(1)S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.37/95-RIICO VS.Smt. suman Setiya & anr.(2) S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.51/95-Smt. Suman Setiya VS.Land Acquisition Officer & anr. Order dt: 9/2/2010 1/7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T RIICO VS. Smt. suman Setiya & anr. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.37/95 Smt. Suman Setiya VS. Land Acquisition Officer & anr. S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.51/95. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 9th February 2010 P R E S E N T HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.Sunil Bhandari for Mr.M.R.Singhvi, for the appellant RIICO Mr.J.K.Bhaiya, ] Mr.Ravi Bhansali, ] for the respondents. BY THE COURT : 1. These two appeals have been filed by RIICO and land owners against the order of reference court dated 23/9/94. The beneficiary of the land acquisition, RIICO approached this Court by way of present appeal on the ground that the reference court of learned Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Sriganganagar was not justified in enhancing the amount of (1)S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.37/95-RIICO VS.Smt. suman Setiya & anr.(2) S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.51/95-Smt. Suman Setiya VS.Land Acquisition Officer & anr. Order dt: 9/2/2010 2/7 compensation for the land acquired for development of industrial area of 17 bighas 1 biswa of land belonging to respondent no.1 under the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 3/7/1980 situated at chak Shyam Singh Wala, Tehsil Sriganganagar, whereas, the respondent land owner has approached this Court against the order of reference court with the case that the reference court has awarded lesser compensation and the compensation deserves to be enhanced to at least Rs.10,000/- per bigha of land, which is evident from the sale deeds produced by the land owner before the learned reference court. 2. Mr.Sunil Bhandari for Mr. M.R.Singhvi for the appellant RIICO urged that the award of Rs.3500/- per bigha for the land in question was already without any evidence produced by the land owner and such award of Land Acquisition Officer could at best be considered as appropriate, whereas, the reference court under Section 18 of the Act increased the said compensation by 50% vide impugned order dated 23/9/1994. He further submitted that the market value of the land in question is required to be determined under Section 23 (1) of the Act but the reference Court has wrongly enhanced the same by 50% and also the interest part under Section 23(1) (a) of the Act has been computed for three years upto the date of award @ 12% p.a. amounting to Rs. 36000/- which is excessive and further solatium of 30% could not be awarded to the land owners as the land acquisition (1)S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.37/95-RIICO VS.Smt. suman Setiya & anr.(2) S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.51/95-Smt. Suman Setiya VS.Land Acquisition Officer & anr. Order dt: 9/2/2010 3/7 in question vide Notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 3/7/1980 is prior to amendment in law. He further prayed that the mater deserves to be remanded back to the reference Court as there is error in computation of interest. 3. On the side opposite, Mr.J.K.Bhaiya for the land owners urged that the sale deed referred to in the award itself shows that the market value at the time of issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act was around Rs.7000/- to Rs.8000/- per bigha and further the report of the Tehsildar refers the market value to the extent of Rs.10,000/- per bigha, therefore, the land owners were entitled to more compensation. He also submitted that the land in question was purchased by the respondent land owner by registered sale deed on 7/4/1979 and 11/4/1979 respectively prior to the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act on 3/7/1980, whereas, the land in question stood converted from agriculture to non-agriculture purpose on 18/9/1975 and, therefore, the enhanced rate of compensation deserves to be given. He further justified the grant of solatium and interest to the land owner by the reference court. He referred to the report dated 11/11/1982 of Patwari of 11 LNP area in which the market report of Baran land was shown to be Rs.10,000/- per bigha. 4. He further submitted that since the RIICO had sold the land (1)S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.37/95-RIICO VS.Smt. suman Setiya & anr.(2) S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.51/95-Smt. Suman Setiya VS.Land Acquisition Officer & anr. Order dt: 9/2/2010 4/7 acquired for it to industrial entrepreneurs @ Rs.22 per sq. yrd. just after acquisition, the compensation ought to have been paid at the same rate. 5. I have heard the learned counsels and perused the record. 6. The land in question was acquired by the Notification under Section 4 dated 3/7/1980, therefore, the market value of the land in question has to be determined with reference to that date. The award in question was passed on 6/7/1983. The land acquisition officer has determined the compensation @ Rs.3500/- per bigha. After considering the various sale deeds of nearby area which were produced before him he came to the conclusion that the market value of Barani land in question is 50-60% of market value of the irrigated land and since the market value of irrigated land of nearby area of 11 LNP, 12 LNP, 13 LNP & 14 LNP is around Rs.7000/- to Rs.8000/- per bigha, therefore, it would be proper to award compensation @ Rs.3500/- per bigha. The solatium of 10% was also awarded with interest @ 9% by the land acquisition officer. The land owners filed reference under Section 18 of the Act which came to be decided by the court below on 23/9/1994. The learned court below has found that appellant RIICO has not produced any evidence before the reference court or the land acquisition officer for seeking reduction in the compensation. The Court has also negatived the contention of the (1)S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.37/95-RIICO VS.Smt. suman Setiya & anr.(2) S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.51/95-Smt. Suman Setiya VS.Land Acquisition Officer & anr. Order dt: 9/2/2010 5/7 land owners that compensation @ Rs.22 per sq. yd., the rate at which the RIICO sold the land to industrial entrepreneurs should be paid, because the RIICO has undertaken development work on the land in question and after such development over a period of three years, the land in question was sold, therefore, the same rate of compensation could not be given to the land owner. 7. Further, the learned reference court discussed the various evidence in the form of sale deeds of lands of nearby area which included some of the smaller plots and came to the conclusion that the compensation rate per bigha deserves to be enhanced by 50% . The solatium was also increased by the reference court to 30% as per the provision of law as that stood on the date of impugned award dated 23/9/1984. The learned reference court also awarded interest from the date of possession i.e 9/12/1982 till 6/7/1983 the date of award @ 6% p.a and @ 12% p.a from 3/7/1980 to the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Act till 6/7/1983 for three years. Further interest from 7/7/1983 till 23/9/1994 was computed @ 15% p.a. 8. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the learned reference court has discussed the entire relevant evidence including the sale deeds of agriculture land produced before it of the nearby areas and since there was no direct evidence of the sale of land of that very area namely Chak Shyam Singh Wala, therefore, the (1)S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.37/95-RIICO VS.Smt. suman Setiya & anr.(2) S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.51/95-Smt. Suman Setiya VS.Land Acquisition Officer & anr. Order dt: 9/2/2010 6/7 reference court estimated that the market value of Rs.3500/- per bigha as applied by the land acquisition officer deserves to be enhanced by 50% and thus total compensation of Rs. 1 lac was given. The reference court also enhanced the solatium amount from 10% to 30% as per the amended provision of law and also awarded interest from the date of acquisition till the date of payment is made in the manner computed by it. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant RIICO was unable to point out any evidence produced by RIICO before the court below justifying any lesser rate than the one estimated by the reference court. Admittedly, no evidence of market value was adduced by the appellant RIICO before the land acquisition officer or the reference court. 10. On the other hand, evidence adduced by the land owners in the form of sale deeds were of nearby area or smaller plot which normally fetch higher value. The land in question is of bigger size of 17 bighas and 1 biswa, therefore, taking into account the relevant evidence, the learned court below has arrived at the estimated value of Rs.5,250/- per bigha by enhancing the rate estimated by the land acquisition officer by 50%, which is found to be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. The solatium amount has also been rightly computed under the amended provision of law, which came into force (1)S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.37/95-RIICO VS.Smt. suman Setiya & anr.(2) S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.51/95-Smt. Suman Setiya VS.Land Acquisition Officer & anr. Order dt: 9/2/2010 7/7 in 1984. Since admittedly, the interest is also payable on the compensation from the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Act till the date of payment with reference to provisions of Section 23 (1) (a), 28 and 34 of the Act, this Court is satisfied that the learned reference court has rightly computed the interest . 11. Consequently, both the appeals filed against the impugned order of reference court deserve to be dismissed and they are dismissed. No order as to costs. (DR.VINEET KOTHARI),J. Item no. 10-11 baweja/-