HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Divjslon Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra; & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar»JJ. APPELLANTS RESPQNDENT F.A.(M)No.34of2008 State of CG and another Versus Charan Singh ^ JUDGMENT FOR CONSIDERATION HON'BLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAKAR. J c^^ej2— Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge POST FOR JUDGMENT ON 14 -6-2010 Sd/- /^"•:^ e. '^ "^ %^-...?i / HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR First Appeal (M) No.34 of 2008 APPELLANTfS): Non-Applicants 1. 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Collector, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. The Land Acquisition OfRcer, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. Through : The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Minimata Bango Canal Division No.6, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) Versus RESPONDENT: Applicant Charan Singh, S/o Shyam Kartik, R/o Village Sarhar, Patwari Halka No.16, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) Present: Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Addl. Advocate General with Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Dy. Advocate General forthe State/appellants. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, counsel for the respondent. Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ. JUDGMENT (Delivered on(tj*f1Sune. 2010) The following judgment of the Court was delivered by Dhirendra Mishra, J. 1. The State has preferred this appeal under Section 54 of-the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "the Act") against the order dated 13th March. 2007 passed in Misc. Civil Suit No.83/06, whereby learned Additional District Judge, Sakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, on a reference under Section 18(2) of the Act at the instance of respondent-land owner, has enhanced the amount of compensation payable to the respondent towards acqulsition of his land and held that appropriate compensation payable to the respondent is Rs.3,25,096/- with solatium @ 30% and interest @ 12% p.a. from 20.5.2005, the date of publication of notification. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the respondent is owner of Khasra No.1036/7, area 1.45 acres of Village-Sarhar, P.H.No.16, Tahsil-Sakti. From ^W*??»»T,.... ^ o the aforesaid land, 0.121 hectares of land was acquired for construction of Escape Channel Canal by the State Government. The Land Acquisition Officer (in short "LAO") treating the acquired land as unirrigated agricultural land, fixed compensation at Rs.65,508/-. 3. However, learned Additional District Judge, on reference under Section 18(2) of the Act at the instance of land owner, held that the acquired land is agricultural land fit for accommodation purposes and accordingly, assessed compensation @ Rs.26,86,747/- per hectare and awarded compensation of Rs.3,26,096/- with solatium @ 30% and interest @ 12% p.a. from 20.5.2005, the date of publication of notification. 4. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learned 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 land as residential plpt. 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.26,86,747/- per hectare. 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 respondent-owner, would argue that the LAO on the basis of evidence of the Halka Patwari held that the acquired land was fit for residential accommodation, however, awarded compensation arbitrarily of Rs.65,508/- against the land acquired, whereas the Tehsildar andthe Haika Patwari had categorically recommended that compensation should be awarded @ Rs.26,86,747/- per hectare as per prevailing market rate. The Reference Court, on the basis of report of the Tehsildar, assessed compensation @ Rs.26,86,747/- per hectare. As per Collector's guideline, price of the residential plot was to be fixed @ 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.26,86,747/- per hectare. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as also the award passed by the LAO. r: /"' ^l 7. From perusal of the impugned order and the evidence available on record, it appears that before the Reference Court the land owner examined himself and exhibited relevant revenue records. He also examined his witness Santosh Das, whose land was also acquired for the purposes of construction of canal. On the basis of their evidence, it has been held that the acquired land of the respondent is adjacent to the land of Santosh Das, who has been paid compensation @ Rs.26,86,747/- per hectare. Their version is also corroborated from the evidence of Halka Patwari, who has been examined as a witness by the land owner. On proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Reference Court has held that compensation ought to have been flxed by considering the acquired agricultural land as fit for accommodation purposes. Therefore, in our considered opinion, award of compensation by the Reference Court Rs.26,86,747/- per hectare is strictly based on the material available on record and the same does not call for any interference. Similarly, award of solatium @ 30% on the above sum is also 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 meet the ends ofjustice. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order is modified to the extent that the respondent shall ,be entitled for interest @ 9% p.a., jnstead of 12%p.a., on the amount not paid to the respondent from 20th May, 2005 till the date of realization. 9. No order as to costs. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge X-.1