R. F. A No. 474 of 1985 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A No. 474 of 1985 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.9.2008 Balwinder Singh and others ..... Appellants vs The Land Acquisition Collector, Industrial Department, Punjab, and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Ashok Jindal, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. B. B. S. Teji, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. The present appeal has been filed by the landowners seeking further enhancement of compensation on account of acquisition of land. Briefly the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 6.2.1976 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act'), land measuring 47.26 acres, situated in the revenue limits of Abohar, Tehsil Fazlika, District Ferozepur, was acquired by the State of Punjab, for setting up of Industrial Focal Point at Abohar. The Land Acquisition Collector announced his award on 24.11.1976. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Additional District Judge vide award dated 3.12.1984, determined the market value of the land @ of Rs. 32,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the parties have not pointed as to whether any appeal arising out of the same acquisition is either pending or had been disposed of by this court. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the compensation assessed by the learned court below on the basis of evidence on record deserves to be increased. The land in question was a prime piece of land quite close to the city. He further submitted that the appellants are also entitled to amended provisions of the Act as regards the solatium and interest. Reliance has been placed on Kashiben Bhikabai and others vs Special Land Acquisition Officer and another (2002) 2 Supreme Court Cases 605, and Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Anoop Singh and R. F. A No. 474 of 1985 2 another (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 484. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that fair value of the land has been assessed by the learned court below which does not deserve any increase by this court as there is no evidence as such led by the appellants which could possibly be referred to by the appellants for seeking enhancement of compensation. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. A perusal of the impugned award shows that all what the appellants/claimants had tendered in evidence was the copies of the mutations. Even the State also in its evidence had produced copies of mutations. In the statement of RW1 Malkiat Singh Patwari, he admitted that the land adjoining the National Highway had been assessed @ of Rs. 32,000/- per acre for the purpose of compensation. Relying upon the statements of the witnesses of the State, the compensation was assessed by the learned court below @ of Rs. 32,000/- per acre. Besides this, there is no other material on record. Copies of various mutations produced on record could not be relied upon for determination of fair market value of the land in question. Accordingly, the claim for increase in value of the land is dismissed. As far as the claim of the appellants for grant of benefit of amended provisions of the Act is concerned, it is evident that the award of the learned court below in the present case was passed on 3.12.1984 though the acquisition was made on 6.2.1976. An identical issue came up for consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Anoop Singh's case (supra), where the issue under consideration was as to whether landowners therein were entitled to statutory benefits under Sections 23 (2) and 28 of the Act as amended by Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. In the aforesaid case, the facts were that the Land Acquisition Collector pronounced the award on 26.6.1967 whereas of the Reference Court was dated 31.5.1984. Considering the issue Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined as under:- “8. The second question is no longer res integra as it is concluded by the authoritative pronouncements of this Court in Union of India v. Raghubir Singh the question arose before the Constitution Bench whether the claimants R. F. A No. 474 of 1985 3 were entitled to solatium at 30% of the market value irrespective of the date on which the acquisition proceedings were initiated or the date on which the award was passed. Interpreting Section 30(2) of Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984, the Constitution Bench observed thus : (SCC pp. 779-80, para 31) “31. in construing Section 30 (2), it is just as well to be clear that the award made by the Collector referred to here is the award made by the Collector under Section 11 of the parent Act, and the award made by the Court is the award made by the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction under Section 23 of the parent Act on a reference made to it by the Collector under Section 19 of the parent Act. There can be no doubt that the benefit of the enhanced solatium is intended by Section 30 (2) in respect of an award made by the Collector between 30-4-1982 and 24-9-1984. Likewise the benefit of the enhanced solatium is extended by Section 30(2) to the case of an award made by the Court between 30-4-1982 and 24-9-1984, even though it be upon reference from an award made before 30-4-1982” It was further clarified: (SCC p. 781, para 33) “[T]o our mind it must necessarily intend that the appeal to the High Court or the Supreme Court in which the benefit of enhanced solatium is to be given, must be confined to an appeal against an award of the Collector or of the Court rendered between 30-4-1982 and 24-9-1984.” 9. The intention behind Section 30(2) was stressed in the following words: (SCC p. 779, para 30) “Parliament intended that the benefit of the enhanced solatium should be made available, albeit to a limited degree, even in respect of acquisition proceedings R. F. A No. 474 of 1985 4 taken before that date. It sought to effectuate that intention by enacting Section 30(2) in the Amendment Act.” 10. In the present case, both the award made by the Collector under Section 11 as well as the award passed by the civil court on reference fall within the two termini indicated in Section 30(2) as interpreted by the Constitution Bench of this Court. The award of the Collector was on 26-6-1967 and the award made by the Reference Court was on 31-5-1984. Hence, both these dates fall within the time span specified in Section 30(2) and reiterated by this Court. The error committed by the Reference Court in granting solatium and interest at the rates specified in the old Sections 23 and 28 was rightly set right by the High Court by awarding solatium and interest at the enhanced rates. Though, in Raghubir Singh case this Court was concerned with the percentage of the solatium payable under Section 23, the same principle would equally apply to the rate of interest payable under Section 28. Both Sections 23 (2) as well as Section 28 are referred to in the same sub-section which was construed in Raghubir Singh case. What applies to solatium is equally applicable to interest. This position has not been disputed before us and cannot be disputed in view of the legal position declared by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in K. S. Paripoornan (II) v. State of Kerala.” The same view was expressed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Panna Lal Ghosh and others vs Land Acquisition Collector and others (2004) 1 Supreme Court Cases 467. Accordingly, for the reasons mentioned in Anoop Singh's case (supra), the appellants in the present case are held entitled to benefits of Section 23 (2) of the Act regarding higher rate of solatium and interest. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is partly allowed. 18.9.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge