4 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ. APPELLANTS RESPONDENT F.A.rM)No.35of2008 Statie of CG and another Versus Surit Ram JUDGMENT FOR CONSJD^RAT!ON HON'BLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAKAR, J €t9£ Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge POSTFORJUDGMENTON (^ -6-2010 Sd/- WSVW^-^^K'-S^^.SK^.^I'Sl'Ty^K-SSiS^VS:^' ^"^. ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR First Appeal (M) No.35 of 2008 APPELLANT(S): Non-Applicants RESPONDENT: Applicant 1. 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Collector, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. The Land Acquisition Officer, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. Through : The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Minimata Bango Canal Djvision No.6, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) Versus Surit Ram, S/o Natthu Satnami R/o Village Chhitapadariya, Patwari Halka No.16, Tahsil Jaijaipur, 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 forthe respondent. Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ. JUDGMENT (Delivered on^une, 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 29th March, 2007 passed in Misc. Civil Suit No.61/06, whereby learned Additional District Judge, Sakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa; on a reference under Section 1 8(2) of the Act at the instance of respondent-land owner, has enhanced the amount of compensation payable to the respondent towards acquisition of his tend @ Rs.3,500/- per decimal and also held that the respondent is entitted for solatium @ 30% and interest @ 12% p.a. from 31st January, 2003, the date of publication of notification. +i WA'KE.3<-S^";I?7;uy<~--.-:~- ')o 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the respondent is owner of Khasra No.95/2, area 3.06 acres at Village-ChhJtapadariya, Tahsit-Jaijaipur; Distt. Janjgjr-Champa. 40 decimal ofthe above land was acquired for the purposes of construction of Distributory Canal by the Water Resources Department of the State Government. The Land Acquisition Officer (in short "LAO") treating the acquired land as agricultural land, calculated compensation payable to the respondent at Rs.53,622/-. 3. However, learned Additional District Judge, on reference under Section 18(2) of the Act, enhanced the compensation and held that the respondent ts entitled for compensation @ Rs.3,500/- per decimal as the land jn question is situated near housing site and school and ownere of the land in the vteinity have been awarded compensation @ Rs.3,500/- per decimal in the case of Kumari Kalpana and others, and Nepal Singh and others. 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 tand as residential plot. 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 justifjed in awarding compensation @ Rs.3,500/- per decimal. Even interest @ 12% is tooexcessive, considering the prevailing rate ofinterest 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 accommodatjon, however, awarded compensation arbitrarily of Rs.1,20.649/- ^xsysysv-v-wy-w:"s. Si^^^^'a^wssa^y <?^y"\ |&^<^r ^} against the land acquired, whereas the Tehsildar and the Halka Patwari had categorically recommended that compensation should be awarded Rs.3,500/- per decimal as per prevailing market rate. The Reference Court, on the basis of report of the Tehsildar, assessed compensation @ Rs.3,500/- per decimal. 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. 3,500/- per decimal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as also the award passed by the LAO. 7. The Reference Court on the basis of evidence of Halka Patwari and the revenue records proved by him and further consjdering that the lands belonging to Nepal Singh, Mrityunjai, Bhaiya Singh, Budheshwar & Kumari Kalpana were also acquired for the purposes of construction of canal and compensation was awarded to them by treating their land as agricultural land fit for accommodation purposes @ Rs.3,500/- per decimal and that the land in questjon is adjacent to the land of Kumari Kalpana, held that the respondent is also entitled for compensation of his land @ Rs.3,500/- per decimal. Therefore, in our considered opinion, award of compensation by the Reference Court @ Rs.3,500/- per decimal is strictly based on the material available on record and the same does not catl for any interference. SJmilarly, award of solatium @ 30% on the above sum is also strictly in accordance with law and needs no interference. However, considering the prevajling market rate at present,award of interest @ 12% per annum is excessive and simple interest @ 9% per annumwould meet the ends ofjustice. W'^S^f-SSS-fSSSS.ISiW^ ^ !/ 8. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order is modiyied to the extent that the respondent shall be entitled for interest @ 9% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., on the amount not paid to the respondent from 31st January, 2003 till the date of realization. 9. No order as to costs. ^_ Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Khan +! ,.^^-....,.-;^^^-CTB.i3^,»^^^^^.^.^^^^