•?? y taIN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FIRSTAPPEALJMLNPi OF 2009 ks_ -»_» -7—^— APPEAL UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION Appellants Non-Applicants Defendants Respondents ^[pplicants Plaintiffsw-.^ .&«a";,^-' -^^ .A^-^ ft'^r ACT^1894 ^State of Chhattisgarh through The Collector , Distt. Durg Versus Chandra Prakash Gupta, S/o Late Makhanlal Gupta, R/o Bania Para, Durg, Tehsil and Distt. Durg. Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh Grih Nirman Mandal, Padmanabhpur, Durg I'Si hn&«*, HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS&ARH AT BILASPUR First Appeal (M) No.38of 2009 APPELLANT: Defendant No.l RESPONDENTS: Plaintiff Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh 6rih Nirman AAandal, Padmanabhpur, Owg (C6) Versus 1. 2. Chandra Prakash 6upta, S/b late Makhan Lal Gupta, R/o Baniya Para,; Ourg, Tahsil & District t>urg (C6) State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collectot-, Durg (C6) AN& First ApDeal (M) No.69 of 2009 APPELLANT: Non-aDplicants befendant RESPONGENTS: ApDlicants PIaintiffs State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, bistrict Durg Versus Chandra Prakash Supta, S/o late Makhanlal 6upta, R/o Bania Para, Durg, Tehsil and t5istrict Durg (C6) Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh GriV^ Nirman Mandal, Padmanabhpur, Durg Present; Shri Sanjay Patel, counsel for the appellant in F.A. (M) No.38/2009 & respondent No.2 in F.A. (AA) No.69/2009. Shri Satyawah Agrawal with Shri Vikram Dixit, counsel for respondent No.l inF.A.(M)Nos.38/2009& 69/2009. * Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate Seneral with Shri S.K. Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.2 in F.A. (M) No.38/2009 and for appellanT in F.A.(M) No.69/2009. Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri bhirendra Mishra & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ. JUD6MENT (Detivered onl3~ April,2010) -.1 The following judgment of the Court vuas delivered by Dhirendra Mishra, J. 1. The aforesaid appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment as both these appeals are directed against the award dated 24 December, 2008 passed in MJC, LandAcquisition Case No.5/2006 whereby tearned 9 Additional •District Judge (FTC), burg, has passed an award of Rs.8,23,977/- as compensation for the land acquired by th? 5tate for the purposes of Chhattisgarh Grih Nirman Mandal (for short 'the Board'), < appellant in F.A. (M) No.38/2009. 2. The facts necessary for adjudication of these appeals, as projected in the impugned award, are that respondent No.l Chandra Prakash 6upta (hereinafter referred to as the land owner) was owner of land bear-ing Khasra No.995/12, area 0.35 acres (15225 sq. ft.) situated in village Kasarideeh (Padmanabhpur), Durg. The Board constructed houses over the aforssaid land after taking its possession on 23-5-1980. A proposal dated 7-8-1990 for compulsory acquisition of the afor'esaid land was registered by the Land Acquisition Officer (for brevity the L.A.O.') and an award for a sum of Rs.5,95,602/- was passed in fdvour of the land owner on 16-12-1991. 3. The Board filed a Wn't Petition No.1015/92 against the award in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the 1-ligh Courtvide order dated 30 March, 1995 set aside the award dated 16-12-1991 and-remitted the matter to the Land Acquisition Officer for passing the award afresh as per law. Thereafter the Land Acquisition Officer vide its award dated 20 February, 1997 awarded compensation of Rs.2,65,539/- in favour of ry the land owner. The Board had deposited a sum of Rs.2,97,601/- before the Land Acquisition Officer, t)urg as-per the directions of the High ^Courtdated 20-8-92. \ 4. On application of the land owner under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the L.A.O. referred the matter to the Court for determination of amount of compensation. After the reference was mude, the land owner submitted statement of claim and claimed compensation at the rate of 47 persq. ft. along withother benefits in accordance with law. The Board and the State in their reply to the statement of claim contested contention of\ the land owner and stated that he is not entitled for compensation at the rate of 47 per sq. ft. as his land is not located on the main road and the compensation cannot be determined on the basis of land sold by the Board to the Life Insurance Corpora'f'ion, as the above land was located on the main road. 5. On the basis of pleadin9S of the respective parties, issues were framed. The land owner examined S.R.S. Naidu (AW-1), Smt. Shaifali Bhattacharya (AW-2), Chandra Prakash Gupta (land owner) (AW-3) whereas, the Board examined M.K. Kurup, SDO and K.R. Bhagat, Deputy Collector was examined by The State as its witness. 6. Learned Additional bistrict Judge answered the reference with a finding that the L.A.O. without vatidly examining evidence available on record and without considering the prevailing market rate as on 7-9-90, the date of publication of notice under Section 4(1) of the Act has passed an a^-d which is not proper and accordingly, determined proper compensation at the rate of 30 per sq. ft. and assessed total compensation payable to the land owner at Rs.3,65,400/- by adding solatium of Rs.1,09,620/- at the rate of 30% of the market value and adding Rs.65,772/- towards interest at the rate of 9%per annum from September, 1988 when the land was handed over to the Boar-d by the State till the date of publication of notice under Section 4 ofthe Act and interest of X Rs.2,83,185/- from 7-9-90 titl the date of passing of award at the rate of 12%, awarded a total compensation of Rs.8,23,977/-. It has been further held that the land owner shall be entitled for simple interest at the rateof 9% per annum on Rs.5,26,376/- from 21-2-97 titl realization of the award amount and if the amount so awarded is not paid within one year, in that case, interest ©15% per annum from 21-2-97 shall be payable. 7. Shri Vinay Harit, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State and Shr'i Sanjay Patel, learned counsel appearing for the Board vehemently argued that the LAO passed the award by considering 5 sale deeds of the same vicinity executed between 6th August, 1989 and 6th September, 1990 and arrived at a conclusion that the market value of the land would be Rs.13.37 per sq. Ft. The Court could not have taken into consideration the rate at which the land was sold by the Board to the LIC as the rate is to be determined on the basis of prevailing market rate of the last years. The Court without appreciating various other factors such as potentiality, nature and quality of the land and its location has determined the compensation solely on the basis of solitar/ sale deed executed by the Board in favour of the LIC in the year 1986, ignonng the fact that the land which was sold to the LIC was located on the main road whereas, the landin question is away from the main road in interior. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the land owner would argue that award of Rs.5,95,602/- made in favour of the land owner on 16-12-91 was set aside only on the ground that the same was passed without notice and without affordin9 any opportunity of hearing to the Board, Thereafter,numerous opportunities were given to the Board for adducing evidence but the Board did not adduce any oral or documentary award that no sale deeds/Bikri Chhant was produced by the State/Board in reference proceeding as claimed by the appellants. The fact that an award of Rs.5,95,602/- passed on 16-12-91 by the L.A.O. was also taken into consideration for determining compensation. ll. On re-appraisal of the documentary and oral evidence avaitable on record, we are of the opinion that finding of the reference Court in determining compensation at the rate of 24 persq ft appears to be just and proper and in accordance with material avaitable on record. How&ver, after assessing compensation at Rs.3,65,400/- on the basis of prevailing market value in the year 1990-91, the Court was not justified in allowing interest @ 9% from September, 1988 to 7-9-90 on the ground that possession of the land was handed over to the Board on 1st September, 1988. The compensation is to be fixed on the basis of market value on the date of notification under Section 23 (1) of the Act. 12. Similarly, from perusal of the impugned order as also the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court passed in Writ Petition No.l015/92,we find that a sum of Rs.2,97,601/- was deposited by the Board as per order dated 20th August, 1992, however, the reference Court after- assessing compensation of Rs.3,65,400/- has also allowed interest on this amount © 12% per annum for a period of 6 years and 51- months fr-om 7-9-90 to 20-2-97, the date of passing of award and accordiizgly, a sum of Rs.2,83,185/- has been awarded to the land owner. The above calculation has been made without taking into consideration the fact thot the Board had already deposited Rs.2,97,601/- as per directions of the High Court vide order dated 20th August, 1992 i.e. on the date when interim order was passed by the High Court in favour of- the Board. Further •^ consid6riri9 the prevailing mar-ket rate, award of interest ©12% per ffi "\. J3d %2I @ 4.S3J94.U! ^o pJDMD '3+DJ 4.3>|JDIU 6Uj|!DA3jd 3L|4. BUIMplSUO^ jsi^+Jnj 'pJoog 244. j.o jnoAD^ ui tjnoy 4611-) 344. Aq passod SD/M J3pJO UIU3+UIU3l)AI 3+Dp 3q+ UO 's'! 2661 '+snSnv 4J.02 ps+op jspjo spiA 4.J003 4^!H a4+ J-° suoipajip jad so -/T09'Z6'Z"?y ps+isodap /(pDaJp pDL| pJDOg 3l|+ +Dl|+ J.3DJ. 31)4. UOj4.DJ3pjSU03 O+UI SUI>|D+ 4.n0^4.1M SpDUI ussq SDI) uoi4.D|n3|D3 aAoqo aijj. "JBUMO puo) ai|+ o^. papjDMD uasq ?DL( -/ggT'sg'g'sy ^O UinS D 'X(6uipJ033D pUD pJDMD ^O Su.lSSDd ^O a+Dp ai|j. '/6-Z-02 o+ Q6-6-Z U)OJ^ s^+uoui -^s PUD s-JDaA 9 ^o pousd D jo} tunuuB jgd %2^ © +unouiD s;L|4. uo 4.saja+ui p3(wo||o osp SDI| -/00^'S9'E"stl t0 uoi+osuaduio^ Suissasso JS+^D 4.J003 33uaja^.aj 3L|4. 'jaASMOt) '266T 4sn6ny II+QZ ps+op japjo jsd SD pjoog 31)4. Aq ps+isodap SSM -/T09'Z6'2'sa J-o *uns D +DM4- pui^ 9M '26/SIOT'°N uo.4.43d •I-.UM "! passod +jno3 q6!H i)S3pDJd oXqpDW 3l|+ }0 JSpJO 31(4. OS|D SD j3pjo pauSndiui 3i(+ ^o (osnjad luoj^ '^|jD|iiU!9 •zi •PV 31)4. j.0 (l) £2uoipss j3pun UOI+DOI^I+OU ^o s+op 344. uo snfDA +3>|joiu ^osisuq 344. uo pax.ij. aq o+ ?; uoi+DSuaduioo ai|i 'QQQl 'jaqius+dss +si uo pjoog 31)4. 04. JSAO pspuoi| SDM pUD| 31(4. j.o uoissassod 44. punoj6 aL|+ uo 06-6-/ °J- 886T 'Jsqiua+das aioj^ %6 @ 4.saJ34.ui 6u)Aio|(D ui p3!^!4.snC +ou SDM ^.jno^ 344. '16-0661 JD3^ 34+ u! 3n|DA j.a^JDiu 6u!|iDA3jd j.o sisoq si(+ uo -/QOt''S9'£'sy+o uoi+osuadiuo? SUISSSSSD ja+^D 'J3A3MOH •pJOSSJ UO 3|qO|IDAO |D;JSJ.DtU ^+IM 33UDpJ033D Ul pUD J3dojd pUD 4.snp aq 04. sjoaddo +j. bs jsd ^g j.o a+oj 3L|i +D uoi+Dsusdiuos Buiuiiuja+sp u.i 4.^no3 33U3jaj.sj 344. ^.o SuipUIJ. 4.01(4. UOIUldo 31(4. J.O SJD a/w 'pjoaaj UO 3|qD|!DAD SSUSplAS |DJO pUD AjD4.usiun3op 3i|4. j.o |DS;DjddD-3J uo 'll "uoi4.DSU3diuo3 BujUiiuja+op jo^ uo.i+Djap.isuo^ 04.01 U3>|0+ OS|D ?DM •OV-| 34+ Xq I6-ZI-9T "° passod -/Z09'S6'S'sy ^0 PJt)(VID UD +01)4. 4.3DJ. 3L|J^ •SJ.UD||sddD 3^ Xq p3U|ID|3 SD 6uip3330jd a3U3jaj.3J Ul pjDog/a+o+S 344. ^q paanpojd SDM +u(>i|43 u^ig/spssp 3|DS ou 4.01)4. pjDMD tf' 1 annum is also exccssive cmd simplc interest' @ 9% per onnum woutd meet the ends of justice. 13.In thcrt view of the matter, the amount of interest i.e. Rs.2,83,185/- under this head has been awarded in cxcess ond the lond owner was entitled to only Rs.92,900/- undcr this hecri. 14. On thc bcsis of aforesaid discussion, the appeals ore pcrtly allowed ond the impugned awcrd is modified in the following terms:- • The land owner is entitted for total compensation of Rs.5,6)'^20/- for his land i.e. Rs.3,65,400/- towards markct vdue; Rs.1,09,620/- towards solotium; Rs.92,900/- towards simple intcrest @ 9% per annum on unpaid amount from 7-9-90 till 21-2-97. Since an amount of Rs.2.97,601/- has alrecdy been paid to the land owner, he shall be ent'rt-ted to receive baloncc of compensat'ion of Rs.270,320/-. • The appellants are jointly and severally tiable to pcy the aforesaid sum to the lond owner within a period of 3 months from thedate of order. • The balance cmount of compensotion shall carry simple interest 9% per annum from the date of award i.e. 21-2-97 till the date of realizort'ion. • If the appellcnts fail to pay the oEforesaid omount witk^ the sTipularted period, in thot coue, the appellonts shall pay simple interest at the rote of 15% per onnum from the date of award i.e. 21-2-97 till the date of realization. • Appetlants shall bear the costs throughout. A decree be drawn occordin9ly. Sd/. Dh'rendraMishra Judge Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar Judge \ Barve