In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh L.P.A. No. 515 of 2001 Date of decision: May 01, 2009 Rang Rao ... Appellant Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Rohtak and others ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uma Nath Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: None. A.N. Jindal, J This judgment shall dispose of L.P.A. against the judgment dated 4.7.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the claim of the petitioner that he is entitled to the enhanced compensation @ Rs.13760/- per acre, over and above the compensation awarded to him by the Collector, solatium @ 15% on the enhanced compensation, interest @ 6% per annum from the date of possession, having been taken over till actual payment and costs of reference has been declined. The Government of Haryana had acquired the agricultural land measuring 776 acres situated at village Kanina, Tehsil & District Mahendergarh for public purpose i.e. For construction of Rampuri Distributory. The notification No.13546/2L dated 14.12.1997 was issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein referred as 'the Act'). The Collector, Land Acquisition, awarded the compensation @ Rs.53,240/- per acre. Reference under Section 18 of the Act was made by the appellant claiming enhancement on the ground that the Collector did not take into consideration the relevant factors at the time of making assessment of the market value of the land which was about Rs.100/- per sq. yard at the time of acquisition. The reference was opposed by the respondents and the following issues were framed by the Additional District Judge, Narnaul :- 1. What was the market value of the acquired land at the time of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?OPP L.P.A. No. 515 of 2001 -2- *** 2. Relief. After assessing the evidence on record, the Additional District Judge, Narnaul, concluded that the market value of the land was Rs.67,000/- per acre at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act, therefore, he enhanced the compensation @ Rs.13760/- per acre over and above the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. Being dissatisfied with the said award, the appellant claimed enhancement beyond the awarded amount while submitting that the minimum compensation which the appellant should have been awarded was @ Rs.35-00 per sq. yard, whereas, he was awarded compensation only @ 14-00 per sq. yard. Besides, he claimed interest admissible under the law from the date of acquisition of the land till the date of actual payment together with permissible grant of solatium, but the learned Single Judge declined the same. Having perused the records of the case, it transpires that a huge chunk of land which was agricultural in nature was acquired for the public purpose. The Single Judge has elaborately discussed and appreciated the entire evidence in order to determine the market value of the land. The Single Judge observed that in order to determine the market value of the land the sale deeds Annexures P-2 to P-14 were not sufficient for the following reasons :- (1) No witness was examined as to under what circumstances the sale deeds came to be executed. (2) Whether the sale deeds were relating to the residential plots or where the said land as covered by the sale deeds Annexures P-1 to P-12 was situated. (3) The sale deeds relate to very small plots which could at the face of it be said to be the plots for the use of residential purpose, therefore, the market value of the same could not be applied for assessing the market value of chunk of 776 acres of land. (4) To the contrary, the sale deeds Annexures R-1 to R-4 relied upon by the respondents also relate to the land of L.P.A. No. 515 of 2001 -3- *** the same village the market value of which is less than Rs.20,000/- per acre. In any case, the said sale deeds Annexures R-1 to R-4 also suffer from the same problem which the sale deeds Annexures P-1 to P-12 suffer, as such, the same cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing the actual market value prevailing at the time of acquisition of the land. Besides the aforesaid evidence, no other cogent evidence has been led by the appellant in order to seek enhanced rate then what has already been provided. No evidence in order to establish, if the land had any commercial potential or was in any way costed higher than the rate at which the compensation was given, has been established. No such evidence has been led or arguments advanced in order to enable this court to award compensation for severance of land into two parts. Similarly, no evidence has been led in order to establish if there was any construction over the acquired land. Thus, the learned Single Judge, in a detailed judgment, while appreciating the evidence rightly observed that simple statements without any cogent piece of evidence viz-a-viz existence of shop have not been brought on record, therefore, mere epsi-dixit of the appellant cannot be accepted to assess the cost of construction. Now coming to the question of granting benefit under Section 23 (2) and 30 (2) of the Act, it may be observed that few dates need to be reproduced as under :- 1. The award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 29.3.1982. 2. The reference has been decided by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment dated 6.9.1983 and thereafter the appeal was preferred in the High Court on 1.12.1983. Now the question arises, whether the claimant is entitled to solatium @ 30% as extended by Section 23 (2) and 30 (2) of the Act and also entitled to interest @ 15% per annum, it may be observed that the Land L.P.A. No. 515 of 2001 -4- *** Acquisition Amendment Act came into force on 24.9.1984. The learned Single Judge while relying upon the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in case Union of India and another vs. Raghubir Singh (Dead) by L.Rs. Etc. (1989) 2 Supreme Court Cases 754 declined the benefits under Section 23 (2) and 30 (2) of the Act, as the award was passed prior to the enforcement of the Act and certainly not between 30.4.1982 and 24.9.1984. The learned Single Judge, to our mind has ignored basic intent and spirit of the judgment delivered in Raghubir Singh's case (supra) observed as under :- “30. We now come to merits f the reference. The reference is limited to the interpretation of Section 30 (2) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. Before the enactment of the Amendment Act, solatium was provided under Section 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act (Shortly, “the parent Act”) at 15 per cent on the market value of the land computed in accordance with Section 23 (1) of the Act, the solatium being provided in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. The Land Acquisition Amendment Bill, 1982 was introduced in the House of the People on April 30, 1982 and upon enactment the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 commenced operation with effect from September 24, 1984. Section 23 (2) of the parent Act and substituted the words '30 per centum' in place of the words “15 per centum'. Parliament intended that the benefit of the enhanced solatium should be made available, albeit to the limited degree, even in respect of acquisition proceedings taken before that date. It sought to effectuate that intention by enacting Section 30 (2) in the Amendment Act. Section 30 (2) of the Amendment Act, provides :- (2)The provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 23 ... of the principal Act, as amended by clause (b) of Section 15 .... of this Act ..... shall apply and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation to, any award made by the Collector or Court or to any order L.P.A. No. 515 of 2001 -5- *** passed by the High Court or Supreme Court in appeal against such award under the provisions of the Principal Act after the 30th day of April, 1982 ( date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill 1982,in the House of People and before the commencement of this Act.” This judgment again became the subject of hot discussion before the three judges bench in the case of K.S. Paripoorrnan (II) vs. State of Kerala and others, 1995 (1) SCC 367, wherein they while interpreting the said judgment observed as under :- “This Court thereby clearly held that even in the pending reference made before 30.4.1982, if the civil court makes an award between 30.4.1982 and 24.9.1984, Section 30 (2) gets attracted and thereby the enhanced solatium was available to the claimants. Since Section 30 (2) deals with both the amendments to Section 23 (2) and Section 28 of the Principal Act by Section 15 (b) and Section 18, respectively, of the Amendment Act by parity of the reasoning the same ratio applies to the awards made by the civil court between those dates. The conflict of decisions as to whether Section 23 (2) as amended by Section 15 (b) of the Amendment Act through Section 30 (2) of the transitory provisions would be applicable to the pending appeals in the High Court and the Supreme Court was resolved in Raghubir Singh case by the Constitution Bench holding that the award of the Collector or the court made between 13.4.1982 and 24.9.1984 would alone get attracted to Section 30 (2) of the transitory provision. The restricted interpretation should not be understood to mean that Section 23 (2) would not apply to the award of the civil court pending at the time when the Act came into force or thereafter. In this case, admittedly the award of the civil court was made after the Act has come into force, namely, 28.2.1985.” L.P.A. No. 515 of 2001 -6- *** In the instant case also, the award of the civil court came into existence on 6.9.1983 i.e. between the dates April 30, 1982 and September 24, 1984, as such the judgment delivered by the Apex Court is applicable on all fours in favour of the appellant. Similar view was taken by this Court in case Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Hoshiarpur vs. Satya Naraina, RFA No.277 of 1984 decided on 11.1.2006, as such we stand to differ with the observations returned by the learned Single Judge that since the award was not passed by the Collector between the aforesaid two dates, therefore, the appellant was not entitled to the extended benefit as provided by the amended Act. As such, judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge required to be set aside to this extent only. Resultantly, this appeal is partly accepted and the impugned judgment is modified to the extent that the petitioners would be entitled to receive interest on the enhanced sum (enhanced by the civil court) @ 9% per annum from the date on which the Collector took the possession of the land to the date of payment of such enhanced sum into the court by operation of the aforesaid proviso. If such enhanced sum or any part thereof is paid into the court after the date of expiry of the period of one year from the date on which the possession is taken, then the appellants would be entitled to interest @ 15% per annum from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into the court before the date of such expiry. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to enhanced interest @ 9% from the date of taking possession for one year and thereafter @ 15% till the date of deposit made by the Collector. Consequently, they would also be entitled to the amended rate of solatium i.e. 30% as provided under Section 28 of the amended Land Acquisition Act, 1984. (Uma Nath Singh) (A.N. Jindal) Judge Judge May 01, 2009 deepak