Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Orai District, Jalaun Through Its Secretary Vs. Amar Singh and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- section 3 & punjab scheduled roads and controlled areas restriction of unregulated development rules, rule 26(f): [tarun chatterjee & v.s. sirpurkar, jj] maintenance of green belt imposition of condition as to, on land owner for releasing acquired land held, though act does not explicitly require maintenance of green belt, nodal agency can decide how much is needed for maintenance of green belt within reasonable bounds. it is need based decision to be taken by nodal agency according to growing economic demands. section 4 & punjab scheduled roads and controlled areas restriction of unregulated development act, section 3 & punjab scheduled roads & controlled areas restrictions of unregulated development rules, rule 26 (f): [tarun chatterje & v.s.sirpurkar, jj] acquisition of lands for industrialisation release of land - deviation from procedural guidelines - high power committee recommended release of land belonging to company as need for industrialisation had been fulfilled deviation from procedural guidelines was for justifiable reason held, release of adjoining land of respondents/private persons by applying same yardstick was proper. however, condition imposed on respondents/private persons of maintenance of green belt of their land up to 50 meters will be an unnecessary burden on them and therefore modified. - 4. it is now well settled legal position that when the award itself under section 26 was passed by the reference court on january 10, 1979, the high court was obviously in error in awarding the additional amount under the amendment act 68 of 1984 as per section 23(2), proviso to section 28 and section 23(1-a) enhancing solatiurr to 30%, interest @9% for one year and @15% thereafter from the date of taking possession on enhanced compensation and additional amount @12% per annum from the date of the notification till the date of taking possession or award, whichever is earlier.order1. leave granted.2. though the notice was issued, neither the acknowledgment nor the unserved cover has been received from the second respondent. the first respondent is appearing through the counsel.3. we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the first respondent. a notification under section 4(1) of the land acquisition act 1894 was published on march 1, 1973. the award of the collector was made on 15th october, 197s. on reference under section 18, the civil court enhanced the compensation on january 30, 1975. on july 9, 1981, the appeal filed by the state was dismissed confirming the compensation @ rs. 10,000/- per acre. subsequently, the claimant's appeal was disposed of on august 24, 1987 with enhancement of the solatium and interest and also the additional amount under section 23(2), proviso to section 28 and section 23(1-a) respectively. in march 1990, application under section 151, cpc filed by the appellant for correction of the award granted by the high court was dismissed on may, 1994. thus, this appeal by special leave.4. it is now well settled legal position that when the award itself under section 26 was passed by the reference court on january 10, 1979, the high court was obviously in error in awarding the additional amount under the amendment act 68 of 1984 as per section 23(2), proviso to section 28 and section 23(1-a) enhancing solatiurr to 30%, interest @ 9% for one year and @ 15% thereafter from the date of taking possession on enhanced compensation and additional amount @ 12% per annum from the date of the notification till the date of taking possession or award, whichever is earlier. in these circumstances, the high court was obviously in error in granting those additional amounts. when an application under section 151, cpc was filed, the high court ought to have corrected its mistake, but instead it dismissed it under these circumstances, we hold that the claimants are not entitled to the aforesaid benefits; instead, they are entitled to the interest @ 6% on the enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession of the land till the date of deposit and solatium at 15% on the enhanced compensation.5. the appeal is accordingly allowed, but without costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. Though the notice was issued, neither the acknowledgment nor the unserved cover has been received from the second respondent. The first respondent is appearing through the counsel.

3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the first respondent. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was published on March 1, 1973. The award of the Collector was made on 15th October, 197S. On reference under Section 18, the Civil Court enhanced the compensation on January 30, 1975. On July 9, 1981, the appeal filed by the State was dismissed confirming the compensation @ Rs. 10,000/- per acre. Subsequently, the claimant's appeal was disposed of on August 24, 1987 with enhancement of the solatium and interest and also the additional amount under Section 23(2), proviso to Section 28 and Section 23(1-A) respectively. In March 1990, application under Section 151, CPC filed by the appellant for correction of the award granted by the High Court was dismissed on May, 1994. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

4. It is now well settled legal position that when the award itself under Section 26 was passed by the reference Court on January 10, 1979, the High Court was obviously in error in awarding the additional amount under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 as per Section 23(2), proviso to Section 28 and Section 23(1-A) enhancing solatiurr to 30%, interest @ 9% for one year and @ 15% thereafter from the date of taking possession on enhanced compensation and additional amount @ 12% per annum from the date of the notification till the date of taking possession or award, whichever is earlier. In these circumstances, the High Court was obviously in error in granting those additional amounts. When an application under Section 151, CPC was filed, the High Court ought to have corrected its mistake, but instead it dismissed it Under these circumstances, we hold that the claimants are not entitled to the aforesaid benefits; instead, they are entitled to the interest @ 6% on the enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession of the land till the date of deposit and solatium at 15% on the enhanced compensation.

5. The appeal is accordingly allowed, but without costs.