APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS HK3HCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR Diyision Bench: Mon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon'bleShriR.N. Ghandrakar.JJ. F.A.(M)No.80of2008 State of CG and another w}y Versus Gauri Bai and another JUDGMENT FOR CONSIDERATION .fi-,! HON'BLE SMRI R.N. CHANDRAKAR^J ^o^ee- ~y Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge J- Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge POST FOR JUDGMENT ON 1^ .e-2010 v HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR \5~. ^ First Appeal (MVNo.80 of 2007 APPELLANTO): Non-Applicants RESPONDENTS: Applicants 1. 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Collector, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. Executive Engineer, Water Resourees Department, MinimataBango Canal, Division No.6, Sakti, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. Versus Gauri Bai,aged about 55 years, D/o Bharosi Kanwar, Occupation : Cultivation, R/o Village Jharna, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. Shiv Dayal, aged about 57 years, S/o Asharam, R/o Viliage Jhama, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. Present: Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Addl. Adv<wate General with Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Dy. Advocate General forthe State/appellants. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, counsel for the respondents. Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mjshra& Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ. JUDG £NJ jne.2 (Delivered on^^'June, 2010) The following judgment of the Court was delivered by Dhirendra Mishra, J. ^' , 1. The State has preferred this appeal under Section 54 oftheLand Acquisltton Act, 1894 (in short "the Act") against the order dated 26th August. 2006 ~t passed in Civil Suit No.131A/05, wh^reby (earned Additional District Judge, Janjgir-Champa, on a reference under 3ection18(2) ofthe Act.at the instance of respondents-land owner, has enhanced the amount of compensation payable to the respondents towards acqujsition of their land @ Rs.4286/- per decimal and also held that the respondents are entitled for solatium @ 30% and interest @ 12% p.a. from 2.5.2003, the date on v/hich land was acquired. ^ 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that 1 .86 acres of land recorded in the name of respondents was acquired for construction of canal. The Land Acquisition Officer (in short "LAO") calculated compensation payable to the respondents @ 3,000/- per decimal by treating the respondents' land frt for residential purposes and awarded solatlum @ 30% and interest @ 12% p.a. from 2nd May, 2)03, the date of publication of notice under Section 4 of the Act. 3. Learned Additional District Judge, on reference under Section 18(2) of the Act, considering the report of the Tehsildar based on the report of Hatka Patwari that value of the resldential plot is Rs.4285.71 per decimal as per ; prevaiting market rate, awarded compensation @ Rs.4286/- per declmal with interest @ 12% p.a. from 2nd May, 2003. 4. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, leamed Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State/appellants, argued that the land in question is, admittedly, recorded as agricultural land in the revenue record, however, compensation has been awarded by treating the acquired tand as residential plot. Agricultural land can be diverted only as per provisions of the Land Revenue Code and in the absence of any diversion order, the Reference Court was not justified in awarding compensation @ Rs. 4286/- per decimal. Even interest @ 12% is too excessive, considering the prevailing rate of interest at present. 5. On the other hand, Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondents-owner, would argue that the LAO on the basis of report of the Tehsildar held that the acquired land was fit for residential accommodation, however, awarded compensatlon arbitrarily @ Rs. 3,000/-^ per decimal, whereas the Tehsildar and the Halka Patwari had categorically recommended that compensation should be awarded @ Rs. 4286 per decimal as per prevailing market rat^. The ReferenceCourt, on the basis of report of the Tehsildar, assessed compensation @ Rs.42^/-,.per decimal. As per Collector's guideline, prlce of the residential plot was to be foced @ Rs.10200/- per decimal, however, the learned Reference Court considering the size of the plot, assessed compensation on the basis of prevailing market rate @ Rs. 4286/- per decimal. ^ ^ 6. We have heardlearned counsel for the parties and perused ^he impugned order as also the award passed by the LAO. 7. The LAO as also the Reference Court have calculated compensation of the acquired land by treating it as the land frt for residential accommodation. The above finding is also based on the unrebutted evidence available on record. It is also not in dispute that as per report of the Tehsildar, price of the tand fit for resldential accommodation, was Rs.4285.71 per decimal as in the year 2002 and therefore, in our considered opinion, award of compensation by the Reference Court @ Rs.4286/- per decimal is strictly based on the material available on record and the same does not calf for any interference. Similarty, award of solatium @ 30% on the above sum is atso strictly in accordance with law and needs no interference. However, considering the prevailing market rate at present, award of interest @ 12% per annum is excessive and simple interest @ 9% per annum would meetthe ends ofjustice. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order is modifled to the extent that the respondents shall be entitled for interest @ 9% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., on the amount not paid to the respondents from 2.5.2003 till the date of realization. 9. No order as to costs. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge +