far as may be apply to such Reference as they apply to a Reference under Section 18 and consequently to a case where a specific request for enhancement has been sought for under Section 18 of the Act, as in this case, the earlier award could not have been relied upon straightway to fix the value of compensation at that rate. But the submission in this regard overlooks the fact that though the claimant in this case has sought for enhancment for more than Rs. 45,000/ -, which was the amount determined in the earlier award, the learned District Judge apparently thought that since he is allowing not more than Rs. 45,000/ - per Bigha, it was permissible for him to rely upon the earlier award. Consequently, the objection taken in this regard by the learned Advocate General need not detain us in considering the reasonableness or otherwise and the sufficiency of the amount fixed as market value of the compensation in this case. As indicated earlier, the acquisition in these cases was for construction of road and if, as noticed by the learned District Judge in this case, the lands acquired in the very village, Ser -Banera was the subject matter of the award marked as Ex. PY in which the market value has been fixed at Rs. 45,000/ - Per Bigha. We are of the view that the challenge to the rate of market value has to be rejected, as of no merit. Having regard to the location of the land and taking into account the reasonableness of the prevailing prices and the market value in the said area, even judicial notice can be taken note of and that is what we find the learned District Judge has done in this case to apply the rate of market value determined under the earlier award to a land acquired for the identical purpose in the very village.