-y'" <;; 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR [C.G.1 FJRST_APPEAL (M) ._ _ ;3& _ _ _ JWW APPELLANT DEFENDANT N0. Executive Engineer Chhattisgarh Grih Nirman Mandal, Padmanabhpur, Durg [C.G.] VERSUS A RESPONDENTS » l.Chandra F'rakash Gupta PLAINTIFF ^ f--'*'5" ^,®!?"' i^" ^•n.' ^/ g/Q ja^e Makhan Lal Gupta R/o Baniya ,^A,\^\^"' ft ^^ ^y"'^..^ ^?ara, Durg Tahsil & Distt.- Durg [C.G.] ^>&s. ••- %^' .>'^ 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector, Durg [C.G.] NRSTAPPEAL UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE LAND ACOUISITION ACT. 1984 i]M USs^ssSisutSss-ss'a'SSSKS^-ss'^ ^SS^S^SSS^^^^^^M^'^^'^:^. fiSs.^-^^'y^ HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR First Appeal (M) No.38 of 2009 ^^ APPELLANT: Defendant No.1 RESPONDENTS: Plaintiff APPELLANT: Non-aRplicants Defendant RESPONDENTS: ApDlicants Plaintiffs Executive Enginger, Chhattisgarh Grih Nirman Mandal, Padmanabhpur, Durg (CG) Versus Chandra Prakash Gupta and another AND First Appeal (M) No.69 of 2009 State of Chhattisgarh Versus Chandra Prakash Gupta and another ! 1 -•i Si.l •-ISL. JUDGMENT FOR CONSIDERATION HON'BLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAKAR, J SdA DhirendraMishra "t Judge Lc- <a_Q^-e-e- ~<! R.N. Chandrakar Judge POST FOR JUDGMENT ON f9 ^4-2010 Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge R- ^7-0 HI6H COURT OF CHHATTESGARH AT BILASPUR First Appeal fM) No.38 of 2009 APPELLANT: Defendant No.l RESPON&ENTS: Plaintiff 1. 2. Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh 6rih Nirman Mandal, Padmanabhpur, Ourg (C6) Versus Chandra Prakash Supta, S/o late Makhan Lal £upta, R/o Baniya Para, Ourg, Tahsil & District Qwg (C6) State of Chhattisgarh, Throu9h Collector, Durg (C6) AN& First ADoeal fM) No.69 of 2009 APPELLANT: Non-applicants Defendant RESPONDENTS; Appljcants Plaintiffs State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, &istrict Durg Versus Chandra Prakash Gupta, S/o late Makhanlal Supta, R/o BaniaPara, t)urg, Tehsil and District t)urg (C6) Exeeutive Engineer, Chhattisgarh 6rih Nirman Mandal, Padmanabhpur, Durg Present: Shri Sanjay Patel, counsel for the appellant in F.A. (M) No.38/2009 & respondent No.2 in F.A. (M) No.69/2009. Shri Satyawan Agrawal with Shri Vikram Dixit, counsel for respondent No.l in F.A. (M) Nos.38/2009 & 69/2009. Shri Vinay Harit, beputy Advocate Seneral with Shri S.K. Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/r'espondent No.2 in F.A. (M) No.38/2009 and for appellant in F.A.(M) No.69/2009. Division Bench: Hon'bleShri Dhirendra Mishra <& Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ, JU & GM ENT (Delivered onJ5 April, 2010) A7j The following judgment of the Court was delivered by Dhirendra Mishra, J. 1. The aforesaid appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment as both these appeals are directed against the award dated 24 December, 2008 passed in MJC, Land Acquisition Case No.5/2006 whereby learned 9 Additional District Judge (FTC), Durg, has passed an award of Rs.8,23,977/- as compensation for the land acquired by the State for the purposes of'ChhattisgarhGrih Nirman Mandal (for short 'the Board'), appellant in F.A. (M) No.38/2009. Z. The facts necessary for adjudication of these appeals, as projected in the impugned award, are that respondent No.l Chandra Prakash 6upta (hereinafter referred to as 'the land owner) was owner of land bearing Khasra No.995/12, area 0.35 acres (15225 sq. ft.) situated in village Kasarideeh (Padmanabhpur), Durg. The Board constructed houses over the aforesaid land after taking its possession on 23-5-1980. A proposal dated 7-8-1990 for compulsory acquisition of the aforesaid land was registered by the Land Acquisition Officer (for brevity 'the L.A.O.') and an award for a sum of Rs.5,95,602/- was passed in favour of the land owner on 16-12-1991. 3. The Board filed a Writ Petition No.1015/92 against the award in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the High Court vide order dated 30 March, 1995 set aside the award dated 16-12-1991 and remitted the matter to the Land Acquisition Officer for passing the award afresh as per law. Thereafter the Land Acquisition Officer vide its award dated 20 February, 1997 awarded compensation of Rs.2,65,539/- in favour of the land owner. The Board had deposited a sum of Rs.2,97,601/- before the Land Acquisition Officer, Durg as per the directions of the High Court dated 20-8-92. y^ 4. On application of the land owner under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the L.A.O. referred the matter to the Court for determination of amount of compensation. After the reference was made, the land owner submitted statement of claim and claimed compensation at the rate of 47 persq. ft. along with other benefits in accordance with law. The Board and the State in their reply to the statement of claim contested contention of the land owner and stated that he is not entitled forcompensation at the rate of 47 per sq. ft. as his land is not located on the main road and the compensation cannot be determined on the basis of land sold by the Board to the Life Insurance Corporation, as the above land was located on the main road. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the respective parties, issues we.re. framed. The land owner examined S.R.S. Naidu (AW-1), Smt. Shaifali Bhattacharya (AW-2), Chandra Prakash Gupta (land owner) (AW-3) whereas, the Board examined M.K. Kurup, SDO and K.R. Bha9at, Deputy Collector was examined by the State as its witness. 6. Learned Additional District Judge answered the reference with a finding that the L.A.O. without validly examining evidence available on record and without considering the prevailing market rate as on 7-9-90, the date of publication of notice under Section 4(1) of the Act has passed an award which is not proper and accordingly, deter-mined proper compensation at the rate of 30 per sq. ft. and assessed total compensation payable to the land owner at Rs.3,65,400/- by addJng solatium of Rs.1,09,620/- at the rate of 307o of the market value and adding Rs.65,772/- towards interest at 'the rate of 9% per annum from September, 1988 when the land was handed over to the Board by the State till the date of publication of notice under Section 4 of the Act and interest of AT> Rs.2,83,185/- from 7-9-90 till the date of passing of award at the rate of 12%, awarded a total compensation of Rs.8,23,977/-. It has been further held that the land owner shall be entitled for simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum on Rs.5,26,376/- from 21-2-97 till realization of the award amount and if the amount so awarded is not paid within one year, in that case, interest ©157o per annum from 21-2-97 shall be payable. 7. Shri Vinay l-1arit, learned Deputy Advocate Seneral appearing for the State and Shri Sanjay Patel, leamed counsel appearing for the Board vehemently argued that the LAO passed the award by considering 5 sale deeds of the same vicinity executed between 6th August, 1989 and 6th September, 1990 and arrived at a conclusion that the market value of the land would be Rs.13.37 per sq. Ft. The Court could not have taken into consideration the rate at which the land was sold by the Board to the LIC as the rate is to be determined on the basis of prevailing market rate of the last years. The Court without appreciating various other factors such as potentiality, nature and quality of the land and its location has determined the compensation solely on the basis of solitary sate deed executed by the Board in favour of the LIC in the year 1986, ignoring the fact that the land which was sold to the LIC was located on the main road whereas, the land in question is away from the main road in interior. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the land owner would argue that award of Rs.5,95,602/- made in favour of the land owner on 16-12-91 was set aside only on the ground that the same was passed without notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the Board. Thereafter, numerous opportunities were given to the Board for adducing evidence but the Board did not adduce any oral or documentary .^1 evidence before the L.A.O. and thus, there was no fresh material before the L.A.O. for reviewing its earlier award, however, amount of compensation was reduced without there being any fresh evidence. Indisputably, the land m question is also situated in Padmanabhpur where the land sold to LIC by the Board at the rate of 32.50 per sq. ft. is situated and thus the same may be treated as agreed rate. The land in question is adjacent to Pulgaon bypass road and there is admitted evidence that residential houses are located in the area where the land in question is situated. Reliance of the Land Acquisition Officer on 5 sale deeds of the land of the area for the relevant period was erroneous as the type and quality of the land of those sale deeds were different as they were non-residential agriculturat land and the same were tocated at a considerable distance in undeveloped area. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have perused the record of the reference Court as also the impugned judgment. 10. On close examination of the impugned award, we find that learned reference Court, on the basis of oral evidence adduced by the parties, the Collector's guidelines fixing price for registration of the land in the year 1990-91 in the locality and also considering that the Board had sold Z0,000 sq ft of its land to the LIC in the year 1986 at the rate of 30.20 per sq ft and also considering the evidence adduced by the land owner and not controverted by the other side that the land in question is situated besides Pulgaon bypass road and developed colony is situated nearby, has assessed the market value-at Rs.30 per sq ft; considering the argumehts of the State and the Board that acquired land is not a .' developed land, making an allowance at the rate of 207o towards development expenditure, amount of compensation has been determined at Rs.24 per sq ft. It has been specifically mentioned in the impugned (1< »3.f%:! ^r ^. ^ ^ s ~!5'I- .<y award that no sale deeds/Bikri Chhant was produced by the State/Board in reference proceeding as claimed by the appellants. The fact that an award of Rs.5,95,602/- passed on 16-12-91 by the L.A.O. was also taken into consideration for determining compensation. 11. On re-appraisal of the documentary and oral evidence available on record, we are of the opinion that finding of the reference Court in determining compensation at the rate of 24 per sq ft appears to be just and proper and in accordance with material available on record. However, after assessing compensation at Rs.3,65,400/- on the basis of prevailing market value in the year 1990-91, the Court was not justified in allowing interest @ 9% from September, 1988 to 7-9-90 on the ground that possession of the land was handed over to the Board on 1st September, 1988. The compensation is to be fixed on the basis of market value on the date of notification under Section 23 (1) of the Act. 12. Similarly, from perusal of the impugned order as also the order pf the Madhya Pradesh 1-ligh Court passed in Writ Petition No.1015/92, we find that a sum of Rs.2,97,601/- was deposited by the Board as per order dated 20th August, 1992, however, the reference Court after assessing compensation of Rs.3,65,400/<- has also allowed interest on this amount © 127o per annum for a period of 6 years and 5^ months from 7-9-90 to 20-2-97, the date of passing of award and accordingly, a sum of Rs.2,83,185/- has been awarded to the land owner. The above calculation has been madewithout taking into consideration the fact that the Board had already deposited Rs.2,97,601/--as per directions of the High Court vide order dated 20th August, 1992 i.e. on the date when interim order was passed • by the 1-ligh Court in favour of the Board. Further considering the prevailing market rate, award of interest ©127o per -;'-wS t • s ^l^ ^*?>.^ .f annum is also excessive ond simple interest @ 9% per onnum woutd meet the ends of justice. 13. In that view of the matter, the cmount of interest i.e. Rs.2,83,185/- under this head has been awarded in excess ond the loind owner was entitled toonly Rs.92.900/-under this head. 14. On the bosis of aforesaid discussion, the appeals cre port'ly altowed cnd the impugned cnvard is modified in the followin9 terms:- • The lcnd owner is entitled for total compensort-ion of Rs.5,67,920/- for his land i.e. Rs.3.65,400/- towards market value; Rs.1.09,620/- towards solort-ium; Rs.92,900/- towards simpte interest @ 9% per annum on unpaid amount from 7-9-90 till 21-2-97. Since an amount of Rs.2,97,601/- has already been paid to the l<md owner, he shalt be entitled to receive balance of compensation of Rs.2,70,320/-. • The appellcnts are jointty ond severally liable to pcy the aforesaid sum to the lond owner within a period of 3 months from the deri-e of order. • The balance omount of compensotion shalt carry simple interest © 97o per annum from the date of award i.e. 21-2-97 till th®date of reali2ort-ion. • If the appellants fail to pcy the aforesaid amount within the stipulort-ed period. in that case, the appellants shall pcy simple interest ort- the rote of 15% per omnum from the date of award i.e. 21-2-97 till the date of realization. • Appellants shatl bear the costs throughout. A decree be drown occordingly. —_ Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Barve