(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL) 1. Both the present appeals arise from common judgment and order passed by the Reference Court, whereby the Reference Court has awarded additional compensation at the rate Rs.229/- per Sq.
Mtr. with statutory benefits, under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.
2. We have heard learned counsel Mr. Valmik Vyas for Mr. Ajay Mehta for the appellant and Mr. Yatin Soni with Mr. Hitesh Patel for the respondents.
3. It is an undisputed position that the present group of appeals is part of group of appeals, being First Appeal No.3864 of 2007 and allied matters, which have been disposed of by this Court as per the judgment dated 2.7.2012. The Reference Court has delivered the common judgment in Land Reference Case No.516 of 2006 to 522 of 2006. Since the present appeals were not listed on that day, they were not considered. We may state that in the judgment of this Court in First Appeal No.3864 of 2007, this Court has observed thus:-
“9. It does appear from the evidence Exh. 19 for acquisition of the land at Mansa, that the compensation was awarded at Rs.294/- per sq. mtrs., but was for the land in which the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published i.e. on 13.10.1999, whereas the Notification under Section 4 in the present case is on 15.12.1993 and 17.12.1993. Therefore, roughly there is a difference of about six years in the Notification of both the cases. It is hardly required to be stated that for awarding of compensation for Mansa, the valuation of the land is assessed for the year 1999, naturally, there would not be the same valuation of the land at Mansa or even of the peripheral area, in the year 1993 but is bound to be less. In normal circumstances, the appreciation is to be considered at the rate of 10% per annum and similarly for the purpose of reduction in the market value the principles of 10% per annum could be considered on the basis of reducing balance method inasmuch as on the basis of the figure arriving therefrom. Accordingly if the value is reduced from Rs.294/- on the basis of 10% per annum on reducing balance method, it would come to Rs.173.70 for the year 1993, and the aforesaid figure can be rounded off to Rs.175/- per sq. mtrs.
10. Therefore, we find that if the award of the Reference Court is only to be taken into consideration for acquisition of the land at Mansa, the valuation even for the land at Mansa for the year 1993 would be Rs.175/- per sq. mtrs., and not Rs.294/- per sq. mtrs., as considered by the Reference Court.
11. Further aspects of difference in the valuation on account of the development of Mansa being Taluka Town and Limbodara being an adjoining village would also be required to be taken into consideration.
12. It appears from the judgment of the Reference Court that the Reference Court has considered 20% deduction from the compensation fixed for land at Mansa, but, the pertinent aspect is that market value of the land was assessed at Rs.235/- Per Square Meter taking base of Rs.294/- Per Square Meter for the acquisition of the land at Mansa.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant did contend that the said deduction of 20% is required even in the market value of Rs.175/- for the land at village-Limbodara, whereas, learned counsel Mr.Gurjar for the respondent-claimant submitted that village-Limbodara is on the highway and is in peripheral area of Mansa. It is submitted that the distance between village-Limbodara and Mansa is only 2 kms., and there is only one village i.e. Rajpur and there is common Gram Panchayat between village-Limbodara and village-Rajpur. He has also submitted that all the facilities which are available in Mansa, are available in village-Limbodara and, therefore, no deduction should be made.
14. Consideration of the case for deduction in the year 1999, might stand on a different footing, but, we have to see the difference of development of Mansa in the year 1993, since, the valuation is to be considered for the year 1993. Keeping in view that there is common Gram Panchayat and the land is also located on the highway, we find it appropriate to deduct 10%, then the valuation could be arrived at Rs.175/- Per Square Meter for Mansa in the year 1993. Consequently, the net amount would come to Rs.157.50 Per Square Meter and if rounded off, it can be considered as Rs.158/- Per Square Meter of the land in question in the year 1993. When the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published, the amount of Rs.6/- Per Square Meter has also been awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, and hence, the original claimants would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.152/- Per Square Meter. Under the circumstances, the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court for awarding the additional compensation of Rs.229/- Per Square Meter deserves to be modified.''
4. The same situation would prevail in the present appeals. Hence, the following order is passed:-
(1) Under this circumstances, even if amount of interest is calculated at the rate of 9 % p.a. for the first year and interest at the rate of 15% p.a. for the subsequent year on the amount of compensation with the increase in market price and solatium, under Sections 23(1A) and 23(2) of the Act, the same would take care of appropriate compensation to the land owner for deprivation of the possession, prior to the award i.e. from 14.12.1995 onwards. Therefore, keeping in view the said aspect, we find that the order passed by the Reference Court for awarding the interest under Section 28 of the Act at the rate of 9% p.a. for the first year and interest at the rate of 15% p.a. for the subsequent year, until the amount is actually paid or deposited with the Court does not deserve interference, as no useful purpose shall be served thereby.
(2) In view of aforesaid observation and direction, it is held that original claimants shall be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.152/- per Square Meter of the land in question. They shall also be entitled to the benefits of increase in the price/valuation under Section 23(1A) of the Act and solatium under Section 23(2) of the Act. They shall also be entitled to the interest under Section 28 of the Act from the date of taking over the possession. However, the observations made by the Reference Court for entitlement of the interest from the date of notification, which is of the year 1993, under Section 4 of the Act is concerned, more particularly the words 'whichever is earlier', the said part of the order is set aside. Consequently, it is held that the claimants will be entitled to the interest under Section 28 of the Act from the date of taking over the possession of the land i.e. 14.12.1995 onwards.
(3) The appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. The award shall stand modified accordingly. Considering the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.”
Sd/-
(JAYANT PATEL, J.) omkar Sd/-
(C.L. SONI, J.)