KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMIT! BULANDSHAHAR ETC. v. GANGA SAHAI AND ORS. ETC. JULY 23, 1996 [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAJK, J.1.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 4(1), 11, 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 (As amended by Acc68 of 1984).
Land ac qu isi tio11–(,~01npe11sation-Prin ciple for deterniin ati on of-Land acquisition for establishing agricultural market-Compensa- tion-Enha11ce111ent by Reference Co1ut-Further enhancen1ent to Rv. 15 per square yard by High Court-Appeals against enhancement-Held High Carat's vieHJ 1
1vas not based on proper apJJreciation of evidenc~But as there c 1vas no fault involved in detennining the co111pensation no inte1ference lvas called fo1~Award of Reference Court made much earlier to the introduction D of the Amendment Act 68 of 1984-171erefore c/aima!lls held not entitled to enhanced solatiu111 and intetest as 1vell as additional aniount. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 869-71
of 1993 ETC. From the Judgment and Order dated 18.5.92 of the Allahabad High Court in F.A. No. 84, 389 and 390 of 1979. O.P. Rana and Pradeep Misra for the Appellants. R.C. Verma and A.K. Srivastava for the State.
A. Grover, Promod Dayal, Ms. Asha Jain Madan and Mrs. Rani Chhabra for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Substitution allowed. Leave granted. We have heard counsel for the parties. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on May 25, 1976 H A acquiring the land in question for the purpose of establishing the agricul- tural market yard. The awar<l under Section 11 was made by the Collector on May 10, 1977. On reference the Additional District .Judge by his awar<l and decree dated September 15, 1979 enhanced the compensation lo Rs. 10 per sq. y<l. with solatium at 15% and interest al 6%. On appeal, the B High Court enhance<l the compensation to Rs. 15 per sq. yd. The High Court also enhanced solatium and interest under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 as well as the additional amount under Section 23(1-A). Thus these appeals by special leave.
It is not necessary to dilate upon all the facts but the point that C another Division Bench had followed the earlier order and awarded com- mon market value to all the lands. Though Shri O.P. Rana, lemncd senior counsel, is right that in the first case the Division Bench had not given cogent reason for enhancement of the market value from Rs. JO lo Rs. 15 sq. yd., we find that. the reference .Court had given various reasons for confining lo the market value at Rs. 10 per sq. yd. Though the basis under \vhich the market value \Vas dctcrn1ined by the I-Jigh Court \Vas not after proper appreciation of evidence, the principle involved in dctcrn1ining the con1pensation cannot be faulted. Though \VC are not satisfied \Vith the reasoning of the Division Bench, \Ve are not inclined to interfere with the enhancement of the compensation to Rs. '15 per sq. yd, However, the E claimants are not entitled to the enhanced solatium and interest and also the additional amount since the reference Court had made the award and decree on September 15, 1979 that is much earlier to the introduction of the Amendment Act 68/1984. Therefore, the enhancement of 30% solatium, interest at 9% for one year from the date of taking possession and 15% thereafter till date of deposit and also of additional amount under Section 23(1-A) stands set aside. Instead, the claimants will be entitled to solatium at 15% and interest at 6(:7c on enhanced con1pcnsation from the date of taking possession till date of deposit as ordered by this Court in the interim order.
The appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs. T.N.A. Appeals disposed of.