LRS OF ASHOK KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Government of India, requisitioned the agricultural land measuring 130.20 acres in the village Mithari Khurd, Jasol and Data in the District Banner in Rajasthan, in exercise of power under Section 3 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act of 1952') along with other lands. The lands involved in these two appeals are of Khasara Nos. 34 and 36. Said requisitioned land was taken possession of by the Defence Ministry in the year 1977. For this requisitioned land of khasara Nos. 34, 36, 37 and 51, measuring 133.20 acres (333 bighas), the rent was fixed as Rs. 75.20 per bigha per year. Subsequent to it, in the year 1981, it was decided that the said land be acquired for the defence purposes and, therefore, a notification under Section 7 of the Act of 1952 was issued by the Government of India and was published in the official gazette on 20.8.1981. The District Collector, Banner fixed the compensation amount for the land in question @ Rs. 140/ - per bighas by order dated 19.5.1982. Said compensation was not acceptable to the land owners and, therefore, ultimately, the arbitrator was appointed under Section 8(1)(b) of the Act of 1952 to determine the compensation amount to be paid to the land owners for their lands. The learned arbitrator by award dated 31.3.1986 divided the land of khasara Nos. 34, 37, 51 and 36 in three categories. For land of khasara No. 34, the compensation has been awarded @ 350/ - per bighas, for khasara Nos. 36 and 37, the compensation has been awarded @ Rs. 450/ - per bigha whereas for khasara No. 51, the compensation has been awarded @ Rs. 600/ - per bigha. It will be relevant to mention here that the learned arbitrator took into consideration the original land classification as basis for determination of the compensation despite the fact that before the land was acquired under Section 7 of the Act of 1952, the land was already requisitioned and was taken possession of by the Union of India under the Act of 1952 on rental basis and was put to use for different purposes than the land as recorded in the revenue record.

(2.) THE controversy in these two appeals raised by the land owners is only to the effect that whether the learned arbitrator who passed the award fixed different rates for land of khasara Nos. 34 and 36, has committed error of fact or and error of law.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the respondents contesting the issue, vehemently submitted that the land involved in these acquisition proceedings were entirely different. By requisitioning the land, the nature of the land has not changed. It is also submitted that the learned arbitrator has not accepted the plea of the land owners for determination of the compensation on the basis of the rent paid for the land. It is also submitted that the learned arbitrator has committed serious error of law in awarding interest @ 6% whereas under the Act of 1952, there is no provision for payment of interest. It is also submitted that before the acquisition proceeding initiated in this matter, the land was already taken possession of by the Defence Ministry by requisitioning the land under the Act of 1952 and the rent was payable to the land owners as per the Act of 1952, therefore, there was no reason for awarding the interest.