L.A.Act - Sec.28, 23 ( 1A) - the provisions of Section 23(1A) of the L.A. Act are mandatory and the claimants-appellants are entitled to 12% enhanced compensation for the period commencing from the date of publication of Notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act. The High Court also failed to appreciate that the appellants are entitled to interest @ 15% per annum as contemplated under proviso to Section 28 of the L.A. Act as the compensation was paid after the expiry of period of one year. =
The Reference Court awarded enhanced compensation but such amount was
deposited in the Court after the date of expiry of period of one year. In
the circumstances, we hold that the appellants are also entitled to
interest @ 15% per annum under proviso to Section 28 of the L.A. Act.
18. The High Court failed to notice that the provisions of Section 23(1A)
of the L.A. Act are mandatory and the claimants-appellants are entitled to
12% enhanced compensation for the period commencing from the date of
publication of Notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act. The High Court
also failed to appreciate that the appellants are entitled to interest @
15% per annum as contemplated under proviso to Section 28 of the L.A. Act
as the compensation was paid after the expiry of period of one year.
19. The High Court instead of dismissing the review petition ought to
have condoned the delay, reason of which was sufficiently explained by
appellant and ought to have allowed the revision application in favour of
the appellant.
20. In view of the findings recorded above, we set aside the part of the
impugned judgment dated 16th July, 2005 so far as it relates to payment of
compensation for the land, uphold the award passed by the Reference Court
to the extent above and direct the respondents to pay 12% enhanced
compensation in terms of Section 23(1A) and another 15% interest in terms
of proviso to Section 28 of the L.A. Act as ordered above within three
months..
21. The appeals are allowed with the aforesaid observations and
directions. There shall be no order as to costs.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. OF 2014
(@ out of SLP (C) Nos.36299-36303/2010)
JAI KRISHAN (D) Thr. LRs. … APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J
Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 16th
July, 2005 passed by the High Court of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand) at
Nainital in first Appeal No. 56 of 2001 (Old No.325/1995). By the impugned
judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court partly allowed the appeal
preferred by the State of U.P., set aside part of the judgment and award
dated 23rd March, 1995 passed by the Reference Court.
3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:
A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was
issued on 14th September, 1977 for the purpose of acquiring land measuring
36 acres situated at Glenmire Estate, cosycot and cosynook in Mussoorie.
The acquisition was so made for the purpose of extension of Lal Bahadur
Shastri National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie. Thereafter follow
up Notification under Section 6 of the L.A.Act was issued on 30th January,
1978 which was also published. The possession of the land was taken over on
3rd July, 1986. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, after hearing the
parties passed the award on 27th November, 1984 determining the amount of
compensation at Rs.4,89,615.75.
4. Col. Jai Krishan (since deceased) represented by Lrs.
(appellant herein) and Mahesh Chandra- respondent no.8, got filed
reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. The said reference No.
L.A.154 of 1985 heard by the Additional District Judge, Dehradun. The
aforesaid claimants alleged before the Reference Court that considering the
fact that Mussoorie is a famous tourist place, its land is of immense
potential value, the market value of the land in question is Rs.25 lakh per
acre. As such they claimed compensation for 36 acres of acquired land. They
further claimed that the value of the constructed building cannot be
assessed less than Rs. 100/- per sq. feet and, therefore, considering the
plinth area of 3786 sq. feet of Glenmire building, 2528 sq. ft. of Cosynook
building and other construction, the valuation should be Rs.6,31,400/- and
after deducting the amount on account of depreciation factor the value of
building is Rs. 4,73,550/-. There were 6990 trees on the aforesaid 36
acres of land. The claimants also submitted before the reference court that
considering the fact that value of the trees which has been assessed @
Rs.15/- per tree, should have been at least Rs.50/- per tree. In reply, the
stand of the State of U.P. was that the claimants have already claimed
Rs.7,50,000/- as compensation for the acquired land and as such they are
not entitled to claim any amount more than that. It was further pleaded
that the land being sloppy and uneven as such it cannot be assessed more
than Rs.5,000/- per acre. The respondents based their claim on the basis of
the rate shown in exemplar sale deed dated 26th December, 1976.
5. The Reference Court after framing necessary issues, taking into
consideration the evidence and hearing the parties enhanced the amount of
compensation of land from Rs.1,80,000/- to Rs.19,76,000/- and that of trees
from Rs.1,05,155.50 to Rs.4,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the order passed by the
Reference Court the State and Union of India preferred the appeal.
6. The Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court by the impugned judgment
dated 16th July, 2005 applied the principle of Belting area on following
presumption:
“No doubt that Mussoorie is an important tourist place and its land is of
immense potential value but simultaneously it is also true that the land in
Mussoorie is sloppy and hilly. As such for assessing a true market value
that flat rate, for entire land of 36 acres, cannot be applied.”
7. The claimants also claimed 12% additional compensation u/s 23(1A) of
the L.A. Act, which the Court below had not granted. The claimants also
claimed that they were entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 7,01,875/- towards
Fuel value/Timber value of the tree standing on the acquired land as
approved by the retired Forest Ranger. They also pleaded that the
compensation having been paid after more than one year from the date on
which possession was taken, they are entitled for interest @ 15% per annum
as provided under proviso to Section 28 of the L.A. Act. Such claim was
made by the appellant and another by means of cross-objections. However,
the High Court without deliberating on such issues as raised in the cross
objections passed the impugned judgment. In the circumstances, the
appellant and another preferred Review Petition No. 87 of 2005 before the
High Court with a petition for condonation of delay.
8. The impugned judgment was delivered on 16th July, 2005 and a review
petition was filed on 15th September, 2005 i.e. after 30 days delay. The
appellant and another took specific plea that their lawyer used to come
from Allahabad to Nainital who when came to know about the judgment,
applied for the certified copy of it on 4th August, 2005 which was
delivered on 9th August, 2005. Thereafter sometime was taken to file the
review petition. The High Court dismissed the petition for condonation of
delay and review petition on the ground of non-prosecution. The restoration
petition filed by the appellant was also dismissed.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court
wrongly applied the principle of belting area. The 36 acres of land is
adjacent to the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration.
Mussoorie and is located at tourist spot. He further contended that the
appellants were entitled for 12% additional compensation u/s 23(1A) in
addition 15% solatium u/s 28 of the L.A.Act in view of delayed payment of
compensation after more than one year. The stand of the learned counsel for
the respondent-State is that the High Court rightly applied the principle
of belting area as the land is sloppy and uneven.
10. As noticed above, the High Court noticed that Mussoorie is an
important tourist place and it is the land of immense potential value. But
without any basis or pleadings, the High Court presumed that total land in
Mussoorie is sloppy and hilly. The High Court though noticed the exemplar
sale-deed dated 31.3.1977 (paper no. 17-C) which shows the market value of
the land at Rs. 54,896/- per acre and the said sale-deed pertains to the
land nearer to the Lal Bahadur Sastri National Academy. But without any
basis, the High Court observed as under:
“We are of the view that the rate mentioned in this sale-deed cannot be
applied as exemplar for entire land acquired. Value of the land cannot be
said to be same for all the 36 acres acquired as part of the land would be
nearer to it and part of it would be a far.”
The aforesaid observation made by the Division Bench of the High
Court is not based on any evidence but on presumption and surmises. It
cannot be a ground that the Mussoorie is a hilly place and therefore the
principle of Belting area is to be applied. It was not the case of the
State of U.P. that in all land acquisition proceedings in Mussoorie the
principle of Belting area is applied. In this background on mere
presumption it was not open to the High Court to apply principle of belting
area for determination of compensation. The High Court has also accepted
that the market value of the land in question is Rs. 54,896/- per acre as
decided by the Reference Court; therefore in absence of any pleading on the
part of State of U.P. it was not open for the High Court to apply the
principle of belting area.
11. It has not been disputed that the site of new town of the acquired
land is almost at the same elevation as Mussoorie as it has been developed
as a Hill resort and has immense potential value. It is adjacent to the Lal
Bahadur Shastri National Academy, which is the beneficiary of such
acquisition.
12. For the reason aforesaid, the part of the impugned judgment dated
16th July, 2005 passed by the High Court in so for as it relates to the
valuation of land is set aside and the award passed by the Revisional Court
under Section 18 is upheld.
13. The provisions of Section 23(1A) of the L.A. Act mandate as follows:
“23 Matters to be considered in determining compensation. — (1) In
determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired
under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration
first, the market value of the land at the date of the publication of
the notification under section 4, sub-section (1);
secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the
taking of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time
of the Collector's taking possession thereof;
thirdly, the damage (if any), sustained by the person interested, at the
time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of
severing such land from his other land;
fourthly, the damage (if any), sustained by the person interested, at the
time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the
acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable,
in any other manner, or his earnings;
fifthly, if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the
Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or
place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such
change; and
sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of the
profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration
under section 6 and the time of the Collector's taking possession of the
land.
[(1A) In addition to the market-value of the land, as above provided, the
Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve
per cent per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and
from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, sub-
Section (1), in respect of such land to the date of award to the Collector
or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier.”
Explanation- In computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any
period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the
land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any
Court shall be excluded.]”
14. In Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 457 this Court
noticed the claim which envisages award of compensation at different
stages. In all the stages, it is necessary to take note of the provisions
of Sections 23(1) and 23(1-A). In Gurpreet Singh (supra) this Court held as
under:
“32. In the scheme of the Act, it is seen that the award of compensation is
at different stages. The first stage occurs when the award is passed.
Obviously, the award takes in all the amounts contemplated by Section
23(1), Section 23(1-A), Section 23(2) and the interest contemplated by
Section 34 of the Act. The whole of that amount is paid or deposited by the
Collector in [pic]terms of Section 31 of the Act. At this stage, no
shortfall in deposit is contemplated, since the Collector has to pay or
deposit the amount awarded by him. If a shortfall is pointed out, it may
have to be made up at that stage and the principle of appropriation may
apply, though it is difficult to contemplate a partial deposit at that
stage. On the deposit by the Collector under Section 31 of the Act, the
first stage comes to an end subject to the right of the claimant to notice
of the deposit and withdrawal or acceptance of the amount with or without
protest.
33. The second stage occurs on a reference under Section 18 of the Act.
When the Reference Court awards enhanced compensation, it has necessarily
to take note of the enhanced amounts payable under Section 23(1), Section
23(1-A), Section 23(2) and interest on the enhanced amount as provided in
Section 28 of the Act and costs in terms of Section 27. The Collector has
the duty to deposit these amounts pursuant to the deemed decree thus
passed. This has nothing to do with the earlier deposit made or to be made
under and after the award. If the deposit made, falls short of the
enhancement decreed, there can arise the question of appropriation at that
stage, in relation to the amount enhanced on the reference.”
In view of the decision in Gurpreet Singh(Supra), we hold that the
claimants are entitled to additional compensation @ 12% per annum as
provided u/s 23(1A) of the L.A. Act.
15. Section 28 of the L.A. Act deals with interest payable on excess
compensation which reads as under:
“28. Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess compensation.-
—If the sum which, in the opinion of the Court, the Collector ought to have
awarded as compensation is in excess of the sum which the Collector did
award as compensation, the award of the Court may direct that the Collector
shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of 67 [nine per centum] per
annum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of
payment of such excess into Court:
[Provided that the award of the Court may also direct that where such
excess or any part thereof is paid into Court after the date of expiry of a
period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at
the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable 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 Court before the date of such
expiry.].”
16. In Sunder vs. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 211 this Court held that
the interested persons are also interested on amount of solatium. The Court
further observed as under:
“15. When the court is of the opinion that the Collector should have
awarded a larger sum as compensation the court has to direct the Collector
to pay interest on such excess amount. The rate of interest is on a par
with the rate indicated in Section 34. This is so provided in Section 28 of
the Act. x x x x x x”
In Gurpreet Singh (supra) the reasons in this regard was explained as
under:
“54. One other question also was sought to be raised and answered by this
Bench though not referred to it. Considering that the question arises in
various cases pending in courts all over the country, we permitted the
counsel to address us on that question. That question is whether in the
light of the decision in Sunder(supra) the awardee/decree-holder would be
entitled to claim interest on solatium in execution though it is not
specifically granted by the decree. It is well settled that an execution
court cannot go behind the decree. If, therefore, the claim for interest on
solatium had been made and the same has been negatived either expressly or
by necessary implication by the judgment or decree of the Reference Court
or of the appellate court, the execution court will have necessarily to
reject the claim for interest on solatium based on Sunder(Supra) on the
ground that the execution court cannot go behind the decree. But if the
award of the Reference Court or that of the appellate court does not
specifically refer to the question of interest on solatium or in cases
where claim had not been made and rejected either expressly or impliedly by
the Reference Court or the appellate court, and merely interest on
compensation is awarded, then it would be open to the execution court to
apply the ratio of Sunder(supra) and say that the compensation awarded
includes solatium and in such an event interest on the amount could be
directed to be deposited in execution. Otherwise, not. We also clarify that
such interest on solatium can be claimed only in pending executions and not
in closed executions and the execution court will be entitled to permit its
recovery from the date of the judgment in Sunder (Supra)(19-9-2001) and not
for any prior period. We also clarify that this will not entail any
reappropriation or fresh appropriation by the decree-holder. This we have
indicated by way of clarification also in exercise of our power under
Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India with a view to avoid
multiplicity of litigation on this question.”
The aforesaid principle has also been followed by this Court in
Chhanga Singh and Another vs. Union of India and Another (2012) 5 SCC 763.
17. The Reference Court awarded enhanced compensation but such amount was
deposited in the Court after the date of expiry of period of one year. In
the circumstances, we hold that the appellants are also entitled to
interest @ 15% per annum under proviso to Section 28 of the L.A. Act.
18. The High Court failed to notice that the provisions of Section 23(1A)
of the L.A. Act are mandatory and the claimants-appellants are entitled to
12% enhanced compensation for the period commencing from the date of
publication of Notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act. The High Court
also failed to appreciate that the appellants are entitled to interest @
15% per annum as contemplated under proviso to Section 28 of the L.A. Act
as the compensation was paid after the expiry of period of one year.
19. The High Court instead of dismissing the review petition ought to
have condoned the delay, reason of which was sufficiently explained by
appellant and ought to have allowed the revision application in favour of
the appellant.
20. In view of the findings recorded above, we set aside the part of the
impugned judgment dated 16th July, 2005 so far as it relates to payment of
compensation for the land, uphold the award passed by the Reference Court
to the extent above and direct the respondents to pay 12% enhanced
compensation in terms of Section 23(1A) and another 15% interest in terms
of proviso to Section 28 of the L.A. Act as ordered above within three
months..
21. The appeals are allowed with the aforesaid observations and
directions. There shall be no order as to costs.
…………………………………………J.
(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
…………………………………………J.
(DIPAK MISRA)
NEW DELHI,
JULY 01, 2014.
ITEM NO.1G COURT NO.6 SECTION X
(For Judgment)
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). …............/2014
(@SLP (C) No 36299-36303/2010
JAI KRISHAN(D) TR.LRS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 01/07/2014 These appeals were called on for pronouncement
of Judgment today.
For Appellant(s) Mr. Mohit D. Ram ,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mrs. Anil Katiyar ,Adv.
Mr. Saurabh Trivedi ,Adv.
Mr. Rahul Narayan ,Adv.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya pronounced the
reportable judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Dipak Misra.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed reportable judgment.
(MEENAKSHI KOHLI) (USHA SHARMA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
[Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file]
The Reference Court awarded enhanced compensation but such amount was
deposited in the Court after the date of expiry of period of one year. In
the circumstances, we hold that the appellants are also entitled to
interest @ 15% per annum under proviso to Section 28 of the L.A. Act.
18. The High Court failed to notice that the provisions of Section 23(1A)
of the L.A. Act are mandatory and the claimants-appellants are entitled to
12% enhanced compensation for the period commencing from the date of
publication of Notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act. The High Court
also failed to appreciate that the appellants are entitled to interest @
15% per annum as contemplated under proviso to Section 28 of the L.A. Act
as the compensation was paid after the expiry of period of one year.
19. The High Court instead of dismissing the review petition ought to
have condoned the delay, reason of which was sufficiently explained by
appellant and ought to have allowed the revision application in favour of
the appellant.
20. In view of the findings recorded above, we set aside the part of the
impugned judgment dated 16th July, 2005 so far as it relates to payment of
compensation for the land, uphold the award passed by the Reference Court
to the extent above and direct the respondents to pay 12% enhanced
compensation in terms of Section 23(1A) and another 15% interest in terms
of proviso to Section 28 of the L.A. Act as ordered above within three
months..
21. The appeals are allowed with the aforesaid observations and
directions. There shall be no order as to costs.
2014 - July. Part - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41721
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. OF 2014
(@ out of SLP (C) Nos.36299-36303/2010)
JAI KRISHAN (D) Thr. LRs. … APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J
Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 16th
July, 2005 passed by the High Court of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand) at
Nainital in first Appeal No. 56 of 2001 (Old No.325/1995). By the impugned
judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court partly allowed the appeal
preferred by the State of U.P., set aside part of the judgment and award
dated 23rd March, 1995 passed by the Reference Court.
3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:
A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was
issued on 14th September, 1977 for the purpose of acquiring land measuring
36 acres situated at Glenmire Estate, cosycot and cosynook in Mussoorie.
The acquisition was so made for the purpose of extension of Lal Bahadur
Shastri National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie. Thereafter follow
up Notification under Section 6 of the L.A.Act was issued on 30th January,
1978 which was also published. The possession of the land was taken over on
3rd July, 1986. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, after hearing the
parties passed the award on 27th November, 1984 determining the amount of
compensation at Rs.4,89,615.75.
4. Col. Jai Krishan (since deceased) represented by Lrs.
(appellant herein) and Mahesh Chandra- respondent no.8, got filed
reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. The said reference No.
L.A.154 of 1985 heard by the Additional District Judge, Dehradun. The
aforesaid claimants alleged before the Reference Court that considering the
fact that Mussoorie is a famous tourist place, its land is of immense
potential value, the market value of the land in question is Rs.25 lakh per
acre. As such they claimed compensation for 36 acres of acquired land. They
further claimed that the value of the constructed building cannot be
assessed less than Rs. 100/- per sq. feet and, therefore, considering the
plinth area of 3786 sq. feet of Glenmire building, 2528 sq. ft. of Cosynook
building and other construction, the valuation should be Rs.6,31,400/- and
after deducting the amount on account of depreciation factor the value of
building is Rs. 4,73,550/-. There were 6990 trees on the aforesaid 36
acres of land. The claimants also submitted before the reference court that
considering the fact that value of the trees which has been assessed @
Rs.15/- per tree, should have been at least Rs.50/- per tree. In reply, the
stand of the State of U.P. was that the claimants have already claimed
Rs.7,50,000/- as compensation for the acquired land and as such they are
not entitled to claim any amount more than that. It was further pleaded
that the land being sloppy and uneven as such it cannot be assessed more
than Rs.5,000/- per acre. The respondents based their claim on the basis of
the rate shown in exemplar sale deed dated 26th December, 1976.
5. The Reference Court after framing necessary issues, taking into
consideration the evidence and hearing the parties enhanced the amount of
compensation of land from Rs.1,80,000/- to Rs.19,76,000/- and that of trees
from Rs.1,05,155.50 to Rs.4,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the order passed by the
Reference Court the State and Union of India preferred the appeal.
6. The Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court by the impugned judgment
dated 16th July, 2005 applied the principle of Belting area on following
presumption:
“No doubt that Mussoorie is an important tourist place and its land is of
immense potential value but simultaneously it is also true that the land in
Mussoorie is sloppy and hilly. As such for assessing a true market value
that flat rate, for entire land of 36 acres, cannot be applied.”
7. The claimants also claimed 12% additional compensation u/s 23(1A) of
the L.A. Act, which the Court below had not granted. The claimants also
claimed that they were entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 7,01,875/- towards
Fuel value/Timber value of the tree standing on the acquired land as
approved by the retired Forest Ranger. They also pleaded that the
compensation having been paid after more than one year from the date on
which possession was taken, they are entitled for interest @ 15% per annum
as provided under proviso to Section 28 of the L.A. Act. Such claim was
made by the appellant and another by means of cross-objections. However,
the High Court without deliberating on such issues as raised in the cross
objections passed the impugned judgment. In the circumstances, the
appellant and another preferred Review Petition No. 87 of 2005 before the
High Court with a petition for condonation of delay.
8. The impugned judgment was delivered on 16th July, 2005 and a review
petition was filed on 15th September, 2005 i.e. after 30 days delay. The
appellant and another took specific plea that their lawyer used to come
from Allahabad to Nainital who when came to know about the judgment,
applied for the certified copy of it on 4th August, 2005 which was
delivered on 9th August, 2005. Thereafter sometime was taken to file the
review petition. The High Court dismissed the petition for condonation of
delay and review petition on the ground of non-prosecution. The restoration
petition filed by the appellant was also dismissed.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court
wrongly applied the principle of belting area. The 36 acres of land is
adjacent to the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration.
Mussoorie and is located at tourist spot. He further contended that the
appellants were entitled for 12% additional compensation u/s 23(1A) in
addition 15% solatium u/s 28 of the L.A.Act in view of delayed payment of
compensation after more than one year. The stand of the learned counsel for
the respondent-State is that the High Court rightly applied the principle
of belting area as the land is sloppy and uneven.
10. As noticed above, the High Court noticed that Mussoorie is an
important tourist place and it is the land of immense potential value. But
without any basis or pleadings, the High Court presumed that total land in
Mussoorie is sloppy and hilly. The High Court though noticed the exemplar
sale-deed dated 31.3.1977 (paper no. 17-C) which shows the market value of
the land at Rs. 54,896/- per acre and the said sale-deed pertains to the
land nearer to the Lal Bahadur Sastri National Academy. But without any
basis, the High Court observed as under:
“We are of the view that the rate mentioned in this sale-deed cannot be
applied as exemplar for entire land acquired. Value of the land cannot be
said to be same for all the 36 acres acquired as part of the land would be
nearer to it and part of it would be a far.”
The aforesaid observation made by the Division Bench of the High
Court is not based on any evidence but on presumption and surmises. It
cannot be a ground that the Mussoorie is a hilly place and therefore the
principle of Belting area is to be applied. It was not the case of the
State of U.P. that in all land acquisition proceedings in Mussoorie the
principle of Belting area is applied. In this background on mere
presumption it was not open to the High Court to apply principle of belting
area for determination of compensation. The High Court has also accepted
that the market value of the land in question is Rs. 54,896/- per acre as
decided by the Reference Court; therefore in absence of any pleading on the
part of State of U.P. it was not open for the High Court to apply the
principle of belting area.
11. It has not been disputed that the site of new town of the acquired
land is almost at the same elevation as Mussoorie as it has been developed
as a Hill resort and has immense potential value. It is adjacent to the Lal
Bahadur Shastri National Academy, which is the beneficiary of such
acquisition.
12. For the reason aforesaid, the part of the impugned judgment dated
16th July, 2005 passed by the High Court in so for as it relates to the
valuation of land is set aside and the award passed by the Revisional Court
under Section 18 is upheld.
13. The provisions of Section 23(1A) of the L.A. Act mandate as follows:
“23 Matters to be considered in determining compensation. — (1) In
determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired
under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration
first, the market value of the land at the date of the publication of
the notification under section 4, sub-section (1);
secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the
taking of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time
of the Collector's taking possession thereof;
thirdly, the damage (if any), sustained by the person interested, at the
time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of
severing such land from his other land;
fourthly, the damage (if any), sustained by the person interested, at the
time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the
acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable,
in any other manner, or his earnings;
fifthly, if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the
Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or
place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such
change; and
sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of the
profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration
under section 6 and the time of the Collector's taking possession of the
land.
[(1A) In addition to the market-value of the land, as above provided, the
Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve
per cent per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and
from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, sub-
Section (1), in respect of such land to the date of award to the Collector
or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier.”
Explanation- In computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any
period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the
land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any
Court shall be excluded.]”
14. In Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 457 this Court
noticed the claim which envisages award of compensation at different
stages. In all the stages, it is necessary to take note of the provisions
of Sections 23(1) and 23(1-A). In Gurpreet Singh (supra) this Court held as
under:
“32. In the scheme of the Act, it is seen that the award of compensation is
at different stages. The first stage occurs when the award is passed.
Obviously, the award takes in all the amounts contemplated by Section
23(1), Section 23(1-A), Section 23(2) and the interest contemplated by
Section 34 of the Act. The whole of that amount is paid or deposited by the
Collector in [pic]terms of Section 31 of the Act. At this stage, no
shortfall in deposit is contemplated, since the Collector has to pay or
deposit the amount awarded by him. If a shortfall is pointed out, it may
have to be made up at that stage and the principle of appropriation may
apply, though it is difficult to contemplate a partial deposit at that
stage. On the deposit by the Collector under Section 31 of the Act, the
first stage comes to an end subject to the right of the claimant to notice
of the deposit and withdrawal or acceptance of the amount with or without
protest.
33. The second stage occurs on a reference under Section 18 of the Act.
When the Reference Court awards enhanced compensation, it has necessarily
to take note of the enhanced amounts payable under Section 23(1), Section
23(1-A), Section 23(2) and interest on the enhanced amount as provided in
Section 28 of the Act and costs in terms of Section 27. The Collector has
the duty to deposit these amounts pursuant to the deemed decree thus
passed. This has nothing to do with the earlier deposit made or to be made
under and after the award. If the deposit made, falls short of the
enhancement decreed, there can arise the question of appropriation at that
stage, in relation to the amount enhanced on the reference.”
In view of the decision in Gurpreet Singh(Supra), we hold that the
claimants are entitled to additional compensation @ 12% per annum as
provided u/s 23(1A) of the L.A. Act.
15. Section 28 of the L.A. Act deals with interest payable on excess
compensation which reads as under:
“28. Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess compensation.-
—If the sum which, in the opinion of the Court, the Collector ought to have
awarded as compensation is in excess of the sum which the Collector did
award as compensation, the award of the Court may direct that the Collector
shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of 67 [nine per centum] per
annum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of
payment of such excess into Court:
[Provided that the award of the Court may also direct that where such
excess or any part thereof is paid into Court after the date of expiry of a
period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at
the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable 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 Court before the date of such
expiry.].”
16. In Sunder vs. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 211 this Court held that
the interested persons are also interested on amount of solatium. The Court
further observed as under:
“15. When the court is of the opinion that the Collector should have
awarded a larger sum as compensation the court has to direct the Collector
to pay interest on such excess amount. The rate of interest is on a par
with the rate indicated in Section 34. This is so provided in Section 28 of
the Act. x x x x x x”
In Gurpreet Singh (supra) the reasons in this regard was explained as
under:
“54. One other question also was sought to be raised and answered by this
Bench though not referred to it. Considering that the question arises in
various cases pending in courts all over the country, we permitted the
counsel to address us on that question. That question is whether in the
light of the decision in Sunder(supra) the awardee/decree-holder would be
entitled to claim interest on solatium in execution though it is not
specifically granted by the decree. It is well settled that an execution
court cannot go behind the decree. If, therefore, the claim for interest on
solatium had been made and the same has been negatived either expressly or
by necessary implication by the judgment or decree of the Reference Court
or of the appellate court, the execution court will have necessarily to
reject the claim for interest on solatium based on Sunder(Supra) on the
ground that the execution court cannot go behind the decree. But if the
award of the Reference Court or that of the appellate court does not
specifically refer to the question of interest on solatium or in cases
where claim had not been made and rejected either expressly or impliedly by
the Reference Court or the appellate court, and merely interest on
compensation is awarded, then it would be open to the execution court to
apply the ratio of Sunder(supra) and say that the compensation awarded
includes solatium and in such an event interest on the amount could be
directed to be deposited in execution. Otherwise, not. We also clarify that
such interest on solatium can be claimed only in pending executions and not
in closed executions and the execution court will be entitled to permit its
recovery from the date of the judgment in Sunder (Supra)(19-9-2001) and not
for any prior period. We also clarify that this will not entail any
reappropriation or fresh appropriation by the decree-holder. This we have
indicated by way of clarification also in exercise of our power under
Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India with a view to avoid
multiplicity of litigation on this question.”
The aforesaid principle has also been followed by this Court in
Chhanga Singh and Another vs. Union of India and Another (2012) 5 SCC 763.
17. The Reference Court awarded enhanced compensation but such amount was
deposited in the Court after the date of expiry of period of one year. In
the circumstances, we hold that the appellants are also entitled to
interest @ 15% per annum under proviso to Section 28 of the L.A. Act.
18. The High Court failed to notice that the provisions of Section 23(1A)
of the L.A. Act are mandatory and the claimants-appellants are entitled to
12% enhanced compensation for the period commencing from the date of
publication of Notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act. The High Court
also failed to appreciate that the appellants are entitled to interest @
15% per annum as contemplated under proviso to Section 28 of the L.A. Act
as the compensation was paid after the expiry of period of one year.
19. The High Court instead of dismissing the review petition ought to
have condoned the delay, reason of which was sufficiently explained by
appellant and ought to have allowed the revision application in favour of
the appellant.
20. In view of the findings recorded above, we set aside the part of the
impugned judgment dated 16th July, 2005 so far as it relates to payment of
compensation for the land, uphold the award passed by the Reference Court
to the extent above and direct the respondents to pay 12% enhanced
compensation in terms of Section 23(1A) and another 15% interest in terms
of proviso to Section 28 of the L.A. Act as ordered above within three
months..
21. The appeals are allowed with the aforesaid observations and
directions. There shall be no order as to costs.
…………………………………………J.
(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
…………………………………………J.
(DIPAK MISRA)
NEW DELHI,
JULY 01, 2014.
ITEM NO.1G COURT NO.6 SECTION X
(For Judgment)
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). …............/2014
(@SLP (C) No 36299-36303/2010
JAI KRISHAN(D) TR.LRS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 01/07/2014 These appeals were called on for pronouncement
of Judgment today.
For Appellant(s) Mr. Mohit D. Ram ,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mrs. Anil Katiyar ,Adv.
Mr. Saurabh Trivedi ,Adv.
Mr. Rahul Narayan ,Adv.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya pronounced the
reportable judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Dipak Misra.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed reportable judgment.
(MEENAKSHI KOHLI) (USHA SHARMA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
[Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file]
