KULDIP RAJ Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these 19 appeals two points arise for consideration. The proprietors or, in legal language the persons interested have objected to the amount of compensation. Their grievance is that more compensation should have been allowed to them than has been actually given by the learned District Judge Jammu The appeal of the Collector is with respect to the grant of the interest. His objection is two fold one that interest is discretionary and should not have been allowed and secondly that if any interest is allowed, it should be allowed only on the value of the land assessed and not on the 15% Jabirana i, e. solatuim also.

(2.) AFTER hearing the parties, the parties took time to arrive at an amicable settlement about the price of the land to be paid to the owner. Ultimately they came to an agreement that Rs. 375/ - per kanal should be paid as compensation for the land in village Gaginan Tehsil R S. Pura (i. e. in appeals Nos: 27, 28, 53, 55 and 56 of 1966) and Rs. 2,000/ - per kanals for the land situate in Ranbir Singh Pura (i.e. in appeal No. 54 of 1966). The amount of money payable to various owners in the. different appeals at this rate as the price of the land comes to : - .

(3.) THE argument of the learned counsel for the Collector is composed of two parts 5 one that payment of interest is discretionary ; but this argument of his is refuted and the matter concluded by a Full Bench decision of this Court, Collector Vs. Habib Ullah AlR,1967_J&K44. In that case after, considering various authorities the court came to the conclusion that payment of interest under sections 28 and 35 of the Act was obligatory and it could not be denied to a person whose land been acquired