1. Heard Sri Bhupeshwar Dayal, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.1.
2. These first appeals have been filed by the Meerut Development Authority being aggrieved of the order dated 09.10.2020 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No.13, Meerut in Land Acquisition Reference, filed by the land owners on different dates on the ground that, when similarly situated persons were granted compensation @ Rs.165 which include solatium and interest, then reference court was in error in granting other benefits payable under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 in favour of the claimants/land owners, which means grant of solatium over solatium. Second ground which has been raised in these first appeals is to the effect that since, an agreement was made during the pendency of the reference between the land owner and Jaswant Sugar Mill apportioning the amount of compensation in the ratio of 50:50, then when M/s. Jaswant Sugar Mill Ltd. has not approached the reference court by filing a land acquisition reference, therefore, Meerut Development Authority is required to disburse enhanced compensation only in regard to 50% of the acquired holding, belonging to the land owners on the date of the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
3. Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, on the other hand, submits that there is no error apparent in the impugned order calling for any interference and places reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Meharban and others Vs. State of U.P. and others; AIR 1997 SC 2664 and also that of Allahabad High Court in case of Meerut Development Authority Vs. Basheshwar Dayal (Dead) through L.Rs. and another; 2013 (121) RD 389.
4. It is submitted that all the references were made in relation to the land of Village-Sundra @ Putha Maliyana Kunda Ghat and Dungrawali. These lands have been acquired by the Meerut Development Authority for construction of different Offices and commercial establishments. Admittedly, reference cases were filed before the learned Additional District Judge under provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 being aggrieved of the award dated 22.10.1990, whereby, rate of land was fixed at Rs.20/- per square yard, whereas, it is the contention of the land owners that compensation should have been taken at the market rate.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that a dispute was pending before the Hon'ble High Court challenging the order of the State declaring the property in question as surplus under the provisions of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, but despite pendency of the matter before the High Court, emergency provisions as provided under Section 17 of the Act of 1894 were invoked and land was acquired for Meerut Development Authority, which is prima facie illegal, inasmuch as, Government could not have acquired land which was vested in it by virtue of it declared as surplus under the Act of 1960.
6. It has come on record that Notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 was made on 14.08.1987 and Notification under Section 6(2) was made on 14.09.1987. The land under reference was declared surplus on 30.01.1982 by the Prescribed Authority under the provisions of the Ceiling Act. Appeal against the said order was dismissed on 19.11.1986 conforming the order dated 30.01.1982 by the Prescribed Authority. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, Writ Petition No.3157 of 1987 against the said order of Appellate Court dated 19.11.1986 is still pending before the Allahabad High Court.
7. In the above backdrop, learned counsel for the appellant submits that they had also assailed the order to implead M/s. Jaswant Sugar Mill Ltd. as a party on an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. read with Section 53 of the Act of 1894.
8. Learned reference Court had framed six issues namely; (1) Whether the compensation awarded by the SLAO is inadequate?
(2) Whether the difference is hit by Section 31 of Land Acquisition Act ?
(3) To what relief, if any, is the claimant entitled ?
(4) Whether land declared under the Ceiling Act has been acquired ? If yes, then its impact ?
(5) Whether the present reference is not maintainable in the light of the applicability of the provisions of the Ceiling Act ?
(6) Whether the claim is barred by time ?"
9. For the present, only two issues have been raised namely; whether the reference court was justified in allowing solatium over the solatium, inasmuch as, rate of Rs.165/- per sq. yard, which was accepted, and on which compromise was made between certain similarly situated parties included solatium and interest, therefore, there cannot be any solatium over the solatium. Second issue, which has been raised is whether the court below was justified in allowing M/s. Jaswant Sugar Mill Ltd. to be impleaded as a party.
10. As far as second issue is concerned, it is apparent that at the instance of Meerut Development Authority, though, additional issues were framed, but this issue was not framed by the learned reference court and in any case Section 51 of the Act of 1894 deals with the applicability of the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure to the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, where there are no explicit provisions in the Act of 1894. Thus, on this analogy and also taking into consideration a fact that impleadment of M/s. Jaswant Sugar Mill Ltd. was not raised as an issue before the learned reference court, this issue is now not agitable in the first appeal. As far as issue of fixation of rate and solatium is concerned, while dealing with issue no.3, learned reference court has taken into consideration a fact that in the year 2012, some of the land owners whose land was situated in Village-Sundra @ Putha had entered into a compromise with Meerut Development Authority and, consequently Meerut Development Authority has awarded compensation to them @ Rs.165/- per sq. yard. It has also been accepted that this amount of Rs.165/- per sq. yard which was admittedly paid to the land owners by the Meerut Development Authority includes solatium and this fact was admitted by D.W.-1, Sadabrichh, who categorically placed copy of such compromise agreement on record, which demonstrates that Authority had paid a sum of Rs.165/- per sq. yard inclusive of solatium and on the basis of such analysis, the learned reference court has held that even respondents in these first appeals and the reference petitioners before the learned reference Court are entitled to compensation @ Rs.165/- per sq. yard.
11. Actual conclusion deduced in the impugned reference order is in the following terms:-
**lanHkZdrkZx.k ds bl rdZ ij foi{khx.k dks dksbZ vkifRr ugha gS fd xzke lqUnjk mQZ iwaBk] efy;kuk] dqUMk] ?kkV o Mqaxjkoyh fodkl ;kstukvksa esa tks fHkUUk&fHkUUk HkwLokfe;ksa dh tks Hkwfe;kW vftZr dh x;h Fkh esjB fodkl izkf/kdj.k }kjk lanHkZdrkZx.k dh Hkwfe;ksa ds vfrfjDr vU; lHkh HkwLokfe;ksa ds lkFk le>kSrk dj mUgsa le>kSrkukek ds vk/kkj ij [email protected]& :i;s vfrfjDr izfrdj lksysfl;e lfgr vnk dj fn;k gSA bl lEcU/k esa lk{kh Mh0MCyw0 1 lnko`{k us nkSjku izfri`PNk ;g dFku fd;k gS fd ;g lgh gS fd mDr ;kstukvksa esa fodkl izkf/kdj.k ds gd esa vf/kxzghr Hkwfe ds izfrdj fu/kkZj.k ds fy, ,d leku eqcfyx [email protected]& :i;s izfroxZ xt dh nj ls fodkl izkf/kdj.k ,oa dkLrdkjksa ds e/; gq, le>kSrs ds vk/kkj ij r; gqvk FkkA bl lEcU/k esa lanHkZdrkZx.k }kjk lwph 86x ls mDr le>kSrs dks i=koyh ij dkxt la[;k [email protected] yxk;r [email protected] izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA ftlds voyksdu ls ;g voyksfdr gksrk gS fd izkf/kdj.k }kjk osnO;kliqjh] 'krkCnhuxj o yksfg;kuxj rhuksa vkoklh; ;kstuk esa vftZr Hkwfe ij [email protected]& :i;s izfroxZ xt dh ,d eqLr nj ls vfrfjDr izfrdj ns; gksxk ftlesa Hkwfe dk ewY;] lksysfl;e] vfrfjDr /kujkf'k bR;kfn lHkh phtsa lfEefyr gSaA [email protected]& :i;s izfr oxZ xt dh bu /kujkf'k ds vfrfjDr vU; dksbZ Hkqxrku ns; ugha gksxkA**
12. However, learned reference court has further directed that this amount of Rs.165/- per sq. yard will be payable and in addition to that, all the benefits under the Act of 1894 will be payable. This is the actual bone of contention.
13. Learned counsel for the land owners place reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of Meerut Development Authority Vs. Basheshwar Dayal (Dead) through L.Rs. and another; 2013 (121) RD 389, wherein, averaging the rate of land, a Division Bench of this High Court allowed a rate of Rs.175/- per sq. yard for "Raksha Puram Scheme" for which, Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 14.08.1987 and that under Section 6 of the Act on 04.09.1987.
14. Placing reliance on this judgment, it is submitted that even a Division Bench of this High Court has accepted just compensation to be Rs.175/- per sq. yard and, therefore, under such facts and circumstances, no interference is called for in the impugned order.
15. Reference is also made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Meharban and others Vs. State of U.P. and others; AIR 1997 SC 2664, wherein, compensation of Rs.175/- per sq. yard was accepted.
16. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the available record, it will not be out of place to refer to the provisions contained in Section 23 of the Act of 1894, which deals with the matters to be considered on determining compensation, which reads as under:-
"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 centum 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 the award of 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.]"
17. Section 23(1)(A)(2) deals with solatium and it provides that in addition to the market value of the land as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of 30 per centum on such market value in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. Solatium is an amount in the shape of damages granted in lieu of the injury and the distress caused to the feelings of the owner.
18. In case of Moulvi Abun Naser Khuthubuddin Syed Shah Mohammed Rakher Khadri Vs. Special Tehsildar for Land Acquisition, 1988 (1) M.L.J. 490, it has been held that the word 'solatium' ordinarily connotes compensation for disappointment, inconvenience or wounded feelings. It is not compensation for the acquired interest in land, but a consolatory additional payment, intended to wipe out the disappointment of inconvenience arising out of and caused by the acquisition. Thus, it is apparent that determination of quantum of solatium is not the same as the determination of the market value of the acquired land, though, it is one of the components of compensation. Thus, when rate of Rs.165/- per sq. yard arrived at through compromise in 2012, as has been accepted by the land owners and the reference court included the amount of solatium, then, there is no concept of solatium over solatium i.e. there cannot be any additional premium for the disappointment or inconvenience arising out of and caused by the acquisition. Once, that has been taken care of and is included in the rate of compensation and is in part one of the factors to be taken into consideration under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, then there cannot be any solatium over the solatium and to this extent first appeals deserve to be allowed and are allowed.
19. At this stage, it will not be out of place to mention that, though, learned counsel for the appellants has mentioned that Writ-C No.3157 of 1987 is pending, but it appears that learned counsel for the appellant's is not well informed about the fact that Writ-C No.3157 of 1987 was disposed off, vide order dated 03.07.2019 for the reasons stated in the judgment passed in Writ-C No.3905 of 1987 on 16.05.2019.
20. While deciding Writ-C No.3905 of 1987 and connected matters, vide order dated 16.05.2019, a co-ordinate Bench of this High Court has held that, "surplus land declared by the impugned order in first petition did not vest in State under Section 14(3) of Act, 1960, since, Collector did not take possession of surplus land at any point of time and no material has been placed before this Court to prove this fact."
21. In para-52 of the above order, it is held that ''entire land having been acquired for the benefit of M.D.A. by State, "I have no hesitation in holding that same would have to be governed under the provisions of Act, 1894 and compensation is payable to tenure holders, whose names are recorded in revenue record."
22. Thus, in terms of the order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-C No.3905 of 1987 and connected writs, there is no iota of doubt that compensation is to be paid, strictly, in terms of the provisions contained in Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and that too to the registered tenure holders, whose names were recorded in the revenue record on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
23. Besides this, Courts have to be conscious of another aspect i.e. nobody should be putting to undue disadvantage, merely because, they entered into a compromise on particular terms and conditions for similarly situated lands. There cannot be any undue enrichment at the cost of those who have decided to settle their claims, and when said settlement is used as a reference point to arrive at an equitable and just compensation by the learned reference court in the present case. On this touchstone also, this Court has no hesitation in holding that once solatium is admittedly included in the compromise value of Rs.165/- per sq. yard, then there cannot be any additional award under the head of solatium.
24. Therefore, it is directed that the awarded amount of Rs.165/- per sq. yard as has been granted by the learned reference court shall include payment of statutory interest etc. but shall not include solatium in the name of payment of other benefits under the Act of 1894.
25. In above terms, appeals are allowed in part and disposed off.
Order Date :- 18.2.2021 Ashutosh