2- :^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASEUR First Appeal (Ml No.26 of 2009 ^ APPEU.ANT: Non-aDplicants Defendants RESPONDENTS: ApDlicants Plaintiffs APPELLANT: Defendant RESPONDENT: Plaintiff State of ChhattisRarh and another Versus Da.u Niranjanlal Gupta and another And Rrst Apoeal (M) No.31 of 2009 Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (CQ) Versus Dau Niranjan Lal Qupta and others JUDGMENT FOR CONSIDERATION Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.N. CHANDRAKAR -9 c<-' R.N. Chandrakar Judge a EQST FOR JUDGMENT ONo2 ' DECEMBER. 2009 Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^ HIGH COURTOF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR FiratABOeal (M) No.26 of 2009 APPELLANTS: Non-applicaats Dcfendaats 2. State of Ctiliattisgarh, tfarough fhe CoUector, District Durg Thc Secretarv, Goveminent of Chhattisgarh, Deptt of Housiag aad Enviroiunent, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur Versus :s Plaintiffs 2. Dau Niraiyanlal Gupta, aged about 80 ycars, S/o Late Shri Maunuloal Gupta, Freedoin Fighter, R/o Kasaridih, Civil Liaes, Duig Chliattisgarh Grih Nntaan Mandal, Shaakar Nagar, Raipur First Appeal (M)J(o.31_Qf2009 Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Shankar Nagar, Raipiu- (CQ), Through its Executive Engmeer, Division Durg (CG), Harsh Kumar Joshi, aged about 40 years, S/o Late SIiree B.S. Joshi, R/o AsweiS Parisar, Tatibaadli, Raipur (CG) Versus RESPONDE.NT: Plamtiff 2. 3, Dau Niranjau Lat Gupta, aged a'boitt 80 years, S/o Late -Shri Maanulal Gupta, R/o Kasaridih, Civil Liaes, Dury, (CG) State of Chliattisgarh, Thiough CoUector, Durg, Durg (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretaiy, Departtnent of Housing aad Enviroiuuent, D.K.S. Bhawau, Mautralaya, Raipur (CG) Respondents/ defendaxits Present; Shri Vioay Harit, Depuly Advocate General wifh Shri S.K. Mishra, Panel Lawycr for tbe State/appeliants in F.A. (M) No.26/09. <? Shri Manindra Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate with Shri A.S. Rajput, counsel for respondent No. 1 ia PA(M) No.26/09. Shri Jitendra PaU, counsel for the appeUant ia FA(M) No.31/09. Shri Maniudra Shnvastava, Sr. Advocate with Shri A.S. Rajput, counsel for respondent No. 1. SIiriVinay Harit, DepulyAdvocate General forthe State/respondents No.2 and 3 in FA(M) No.31/09. Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chaadrakar, JJ. JUDOMENT ,'n{ (DeUvered on<5.'"'December. 2009) The foUowmg judgment of fhe Court was deUvered by Dfairendra Mishra, J. 1. The aforesaid appeals are being disposed ofby fhis cominon judgment, as both the appeals are directed against the order dated 9th May, 2008 passed ia MJC No.4/06 whereby learaed 9th Additional District Judge (FTC) Dui^ has passed an award under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Acf) in favour of fhe origiaal appUcant/plamtiff for a suia of Rs.1,39,93,792.92/- and has furfher aUowed simple mtercst @ 9% per aruiuin froni 26-8-99 if fhe award is satisfied ^ifhia a period of one year, fniting which iaterest @ 15% per anniun Iroin 26-8-99 tffl realization has been .onlered. 2. Hereinaflier fhe parties shaU be referred to as per their descriptioa before fhe Coiu-t below. v 3. Briefly stated, case ofthe plaintiffis that fhe plaintiffaad his predecessors were owners aad possession holders of land bearing Survey No.967, 971, 975, 990/19 & 995/1, total area 10.50 acres in viBage Kasaridjh, Tehsil and District Dur^. The aforesaid property was vested ia fhe State Govemment after coining into force of the Madhya Pradesh AboHtion of ^l Proprietaiy R^bts (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act, 1950'). The plaiatiffand other owners ofthe property filed a civil suit against vestmg of fheir land and the samc was decreed by thc trial Court. The decree was reversed by the first appellate Court. The plamtifF filed a second appeal and the saiae was aUowed by fhe Hi^h Court. Special Leave Petition preferred by fhe State Cktvermaent against fhe order of fhe High Court w&s further dismissed by fhe Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 22-9-1986. 4, The properly iu question was partitioned aad fhe plaintiff got 3.62 acres of land ia mutual partition. Defendant No.2 constructed 82 houses on the plaintifi's laad and sold fhe saine to various persons. After fhe suit of fhe plaintifF was fiiialty decreed, the plamtiff being the owner of the land, deinanded vacaat possession of fhe laad or payinent of duc coinpensation. The CoUector, Durg by his uiemo dated 11th March, 1992 addressed to defendant No.2 directed to deposit Rs.52,47,823/- bemg 80% of the estiiaated conipensation of Rs.65,59,779/- and the service chat^e @ 10%. Since fhe pTaintiffwas not paid aay amount towards coinpensation, he filed a Writ Petition No.4388/96 ia fhe High Court and the High Court vide order »• dated 1-11-98 directed defendant No.l fo uritiate proceediags for payinent of coinpensatioa to the plaintiff aad complete fhe fonnatily withia 6 uionths. On failure of defendant No. 1 in complying with fhe orier of the H^h Court, a conteinpt -petition was filed by the plaiutiff. Ultimately, the CoUector, Durg iaitiated land acqtiisition proccediugs and published notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act on 28-5-99 and 30-7-99 with respect to plaiatiffs land bearfng Khasra Nos.967, area l.44 acres; 971, area 0.16 acres; 975, area 0.50 acres; 990/ 19, area 0.68 acres; 995/ 1 & 995/8 area 0.03 acres, totaling 2.81 acres, respectively. ,K IV 5. On the basis of report of fhe Land Acquisition Officer, aa amount of Rs.6,57,918/- was fixed as compensation payable to fhe plaintiff towards acquisition ofhis 2.81 acres ofland. On plaintiffs applfcation (Ex.-P/I9) dated 22-9-99 and as per order ofthe High Court dated 6-12-99 (Ex.-P/S), a reference under Section 18 was inade on 11-2-2000. 6. The defendaat/State m its written statement denied that fhe plaintiffwas entiUed for coinpensation of Rs.3,52,82,121/- as clauaed. It was averred fhat a total area of 97.66 acres including fhe disputed laad ofthe plaintiff was transferred to fhe Housing Board (for short the Boann. A total compensation of Rs.44,92,287/- was estimated @ Rs.45,999/- per acre aad accordingfy, fhe plaintiff was entiUed for conipensation of Rs.1,29,257/-. The plaintiffwas entifled for solatium @ 30% and interest @ 9% per annimi froia 4-1-1975 to 3-9-99 and thus, he was entifled for total coinpensation ofRs.6,57,918/-. The plaintifFwas entitled to receive tJhe coiBLpensation as per prevailing rate in the year 1974 aad he was not entifled for compensation at fhe prevailiug rate on fb.e date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, as land acquisition proceediags were commenced only in coiapliance offhe order ofthe H^h Court. » 7. Defendaat No.2 in. its separate written stateiaent averred that tfae CoUector, Durg jmade aUotinent of the land ia favour of fhe Housing Board by fixinj premiiuin of Rs.44,92,287/-. The amount against the preauuin was already paid by fhe Board and oiily thereafter constructions were niade. The Board is fhe owner ofthe disputed land after aUotinent. Defendant No.2 has been unnecessarily arrayed as party and defendaat No.2 is in no way dtecfly or indirectly connected with fhe dispute. 8. On fhe basis of pleadings of the respective parties, leamed Additional District Judge fi-amed issues. The parties to fhe proceedings filed v^y "^-^tsSsl'1''' ) M ? documents. The plaiatiff examined himself as PW-1 and his witaesses uamely, Ashwmi Kumar Sharma (PW-2), D.L. Ratre (PW-3), S. Bhattacharya (PW-4) whereas, fhe State/defendaiit No.l KMmined M.R. Bharadwaj, Sub Dwisioiial M^istrate, Pataa aad defendant No.2 Board examined K.V. Samuel, its Assistant Engiaeer. 9. Leamed Additional District Judge passed fhc impugned order wifti a findiug fhat the defendants are joinfty aad severalty liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,39,93,792/- along with interest as detailed in para-1 of the judgment. It was further held fhat the defendants are joinfly and severaUy liable fbr satisfying fhe awardand fhe suit was decrced wifh cost. lO.Shri Vinay Harit, leamed Deputy Advocate General for the State axyied that tlie disputed land was vested in fhe Goveriunent as per the provisions ofthe Act. The aforesaid land was aUotted to fiie Housiug BoaTd/defendant No.2 for fhe purposes of construction ofdwelliag houses in the year 1974 along wifh other laad ad ineasuruig 97 acres approximately, Total coinpensation of Rs.44,92,287/- was estimated for the entire land @ Rs.45,999/- per acre. Thus, ffae plauitiffwas entifled for coinpensation of Rs.1,29,257/- with. solatiuin @ 30%. The plajntiff was also entifled for interest@ 9% from 4-1-1975 tfll the notification dated 28-5-99 and fhus tfae aaiouat of coiupensation has rightly been esthnated at Rs.6,57,918/-. The acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act in the year 1999 only ia coinpliance of fhe directions of the High Court, however; fhe possession of ttie disputed land was ah-eady taken by fhe State GoverrLment and the same was trausferred way back ia fhe year 1974 and, therefore, tf.ie compeusation could not be fixed on the basis of prevailing inarket rate as on 28-5-99 i.e. on fhe date of notification. Leamed Additional District Judge was also not justified ia estimating the 1 M ^ compensation on the basis of CoUector's guidelines for the ycar 1998-99 by taking mmimum price at Rs.175/- per sq.it, as fhe rate fixed by the CoUector is only for smaU pieces of land whereas, in the present case, fhe possession of97 acres of laad was taken ia the year 1974 along with the disputed land ad aieasuring 2.81 acres. It was also argaed that the plaintifi' had received compensation wifhout any objection aad, fherefore, it was not opea for him to chaUenge fhe award passed by tbe Land Acquisition Of&cerby way ofreference under Section 18 ofthe Act. 11. Shri Jitendra PaU, leamed counsel for the Board subtEiitted fhat the disputed land was a-ilotted to the Board in the year 1974 by fhe CoBector after receiving preinium froin fhe Board. Siace the Board was not a party in the civU suit filed against the State Goveminent, which was finaUy decreed iu favour of tfae plaiattff, fhe allotment iu favour of the Board was final and fhe saoie cauaot be questioned in subsequent proceedings initiated by the planitifffor coinpensation. Ttie dispute of conipensation is basically between the plaintiffand the State. Referrmg to Section 31 offhe Land Acquisition Act, it was argued that a duty is cast upon the Collector to tender payment of coinpensation awarded by him to the peraon iinder » Section 11 of fhe Act aad fhus from bare readiag of Section 31, it is clear that the State alone is Uable to pay compensation and not the Board. 12. On the other hand, Shri Maaindra SIuivastava, leamed senior coi.uusel for the pteintiff would argae that the defendants did not raise any dispute ia reference proceeduigs that (he plaintiff bas received compensation without aay objection and, therefore, reference inade at his iastaace was incompetent. No documentaiy or oral evideace was led by fhe defendants ia tfais reganl, as no issues were fi-amed by the leamed Additional District Judge. Even otherwise, referring to fhe order of reference dated 11-2-2000 f€^ / c^ made by the CoUector, it was argued that ainount ofRs.6,57,918/- against the award was received by fhe plaintiff on 24-11-99 under protest. The v plauitiff had already filed appUcation uader Section 18 of flie Act on 22-9- 99 before receiviag the award and, therefore, the arguinents advanced by the appeUants/defendants is contrary to their stand before the District Judee. IS.Refemng to Section 23(1) of fhe Laad Acquisition Act, it was argued that fhe coinpensation is to be awarded by considering the niarket value of the laiid on the date of pubUcation of notification under Section 4 sub-section (1) of fhe Act. The niarket value has been assessed on fhe date of noti&cation on the basis of evidence adduced by fhe plamtiff ia fhis regard as also fhe evidence ofdefendant No.2'witaess Shri K.V. Samuel. Assistant Engineer of fhe Housing Board and fhe documentaiy evidence i.e. Ex.-P/lO, Ex.-P/ll, Ex.-P/12, Ex.-P/lS and Ex.-P/20. Since tb.e physical possession of the land acqiured was indisputably taken ia the year 1974, ttie leamed District Judge ougfat to have awarded interest fiToni the year 1974 and not fix>in the year1999. Reliance is placed in the matters of Shree VHay Cotton fis OU Mills Ltd., Versus State of Gujaarat'aud Maniptu Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd., Versus Ctollector ofHailateandi2. 14, We have heard leamed counsel for the parties. We have perused the record as also the impugned order. 15.The Distnct Judge, on the basis ofadmission ofM.R. Bhaiadwaj, witness exaxained by fhe State aad K.V. Sainuel, wituess exanuned by the Board, has iaferred that fhe notification iinder Sections 4 (1) and 6 ofthe Actwas not issued for acqitiring fhe disputed land ia the year 1974 aad fhe land ' (1991) 1 Supreme CourtCases 262 2AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 1779 ^ was not legaUy acquired. The notifications under Sections 4 (l) and 6 of ftte Act were issued on 28-5-99 and 19-7-99 respectively. Shn K.V. Samuel, wituess examiaed by defendant No.2, adnutted in his cross- examiaation that a request was made to the Land Acquisition Officer (Ex.- P/4) for acquisition of the disputed land aad the aforcsaul fact was furfher admitted by Shri M.R. Bharadwaj. The aforesaid letter was addressed to fhe Laad Acquisition Officer in the year 1999 and thus, it has been held that fhe land acquisition proceediags were initiated in accordarice with law at the request offhe Board ia fhe year 1999. IS.Rejecting the ai^umeats that the whole laud acquisition proceediugs initiated iu the year 1999 was void ab imtio, it bas been held that in reference iinder section 18, th.e District Judge has no jurisdiction to declare ftie notification issued uader the provisions of fhe Act void aad he is only required to decide fhe rights ofthe parties. 17.Relyiag upon the oral evidence of plaintiff Niranjan Lal Gupta, who has proved the documents ofEx.-P/lS, Ex.-P/13-A, Ex.-P/20 and Ex.-P/21-A, fhe evidence of Ashwini Kuinar Shanna (PW-2), Revenue Inspector, Nazul Shakha, D.L. Ratre (PW-3), Distri.et Registrar ii} the Registration Office; S, Bhattachaiya, record keeper iii flie office of fhe Deputy Registrar, Registry Office, Diirg aad furtb.er on £hebasis of aduiission of K.V. Samuel, it has been observed that as per guideluies of fhe CoUector, fhe uiarket value of the residential houses in the area was fixed at Rs. 175 per sq. ft.. Further on the basis of oral evidence of KV Sainuel and Ashwini Kuinar Shanna and fhe documentaiy evidence avaflable on record, fhe ayerage market value of the disputed land lias been assessed at Rs. 135 per sq. ft.. A deduction of l/3Td :=Rs.45/- from. the above. inarket rate has been inade towards fhe developinent expeuses. The inarket value of the disputed land *<a""as M^ has been estiniated at Rs.90 per sq. ft. and accordingly, a total coinpensation ofRs. 1,10,16,324/- has been estimated. Tbe solatium. at fhe ^ rate of 30% faas been added to the above estunated com.pensation aad amouat of coinpensation has been assessed at Rs. 1,46,51,710/-. By deducting a suni ofRs.6,57,918/-, the plaintiffhas been held to be entifled for coinpensation of Rs.1,39,93,792/-. The objection of defendant No.2 fhat the Boaid has unnecessarily been niade party has been rejected with a lindnig fhat fhe disputed land has been acqiured for fhe purposes of defeudaut No.2. Defendaut No.2 bas erected residential accominodations ia the disputed laad aad, fherefore, fhe Board is a necessaiy party and is joiafly Uable for satisfyiag the award. l8.The first objection taken by fhe appellant/defendaa.t that thc plaiatiffhas received an aiaottat of conipensation of Rs.6,57,918/- wifhout any objection aad, (bierefore, his application for reference under Section 18 was aot laauitainable, is not tenable, as no issues were fiamed by the leamed District Judge ui fhis regard. Even otherwise, finin fhe order of reference dated 11-2-2000 it is laanifestly clear fhat fhe ptaintiff reccived ttie award under protest on 24-11-99 whereas, he had ah-eady ffied application under Section 18 on 22-9-99. 19.The contention offhe defendaats ftiat coiapensation sfaould have been fixed on fhe basis of the rates prevailing in the year 1974 wfaen the physical possession offhe disputed laud was taken fi-om fhe plamtiffcaa also not be accepted, as the acquisition proceedings were initiated at fhe request offhe Board only ia the year 1999 when uotifications under Scctions 4(1) and 6 of the Act were published. Section 23 deals with the matters to be considered iu determining conipensation. Sub-section (l) of Section 23 provides that fhe nttarket value of fhe land at the date of pubKcation of notificatioQ under 10 ^ Section 4 sub-section (1) is to be taken into consideration for determuung fhe amount ofcoinpensation. 20.In Shree Vijay Cotton 85 Oil MIUs Ltd. (Supra), possession ofthe tond was taken in ttte year 1949. A notification under Section 6(1) of fhe Act was pubMshed in Februaiy, 1955. Learoed District Judy held tfaat fhe plaiatiff was entifled for coinpensation on fhe basis of niarket value of ftle laud on the date of notification under Section 6 of the Act, The Hon'bk Supreme Court in para-13 offhe judgment has observed that fherc is no dispute that under the Act fhe claimaat is entifled to compensation at ttie rate of the niarket valuc of fhe land on fhe date of notification under Scction 4 of the Act, 21.In Manlpar Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), it has beeu observed that whfle determining coinpensation under the Land Acquisition Act, what is required to be detemiined is the prevailing market value of fhe land as on ttie date ofnotification iiader Section 4 (l) offhe Act. 22.Thereforc, we are of ftie considered opinion fhat there is no force ia the arguments advaaced by learued counsel for fbe appeUants fhat for fhe purposes of deteniuning coiupensation, tbe tnarltet rate prevailiag iri the year 1974 ought to bave been taken. 23.Next question for our consideration is - whether the appellan.t Housing Board is a nccessary part}7 aad whether the Uabilily could also be fastened upon-the Boardjoiutly and severatty? 24.The land in question was allotted to fhe Board in fhe year 1974. Afljer fhe aUotruent, the Board constructed 82 residential houses and sold the same to its cousumers. Though, the Board has atoeady paid preauiun fixed by fhe State Govenunent at the tune of aUotment of disputed land as also fhe aB'-.f-"3^ 11 t4 ^ ofher land, however, ffae civil suit ffled by fhe plaintiffagainst vesting offhe disputed land was decrced and the plaiatiff was declared to be owner, thereafter the land acquisiaon proceeding was iaitiated on the request of fhe Board. Section 20 reads as under.- "20. Service of notice.- The Court shatl fhereupon cause a notice specifying fhe day on which tiie Court will proceed to determmmg the objection, aad directing their appearance befbre the Court on that day, to be served on the followiag persons, namely:- , (a) fhe applicaat; (b) aU persons interesTed ia fhe objection, except such (if any) of fhem as have consented without protest to receive payuient of fhe compensation awarded; and (c) in the objection is ia regard to the area of fhe laad or to fh.e amoiuit ofcoinpensation, the CoUector." 25. Since fhe laiid was acquired for the purposes of the Board and, fherefore, tbe Board is a necessaiy party interested ia fh.e objection raised by the p]auitiff for etihanceiaent of the coinpensatioa and, fherefore, learaed District Judge has r^htly held fhat fhe defendants are jointly and severalty Uable for satisfying fhe award. » 26.The 3rd question for our consideration is - whefher learaed District Judge was justified in fixing fhe price ofchunJs oflaad on the basis ofcomparable instaaces of small plots on fhe basis of CoUector's guidelines issued for fhe relevan.t years in this regard or whefher leamed District Judge ought to have made some aUowances in fhe iastant case? 27.In fhe iastaat case, iadisputably, fhe possession of97 acres of land was handed ovfer to the Board irL the year 1974 iacludrag fhe disputed laad; the siut filed bv tfae pIaiQtiff was finaUy decreed in fhe year 1986; the laad acquisition proceeding was iuitiated in fhe year 1999 only after direction 12 l^ <7 was issued by the High Court in a writ petition ffled by fhe Blaintiff; leamed District Judge has fixed fhe price of fhe land by takmg into consideration the guidelines of fhe CoUector issued for the year 1999 fixiug the rates of plots for residential purposes. The inarket value has been detenniaed by fixiag fhe average value offhe residential plots at fhe rate ofRs.135/- per sq. ft. as per the guidelines of Ex.-P/20 & Ex.-P/21-A. l/3Id deduction. towards developinent expenditure has been inade froia the average value so fixed and acconlingly, compensation has beea fixed by considering the aiarket vahie at tlie i%te of Rs.90/ - per sq. ft.. 28,The document of Ex.-P/20 & Ex.-P/21-A has been filed and proved by the plairttiff. It is the guideline issued by fhe CoUector. The price has been fixed by taking iato consideration the rates fixed by fhe CoBector as per above guidelines. Paras-14 and 14-A of fhe aforesaid gu.idelmes are leproduced as under:- 14 ^f/^tcTT^ ^ ?T?^t /7FR 1STtTi:T/'^1-^ft 1?RqT ?& l^ftT ^ ^ A ^S^ ^ {^? WJTR ^ I^Hi^l^ t - rict /^ ^ 10,( ^r^B <^ t^fA^ 'g^rsra ^ {^Rf^rifer Tcirc'^sr3?'R 10,001 ^ 15,000 ?pNte ^ TERCT ?FT T? ^?^3 ^^R1??Erffei' ^"3 ^ ^T 55% TO?Rr 15,001 A 22,000 ^Nte ?R? ^T ^ ^T ^ ^ f^t MRff f^q ?t^ TR • ^ '<^R ^ W 35%CTfrRTcT 22,001 q7Nte ^ ^? 0.405 to ?TO ^T ^RI ^ f$P? ^qti^T ^ijprf?t^q^tR ^r ^pr ^ CT^-i^R ^r ?twTT 13 ?1 (14 3t) 4Rc|^ci tjpT ftel tr^ ^ ^f / te^ / ?m^ / ;?pRl?m ^-TNt ^ 3r?pf?r f^rfRcr im^s PI^I^N ?Pt :- 1 10,000 ?pNte ?ra? ^rfN^T ^? ^ T? :3OT ^5! ^ f^p? fi's^ ^ne 2 10,001 ^ 15,000 ?Ffq?te ?W ^RciRfd lprf? q ?^ ^R 3 15,001 % 22,000 ^pNte ^ t)Rc|^ri 'jprteq?t^ vf 4 22,001 ^ 0.405 to qfN^cT ^T ^ ^R ^?3T^W? ^r^ra ^ ^p?1?t^riRcr lcnre ^ ^?r 70% ^iT ^RI ?& f^R f^qfRtT ^K ^7 ^T 60% ^T ^RI ^ ^P? f5iqfR(T ^TR:^ ?CT40% 29. Leamed District Judge wtule determining fhe value of fhe laad has reMed upon fhe oral evidence of fhe plaintiff and his witouesses and the guidelines of fhe CoUector fixing fhe market value for tbe year 1998-99 ia Dur^ township/xnunicipal area, however, the guideluies reproduced hereuiabove have not been taken iato consideration for deteruuiiing the value. t SO.Thus, considering fhe size offhe land acquired by the State and keeping in view the giiideluies issued by the CoUector reproduced hereinabove, we are of fhe opiaion that the leamed District Judge ought to have fixed the price at fhe rate of 40% of the average rate of the plots.after making l/3Td deducti.on towards developinent char^es. Learaed District Judge has fixed the coiapensation at fhe rate of Rs.90 per sq. ft. whereas, fhe amoiuit of coinpensation payable to the plaintiff should havc been calculated by taking fhe prevaitmg market rate at the rate of Rs,36/-per sq.ft. (40% of Rs.90/-) for the entire laad ad measuring 2.81 acres i.e. Rs. 1,22,403.9 sq. ft.. Thus, total amount of compensation for which the plaintiffwas entitled ^f '*'.h-. V^-':'' fV comes to Rs.44,06,508/-. The amoimt of solatium at fhe rate of 30% fa Rs.13,21,952/- and iffhe same is added to the above aniount, it comes to Rs.57,28,460/-. The plaintiff has already received compensation of Rs.6,57,918/- less inconie tax. By deducting tihis amount, fhe plaintifE'is entitled for Rs.50,70,542/-. 31.In the result, tlie appeals are partly aUowed and the award passed in favoiu- ofthe plaiatiff'is modi&ed in the followuig terms;- • The appeBants are joiutly and seveiatly Mable to pay a suiu. of Rs.50,70,542/- to the legal heirs offhe or^inal plaintiff. • The appeUaats/defendaats shaU also pay simple interest on the aforesaid amount at the rate of 9% per amium finm fhc date of nonfication tUI the date of rcalization. • The amount deposited by fhe appellants shall be disbursed to fbe plamtiff aad the balaace amount, if any, shaU be paid by the appeDants within a period of3 inonfbs. • If the appeUants faB to pay the aforesaid amount within the stipulated period, in tbat case, tfae appeUants shaU pay iaterest at fhe rate of 15% per annum fix>ni 26-8-99 tilt fhe date ofrealization. t Tbe appellaats shaU bear fhe cost ofUtigation fhrough out Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Barve