Full Judgment
Prakash Krishna, J.
1. The State Government for Kendriya Bhandar Tatha Krayashala acquired Plot Nos. 440 and 441 measuring 2 Bigha 7 Biswa, i.e., 6474 sq. yard situated in village Gailana Kushtakil, Tehsil and district Agra by issuing a Notification dated 29.5.1975 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The notification under Section 6 of the aforesaid Act is dated 24.7.1975. The possession was taken on 11.3.1976. A sum of Rs. 16,995 was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer as compensation. Aggrieved against the said award the claimant-appellant got made a reference through the Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the civil court for determination of compensation amount. The claimant-appellant claimed compensation initially at the rate of 25 per sq. yard, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 35 per sq. yard. The reference court by its judgment and award dated 24.12.1987 given in reference No. 41 of 1978 has fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 7 per sq. yard and granted interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the balance amount till the date of payment.
2. Still dissatisfied the present appeal has been filed by the claimant for further enhancement of the compensation amount.
3. Heard Sri Dilip Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
4. With the help of village map on the record it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Court below has failed to award appropriate amount of compensation for the plot in dispute namely plot Nos. 440 and 441. It was submitted by him that for plot Nos. 425 and 426 in the case of Smt. Urmila Bansal which are just adjacent to the disputed plots, compensation at the rate of Rs. 30 per sq. yard has been awarded. It was further submitted that for plot Nos. 436 and 437, which are at the back of the disputed plots the compensation at the rate of Rs. 20 per sq. yard has been awarded by the Reference Court. The disputed plots are in between the aforesaid plots, the market value of the disputed plots should be fixed looking to the market value of the aforesaid plots. Before the reference Court the claimant filed a sale deed dated 12.12.1973 with respect to plot No. 381. The said sale deed has not been taken to be as a good exemplar as plot No, 381 is at about 500 sq. yard from the disputed plot Nos. 440 and 441. By this sale deed 252 sq. yard of land was sold for a sum of Rs. 3,528. This gives the selling rate at more than Rs. 11 per sq. yard. The Court below has refused to place reliance upon the said sale deed as it was in respect of plots, which are far away from the disputed plots.
5. Strong reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the judgment in Land Acquisition Case No. 54 of 1978, Urmila Bansal v. Collector, Agra and Ors. Plot Nos. 425 and 426 measuring 12 biswa of land situated in village Gailana was acquired and compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 30 per sq. yard. Admittedly, these plots are situated towards the south of the disputed plots. The Court below has refused to place reliance upon the aforesaid judgment on the ground that plot Nos. 425 and 426 are close to bye-pass road as compared to the disputed plots. This observation of the Court below is not fully correct. I have looked into the village map. The south boundary of plot No. 440 (plot in question) is common with plot No. 426. The boundary of plot Nos. 426 and 425 are common. The topographical situation is that plot Nos. 425, 426 and 440 are in a row and plot No. 425 is nearest to the bye-pass road. Similarly, plot Nos. 441, 442 and 443 are in the same row adjoining with each other sharing common boundaries and plot No. 443 is nearer to bye-pass road. From the paper No. 73-Ka it is clear that compensation at the rate of Rs. 30 per sq. yard was awarded in respect of plot Nos. 442 and 443 also. The plot Nos. 441 and 442 have one boundary in common. Therefore, I find sufficient force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the award of compensation at the rate of Rs. 7 per sq. yard to the disputed plots are wholly inadequate and meagre looking to the facts that compensation at the rate of Rs. 30 per sq. yard has been awarded to the adjoining plots namely plot No. 426 vide I.A. Case No. 54 of 1978 and Paper No. 73-Ka on the record. On query the learned standing counsel after making inquiry gave a statement at the bar that first appeal filed against the judgment given in L.A. Case No. 54 of 1978, Urmila Bansal v. Collector, Agra and Ors., has been dismissed by this Court being barred by time.
6. Towards the north of the disputed plots there are plot Nos. 437 and 436. The compensation to these plots have been awarded at the rate of Rs. 20 per sq. yard as mentioned in paper No. 76-Ga, (a certified copy of judgment in L.A. Case No. 54 of 1978, Smt. Urmila Bansal v. Collector, Agra dated 5.3.1983). These plot Nos. 436 and 437 are comparatively far away from the bye-pass road than the disputed plot Nos. 440 and 441. The up shot of the above discussion is that compensation at the rate of Rs. 20 per sq. yard has been awarded for adjoining plots towards north of the disputed plots and compensation at the rate of Rs. 30 per sq. yard has been awarded to the adjoining plots towards the southern side. The disputed plots are sandwiched in between plot Nos. 437, 426 and 444. Consequently the amount of compensation cannot be lesser than for plot Nos. 437 and 436 and cannot be more than the compensation awarded to plot Nos. 426 and 442. The observation of the Court below that plots in this case and plots of Urmila Bansal are not similarly situated although they have been acquired under the same notification, is not correct. The Court below has further observed that in the case of Urmila Bansal area was lesser, whereas plots in dispute are bigger. In the case of Urmila Bansal the total area of plot was 12 biswa while in the present case the total area of the two plots is 2 bigha 7 biswa. Taking into consideration this fact as well as the facts that compensation at the rate of Rs. 20 per sq. yard was awarded for plot Nos. 436 and 437, I fix the price at the rate of Rs. 25 per sq. yard in the present case, as the compensation amount, which should have been awarded to the claimant appellant on account of acquisition of the disputed plots. The concept of compensation under the Act is that it should not be a lottery to the owner whose land had been acquired nor it should be robbery on the part of the State. The Indian farmers generally do not want to part with the land. It is a permanent security just like gold. The Legislature under the theory of public purposes and for the benefit of society makes acquisition of the land. It is often seen that a person, whose land had been acquired may not be able to get similar piece of land. The society has to make sacrifice as the individual has made to give fair price. The judicial notice can be taken of the fact that there is trend in rising prices. Taking into consideration the concept of compensation under the Act that market value of piece of property for the purposes of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act is said to be the price at which property changes hand from the seller but not too anxious the buyer dealing at arms length. It has been held by Supreme Court in Mehta Ravindradrary Ajit Rai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1989 SC 2051, that where sale of land adjacent to acquired land was cited as an instance for determination of market value, the same cannot be altogether ignored merely because it was the past acquisition sale when there was no evidence indicating that there was sharp or speculative rise of the land after acquisition.
7. In Pal Singh and Ors. v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, 1993 (1) UPLBEC 137, Supreme Court has observed that the judgment of a Court in Land Acquisition case determining the market value of land in the vicinity of acquired land even though not inter-parties, and no doubt admitted in evidence either as an instance or one from which the market value of the acquired land could be deduced or inferred. But it must be proved by the person relying upon such judgment by adducing evidence with due regard being given to all the attending facts and circumstances. In the case in hand as discussed above, it is clear that for the plots towards south of the disputed plot, compensation has been awarded at the rate of Rs. 30 per sq. yard. The plots towards north of the disputed plot, compensation at the rate of Rs. 20 per sq. yard has been awarded. All these plots have been acquired under the same notification for the same purpose. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in mind the attending circumstances the fixation of compensation at the rate of Rs. 25 per sq. yard will meet the end of Justice.
8. The award is dated 9.11.1977 and the judgment of the reference Court is dated 24.12.1987. In view of judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Raghubeer Singh, 1989 (2) AWC 833 (SC) : AIR 1989 SC 1933, the appellant is entitled to higher solatium at the rate of 30%. Further the Supreme Court has clarified that the claimant would not be entitled for additional compensation in view of Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act vide K.S. Paripuram v. State of Kerala and Ors., AIR 1995 SC 1012. Further it has been clarified by the Supreme Court in Sunder v. Union of India and Ors., 2002 (1) UPLBEC 204, that the amount of solatium is included in the amount of compensation and, therefore, interest should be Imposed on whole aggregate amount of compensation awarded.
9. The reference court under issue Nos. 3 and 4 negatived the claim of the claimant for grant of solatium at the rate of 30% with interest at the rate of 9% on the short ground that the matter is under consideration before Supreme Court. It has been further observed that if ultimately the matter is decided in favour of the claimant it is open to the claimant to apply for review. Now the position has been set at rest by Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions. Therefore, 30% solatium and enhanced interest at the rate of 9% for the first year and at the rate of 12% for the subsequent period from the date of taking possession, i.e., 11.3.1976 till the date of actual deposit or payment of compensation amount is also awarded. However, the appellant shall not be entitled for additional compensation under Section 23(1A) of the Act.
10. In the result appeal succeeds and is allowed, as indicated above, with cost.