In a case challenging the award for compensation, Justice Vivek Singh Thakur held that since the appellant had not consented to the award and to the clause of not claiming solatium or interest, he was entitled to the compensation as well as other benefits including interest under the law.
Brief Facts:
This appeal has been filed against the award date. 22.02.2019, passed by the Additional District Judge, whereby the claim of the appellant for enhancing the compensation was rejected.
The land belonging to the petitioner was acquired by issuing a notification dt. 19.12.1995 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for public purposes that are for setting up industrial areas. After the due process, the land acquisition collector announced Award no. 1, where the value of the land was mutually agreed between the state and the landowners at a rate of Rs. 10,000/- per Kanal without interest etc. thereon. It was decided that no solatin and interest would be given.
Contentions of the Appellant
According to the appellant, he is the owner in possession of land to the extent of 1/4th share in the joint land holding. And that he did not have any knowledge about the acquisition or the passing of the aforesaid award as he is a permanent resident of Jalandhar and is currently residing in Canada. He also contends that he was never served a notice u/s 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Award at his permanent address and since he was out in Canada for the past 30 years, he had no access to the newspapers. He also contends that the Land Acquisition Collector did not take any tangible steps for the service either in person or through his representatives. Further, it is also contended that because of the acquisition, his land holdings have been divided into pieces and the adjacent land of the appellant has been rendered useless for both residential and agricultural purposes. This fact was not considered by the Land Acquisition Collector and therefore is depriving the appellant of fair and just compensation to which he is legally entitled.
Contentions of the Respondent
The respondents have asserted that the service of the appellant with notice u/s 9 of the Land Acquisition Act was sent to his permanent address and it has been claimed that the appellant had complete knowledge of the passing of the award as well as the entire acquisition proceedings since the beginning. Further, the opposite side contends that the reference petition was beyond the prescribed period of limitation in terms of Section 18 and thus it is not maintainable. It was also submitted that the amount of compensation of the appellant was lying with the Collector and the appellant was requested to collect the same, but he did not collect it.
Observations of the court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that even though according to the respondents, notice was served under both section 9 as well as section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the same was done on an incomplete address and this claim of the appellant has also been substantiated by a witness. Further, No other evidence was shown by the respondents and in an absence of an accompanying copy of the awards, as per the law propounded by the Supreme Court, this Court concluded that no valid notice was served upon the appellant and there is no compliance with section 12 (2) of the land acquisition act.
Further, the appellant is an interested person and he was not present personally or by his representative when the award was made and there is no material on record to establish that appellant had the knowledge of the same. The claim of the appellant that he got the knowledge of the contents of the award somewhere in January 2013 and accordingly reference for enhancement filled by him was not barred by limitation, was accepted by the court.
Further, the court also noted that in the absence of any sale deed, the value of the land as consented to by the land owners in the meeting of negotiation was just and fair. However, the petitioner was not a party to the consent of land owners to abandon the claim of solatium as well as interest. Therefore, the consent of other landowners, not to claim solatium and interest cannot be trusted upon the appellant. And the appellant was entitled to compensation at the rate of 10,000 per Kanal with all statutory benefits including solatium and interest etc. as permissible under law.
The court concluded that the appellant was not available at the time of announcing the Award, but the amount was kept by the collector with him. Here, the appellant had not consented to receive this compensation and in accordance with section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the amount was to be submitted in the court but the collector failed to do so. Therefore the appellant was found to be entitled to benefits including interest accruing on the amount of compensation from the date as provided under law till its full and final payment to the appellant by the Land Acquisition Collector or deposit of the same with the Reference Court.
Judgment of the Court:
The Appeal was allowed and the appellant was held to be entitled to the payment of compensation including interests and other benefits as per the law.
Case Title: Ved Prakash Mittal v. The Land Acquisition Collector & another
Coram: Justice Vivek Singh Thakur
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Arsh Rattan, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Harinder Singh Rawat, Additional Advocate General
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
