Sri Ram And Ors. vs Union Of India
1991 Latest Caselaw 338 Del

JUDGMENT

Sunanda Bhandare, J.

(1) This Regular First Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge dated 17th May, 1984 passed in L.A.C. No. 216/79.

(2) The land of the appellants comprising of Khasra Nos. 414 (0-8) 422/1 (0-6), 423/2/1 (2-13), 425/2/1 (1-12), 426/1 (1.9), 428/1/1 (2-0) admeasuring 8 big has 9 biswas situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Ali, was acquired vide Notification under Sections 4, 6 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 10th April, 1973. The Collector vide his award dated 29.11.1973 fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 3.500.00 per bigha and allowed 6% per annum interest on the market value from 27.5.1970 because the appellants were dispossessed from the land three years before actual date of issue of notification dated 10.4.1973. Being dissatisfied with the award, the appellants filed a petition for reference under Section 18 of the Act claiming market value at the rate of Rs. 12,000.00 per bigha besides damages, interest and solarium. The Additional District Judge by the impugned judgment fixed market value at Rs. 7.000.00 per bigha. The appellants are aggrieved by this judgment of the Additional District Judge and it is prayed that the market value be assessed at the rate of Rs. 25.000.00 per bigha.

(3) It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the market value of the land in the same village was assessed by this Court is Jagmal v. Union of India. R.F.A. 383/76, decided on 9th January, 1985 at Rs. 17,000.00 per bigha. Counsel submitted that notification in respect of Jagmal was issued on 12.6.1969 i.e. about roughly four years before the notification was issued in respect of the land in dispute in the present appeal. Learned Counsel, therefore, prays that the land of the appellants be valued at a higher rate than the market value fixed by this Court in Jagmal's case.

(4) It is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the respondent that In the case of Jagmal, where the land in question was situated in the same village, this Court has fixed the market value at Rs. 17,000.00 per bigha.

(5) We see force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants. Since the notification in respect of the land in dispute in the present appeal was about roughly four years later, naturally the market value of the land must have risen because of passage of time and because of general hike in prices of land. There is no evidence placed on record to indicate that the prices of land had fallen down during that period. In fact, this Court has been consistently assessing the market value at higher rate whenever the notification is of a later date, unless there is evidence to show that the market price had substantially fallen. In the circumstances, we consider it appropriate to fix the market value of the land in dispute atRs.21,000.00 per bigha. The appellants are entitled to get solarium at 30% on the enhanced compensation. Since it is not disputed that the appellants were dispossessed on 27.5.1970 and the notification was issued on 104.1973, the appellants are entitled to Interest, both u/Sec. 34 as well as u/Sec. 28 of the Land Acquisition Amendment Act.

(6) We find that the reference application filed by the appellants was dismissed by the Additional District Judge on 1.3.1979 for nonappearance of Counsel but was restored on 4.10.1979. While passing the order restoring the reference application the Additional District Judge put a condition that the appellants will not get half of the interest payable u/Sec. 28 of the Land Acquisition Act from 1.3.1979 till 4.10.1979. We find that the appellants have challenged this order of the Additional District Judge and it is contended on behalf of the appellants that the Additional District Judge could not impose penalty on the appellants, though could have imposed costs at the time of restoration. We find great force in this contention. The Additional District Judge could not restrict the claim of the appellants as done by him by ordering only 50% of the enhanced interest for the period mentioned in his order of restoration though costs could have been imposed on the appellants at the time of the restoration of the reference.

(7) In the circumstances, we are of the view that the appellants are not only entitled to interest u/Sec. 34 of the Land Acquisition Act but also u/Sec. 28 of the said Act right from the date of dispossession at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the rest of the period. Interest u/Sec. 28 of the Act be paid on the enhanced compensation whereas interest u/Sec. 34 will be paid after giving adjustment for the interest already awarded by the Collector. Appeal is allowed in the above terms. Decree be drawn up accordingly. The appellants will also be entitled to proportionate costs.