^ FEES. I & IS QF THEcdORTR:ES^C1b'l8TOC IN THE HON'BLE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Appellants: /" Respondent: First Appeal (M) No. ?9-/2008. State ofChhattisgarh, through: J^J Collector, Janjgir-Champa (CG) (2) The Land Acquisition Officer, Hansdeo ^ Bango Project Sakti District Janjgir- Champa (CG) Versus ^harat Lal Tiwari, S/o Mangal Prasad Tiwari, ^R/o Village Adbhar, Tahsil Malkharoda, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE LAND ACOUISITION ACT, 1894. :^^ ?^^^^^s^^^ss&i^s^^sis^^^^^^^ - H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR V Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra First Appeal (M.) No.37 of 2008 State of Chh'attisgarh versus BharatLal-Tiwari .lu^Hr-^.Pr^^.l-i-.r JUDGMENT Postfor 29-6-2010 Sd//- prashantKumarMishra Judge (Ui ^^••C- -^..- ^" t/ & HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra First Appeal (M.) No.37 of 2008 Appellants Respondent versus State of Chhattisgarh Bharat Lal Tiwari Present: Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/appellantsh. HQn'b'o Shn Just'ce Prash^nt K:.:n'i;- — -.^ No one appears for the respondent. Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acauisition Act. 1894 JUDGIVIENT (Delivered on ^l^June, 2010) This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (henceforth 'the Act, 1894') by the State of Chhattisgarh challenging thesaward of an additional amount of Rs.86,700/- over and above the award amount of Rs.2,97,163.00. 2. It is mentioned in the memo of appeal that the instant appeal is only for the balance amount,'J^Rsi3i,83,863.00 — Rs.2,97,163.00 = Rs.86,700.00. According to the State/appellants, amount of Rs.2,97,163.00 has already been paid to the claimanVrespondent. 3- ResPond^slanin^l^nl<^r%in -^B(and0349^ ad- (measuring 0.491 hectares situated at Village Adbhar, Tahsil (Malkharauda, District Janjgir-Champa was acquired vide Land '^cquisition Case No.38/A-82/02-03 for construction of a canal by the I-'' ['; uun-u'i^^ ,.i;iuuiil, t.^;., r<S.o,bo,'ob^:UU "--- Ks.^,^/ ^- ^t^ f^^?^ ^y^i^h ^. w -^ z- Department of Water Resources, Government of Chhattisgarh. The Land Acquisition Officer, after completion of the acquisition proceedings, delivered the award on 10-3-2003. Feeling the quantum of compensation inadequate, the respondent moved a reference before the concerned Collector and the matter was referred to the District Court, Janjgir-Champa, which has been decided by the impugned award dated 9-5-2006. 4. Learned counsel for the State/appellants has submitted that the learned Reference Court has committed an error of law by awarding an amount of 30% equaling Rs.88,468/- on the amount of compensation of Rs.2,94,895/- determined by the Court while partly allowing the reference. It is argued that there is no basis for awarding 30% more amount on the award amourit. Iri Grouhd Nd.G 6f the memo 6f appeal, it is mentioned that the magical figure of 30% has been arrived by the Court below without there being any basis for the same. The contention appears to be that this 30% more amount has been added on the ground that the land is capable of being converted into a residential plot. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the State/appellants this Court i!?!(:H.!ri._ ;.LLGrnun^ No.U o? ihe'rnemo of -^;;; does hot find anysubstahce in the^appeal. 6. Section 23(2) of the Act, 1894 provides that in addition to the market value of the land as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum pf30% on such^xiarKet^v^lue^Jn^cpnsideration of the compulsory nature of acquisition. In paragraph 9(1) of the h <Y Y impugned award, the learned District Court has determined the market ; 3iiy SU:.)^^..yiC€: Ui Ii18 app8SI ^^M^M^ > value at Rs.2,94,895/- and has thereafter awarded a sum of 30% on the said market value of the land. This amount is known as solatium, which has been provided under Section 23(2) of the Act, 1894. Thus, the Court has every power to grant 30% additional amount on the market value of the land. ^ ^ 7y The learned District Court has also awarded interest on the market value plus 30% solatium amount. In Patel Joitaram Kalidas and others vs. Sp/. Land Acquisition Officer and another, (2007) 2 SCC 341, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a person whose ': -:'' ]: L^r^ •••; r' v^rt i Clri i7 ^ ^' ^ n''." ?":s ^ . /' (": ' .'1 .p: ; land is acquired compulsorily bythe State is not only entitled to 30% solatium amount but is also entitled to interest on the said amount. 8. In view of the above, the first appeal has no force, it deserves to be, and is accordingly dismissed. 'Ttiere^shallWhbl6rderas t6 costs. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge J-h^ °—f^ hr -n-1 .;cordi!^]!v disinio^eii. There shaii be no order as l'.;