HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR p First Appeal (M) No.26 of 2008 APPELLANT(S): Non-Applicants 1. 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Collector, District Janjgir Champa. (C.G.). The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (Building & Roads), Champa, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. Versys RESPONDENT: Applicant Naresh Kumar, aged about 45 years, S/o Late Brijmohan, R/o Akaltara, Distt. 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 [if^une, 2010) The following judgment of the Court was delivered by Dhirendra Mishra, J. 1. This flrst appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "the Act") is directed against the order dated 27th October, 2006 passed in M.J.C.No.14/06, whereby learned Additional District Judge, Janjgjr-Champa, on a reference under Section 18(2) of the Act at the instance of respondent- land owner, has passed an award that the respondent-land owner shall be entitled for compensation against acquisition of his 62 decimal of land @ Rs.10,540/- per decimal with solatium @ 30% and interest @ 12% p.a. from 26.5.1995 on the unpaid amount of compensation. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that land belonging to the respondent bearing Khasra No.85, area 0.62 acres of Akaltara was used for construction of road in the year 1966-67. 46 decimal of the above road was djverted land, whereas remaining 16 decimal was undiverted land. The Land Acquisition Officer (in short "LAO") awarded compensation @ Rs.6209/- per decimal for the diverted land and Rs.18,050/- per acre forthe undiverted land. <-" ^ 1 !-';. f: '^.. ^-, "',^- ^^sJ. /'' h ^ 3. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the Reference Court considering the sale deed executed Jn the year 1993 of the adjacent residential land, which was sold @ Rs.10540/- per decimal and further considering that the entire acquired land was fit was residential purposes, as per report of the revenue officers, assessed compensation @ Rs.10540/- per decimal forthe entire 62 decimal of land and also awarded solatium @ 30% and interest @ 12%from26.5.1995. 4. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learned Addl. Advocate General with Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, learned Dy. Advocate General appearing for the State/appellants, vehemently argued that the Reference Court was not justified in fixing compensation @ Rs.10540/- per decimal by treating the entire 62 decimal of land as diverted land. The amount of compensation has been arbitrarily fixed without there being any material available on record in this regard and therefore, the same deserves to be set aside and award of the LAO be restored. 5. On the other hand, Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent-owner, supported the impugned order. 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 documentary and oral evidence available on record and further consjdering the report of the Halka Patwari that the acquired land is situated amidst the residential accommodations, has held that compensation should be fixed by treating the entire 62 decimal as residential plot, and further considering the sale deed of Ex.P/4 executed in the year 1993, by which land in the same locality was sold @ Rs.10540/- per decimal, has calculated compensation at the above rate. 8. On due consideration of the arguments advanced by the respective parties and perusal ofthe impugned order as also the evidence available on record, we are of the opinion that the Reference Court has calculated the amount of compensation strictly on the basis of oral and documentary evidence available on record and the same does not call for any interference. So far as solatium @ 30% on the awarded amount js concerned, the same is also i ^ 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 endsofjustice. 9. 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., instead of 12% p.a., on the amount not paid to the respondent from 26.5.1995 till the date of realization. 10. No order as to costs. Sd/- 1 Dhirendra Mishra 1 Judge | Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Khan