IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA FA No.947 of 1979 ANAND MOHAN BHADANI, SON OF LATE YUGAL KISHORE BHADANI, RESIDENT OF 26, ANUGRAH NARAIN ROAD, MURADPUR, P.S. KOTWALI, IN THE TOWN AND DISTRICT OF GAYA …………. APPLICANT ……………………………………………………. APPELLANT Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, GAYA ……………….… OPPOSITE PARTY / RESPONDENT ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Mani Bhushan Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, G.A. ---------- PRESENT: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE J U D G M E N T (26.03.2010) Dipak Misra, C.J.- In this appeal preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the claimant-appellant has challenged the award dated 22.08.1979 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 13/78 by the Additional Subordinate Judge IV, Gaya, whereby the lower court has determined the value of the land at Rs. 2,500/- per kathha. 2. Be it noted, 51 decimals of land belonging to the claimant-appellant was acquired. The Collector under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for brevity `the Act’) 2 passed an award amounting to Rs.6,627.45. The claimant- appellant filed an application under Section 18 of the Act for referring the same to the Civil Court and, accordingly, the Land Acquisition Officer under the Act referred the matter to the Civil Court and, accordingly, a reference case was registered. 3. Before the reference court it was pleaded that the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was grossly low; that the land was situate in Gaya town area; that it is a homestead land, and that the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per kathha would have been just and proper. 4. It was also the stand of the claimant that the land is fenced with wires and pillars and no amount has been awarded for the same. That apart, it was contended that Gaya Improvement Trust was selling the land at higher rate. No objection was filed by the State before the reference court. 5. The reference court framed two issues. The claimant examined a number of witnesses, who deposed that the land in question was situate by the side of the road; that near the land, Circuit house, Judges’ Bungalow, 3 Gaya Club, Gaya High School are situate; that the land was homestead and houses have been constructed nearby; that the sale deed (Exhibit-1) indicated that 6.2½ kathhas of land was sold for Rs. 8,000/- in the year 1965; that Exhibit-2 is an award passed by the reference court in Reference Case No. 51, 62, 65/1972 and Exhibit-2/A is the certified copy of the judgment in Reference Case No. 3/75 and 14/72 to highlight that in those reference cases the claimant was allowed compensation at Rs. 2,500/- per kathha. After placing reliance on the aforesaid oral evidence and the documents tendered in evidence, the reference court thought it reasonable to fix the rate at Rs. 2,500/-. 6. Be it noted, a claim was put forth for 4 decimals of land which was taken possession of but no compensation was paid. The reference court found that the same had not been established by adducing any evidence and, accordingly, declined to grant any amount for the same. As far as the claim relating to fencing with wires and construction of pillars is concerned, as no evidence was adduced, the said claim was declined. Thus, 4 ultimately the amount of Rs. 2,500/- per kathha towards compensation was awarded with statutory interest and solatium. 7. To appreciate the stand put forth in the appeal whether the amount awarded is correct, just and proper and in accord with Section 23 of the Act, I have perused the award passed by the reference court. It is submitted by Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, learned Government Advocate that the amount that has been awarded by the reference court is absolutely justified and does not deserve any enhancement. Learned Government Advocate further submitted that the sale deeds (Exhibits 1 & 2), upon which reliance has been placed, pertain to small tracts of land. 8. On a perusal of the evidence on record it is noticeable that the reference court has awarded Rs. 2,500/- per kathha. It is worth noting in paragraph 7 of the award passed by the reference court, the court below has stated as follows: “…. I think it would be reasonable to fix at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per katha and the learned Advocate on behalf of the applicant has also no grievance if the applicant be allowed at this rate.” 5 9. On a perusal of the aforesaid I am of the considered opinion the price was fixed on concession. Therefore, the question of enhancement at this stage does not arise. However, on a perusal of the evidence on record it is found that there was oral evidence with regard to fencing and construction of pillars. Thus, the learned Subordinate Judge should have been well advised to grant Rs. 500/- towards compensation for the same. As far as the interest component is concerned, it is not clear what amount has been granted towards compensation on solatium by the reference court. 10. In the case of Sunder v. Union of India, AIR 2001 SC 3516, it has been held as follows: “In calculating the interest, as mentioned in the provisions of Ss. 34 and 28 of the Act, the amount of solatium envisaged in S. 23(2) of the Act should be included. The State liable to pay interest on the amount of solatium envisaged under S. 23 (2) of the Act. The compensation awarded would include not only the total sum arrived at as per sub-section (1) of S. 23 but the remaining sub-sections thereof as well. It is clear from S. 34 that the expression `awarded amount’ would mean the 6 amount of compensation worked out in accordance with the provisions contained in S. 23, including all the sub-sections thereof. It is inconceivable that the solatium amount would attract only the escalated rate of interest from the expiry of one year and that there would be no interest on solatium during the preceding period. What the Legislature intended was to make the aggregate amount under S. 23 of the Act to reach the hands of the person as and when the award is passed, at any rate as soon as he is deprived of the possession of his land. Any delay in making payment of the said sum should enable the party to have interest on the said sum until he receives the payment. Splitting up the compensation into different components for the purpose of payment of interest under S. 34 was not in the contemplation of the Legislature when that section was framed or enacted.” (Quoted from placitum) 11. In view of the aforesaid, interest component shall be paid on the solatium. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award passed by the reference court is modified to the aforesaid extent and steps be taken accordingly. The claimant-appellant shall be entitled to the costs in 7 proportion to the enhanced amount in this appeal. Patna High Court. The 26th March, 2010. AFR. Dilip. ( Dipak Misra, C.J. )