S.U. Khan, J.
1. An area of 510.55 acres of land situate in village Nauraiya Khera, district Kanpur, including 28 bighas, 16 biswas Bhumidhari land of the appellant was acquired for Kalyanpur-Panki-Pandu and green belt scheme No. 40. Preliminary notification was issued in the year 1959 under Kanpur Urban Area Development Act, 1945. However, in view of Section 577 of Nagar Maha Palika Adhiniyam, 1959, as interpreted in AIR 1974 SC 1202, the market value has to be assessed as on 1.2.1960, the date on which the Nagar Maha Palika Adhiniyam came in force.
2. Land Acquisition Officer gave award with regard to the acquired land on 21.7.1965 in award No. 141. Through the said award Land Acquisition Officer divided the entire acquired land, into three belts. The first belt consisted of the land falling within one furlong (220 yards) from Kalpi Road, a national highway, the second consisted of the land lying within one furlong on the eastern side of the canal road and the third belt consisted of the land lying beyond one furlong from the two roads.
3. Different rates for the lands lying in the three belts for the purpose of market value, were determined by the Land Acquisition Officer and the amount thus determined along with their benefits was offered as compensation.
4. On reference (being Reference No. 307 of 1971), the learned Presiding Officer of Nagar Mahapallka, Tribunal, held the principle of belting adopted by Land Acquisition Officer to be quite rational. It appear that in another case, relating to acquisition of the land of the same village. High Court had awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 2 per square yard or Rs. 4,900 per bigha. The learned Presiding Officer, following the said judgment of the High Court, had earlier decided some references including Reference No. 299 of 1971 Shankar v. State of U. P. and had determined the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 5,500 per bigha in first belt, Rs. 4,400 per bigha in the second belt and Rs. 3,000 per bigha for the third belt. In the impugned judgment also learned Presiding Officer adopted the same market value. The land of the appellant being situate in the third belt has been determined by the learned Presiding Officer of Tribunal, to have market value at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per bigha.
5. The Tribunal awarded additional damages for delayed award under Section 48A of the Land Acquisition Act, inserted in it by Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam. The damages for belt A was determined to be Rs. 3,000 per bigha, for belt B Rs. 2,640 per bigha and for third category Rs. 1,800 per bigha. Strangely enough, the Tribunal curtailed the amount of damages to the extent of 60% on the ground of largeness of the area while no such cut was applied, while determining the market value of the land on 1.2.1960, the date on which the preliminary notification is deemed to have been published.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the belting system adopted by Land Acquisition Officer and the Tribunal is not proper. The argument of the learned counsel is quite sound. The Supreme Court in various judgments has held that when large area is acquired, uniform rate must be awarded. [See U. P. Avas Vikas Parishad v. Zainul Islam, AIR 1998 SC 1028 ; Land Acquisition Officer v. Smt. L. Kamalamma, AIR 1998 SC 781 ; K. Bhikabal v. S.L.O., AIR 2002 SC 1105 ; Kanwar, Singh v. Union of India, 1999 (1) AWC 784 (SC) : AIR 1999 SC 317 ; Ram Piyari v. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1996 SC 3140 ; Karari Singh, v. Union of India, 1997 (Supp) AWC 675 (SC) : AIR 1997 SC 3889 and Meharban v. State of U. P., 1998 (1) AWC 229 (SC) : 1997 (2) Land Acquisition Laws 225).
7. Supreme Court in Ex. Director v. S.C. Bisoi, AIR 2000 SC 2619, has approved the belting system only in case of agricultural and barren land depending upon the nature and quality of the land.
8. I, therefore, hold that in the facts and circumstances of the case, uniform rate of compensation should be awarded for the entire land and the formula of belting adopted by the reference court, as well as L.A.O. is not applicable. I also hold that no deduction in the instant case is warranted from the damages for delayed award.
9. Now the question is which of the three rates, awarded by the reference court should be held to be the proper rate, whether of first belt, second belt or third belt.
10. I think the best way is to adopt the rate determined for the middle belt by the reference Court.
11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The award given by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellant is entitled to the compensation, taking the market value of his land to be Rs. 7,040 per bigha. Proportionate solatium and interest is also awarded at the same rate which was allowed by the reference court.
12. No order as to costs.