0 0

0 0

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice at mail@myadvocates.club
0 HEADLINE : Cricle Rate Cannot Form Basis For Market Rate Under L. A. Act. Statutory Benefits To Be Given Even If Claimant Has Not Filed Appeal/Cross-Objection.
0 TITLE : Ram Adhar Vs. State Of U.P. On By 0
CASE NO : FIRST APPEAL NO. 1156 OF 1990
CORAM : Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

AFR
Judgment Reserved On 29th August, 2008
Judgment Delivered On 26th September, 2008

First Appeal No.1156 Of 1990
Ram Adhar Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
Connected With
*******

First Appeal No.392 Of 1983, First Appeal No.391 Of 1983, First Appeal No364 Of 1998, First Appeal No.1163 Of 1988, First Appeal No.771 Of 1989, First Appeal No.212 Of 1996, First Appeal No.313 Of 1993, First Appeal No.197 Of 1996, First Appeal No.207 Of 1996, First Appeal No. 126 Of 1991, First Appeal No. 219 Of 1988, First Appeal No.35 Of 1983, First Appeal No.73 Of 1983, First Appeal No.74 Of 1983, First Appeal No.383 Of 1983, First Appeal No.389 Of 1983, First Appeal No.390 Of 1983, First Appeal No.393 Of 1983, First Appeal No.178 Of 1984, First Appeal No.179 Of 1984, First Appeal No.(138) Of 1991

~~~~~~~

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.

These First Appeals Have Been Filed Under Section 54 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter Referred To As The ''Act') By Either The Claimants Or The Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (hereinafter Referred To As The ''Mandi Samiti') For Whose Benefit Large Area Of Land Situated In Three Adjoining Villages Mundera, Neem Sarai And Chak Maida Patti In Tehsil Chail, District Allahabad Were Acquired For Construction Of A Mandi Samiti. Out Of These 22 First Appeals, Three First Appeals Have Been Filed By The Claimants For Enhancement Of The Market Rate Determined By The Reference Court While The Remaining 19 First Appeals Have Been Filed By The Mandi Samiti For Reduction Of The Market Rate. The Particulars Of All The First Appeals Are Contained In The Schedule To This Judgment.
The Notification Under Section 4(1) Of The Act For Acquisition Of Land Situated In These Three Villages Was Issued On 12th January, 1977 And The Declaration Under Section 6 Of The Act Was Made On 26th January, 1977. The Special Land Acquisition Officer Gave The Award Under Section 11 Of The Act In Respect Of The Land Acquired In Village Mundera On 11th June, 1980 And For The Land Acquired In Villages Neem Sarai And Chak Maida Patti On 10th July, 1981. The Special Land Acquisition Officer Determined The Market Rate Of The Land For Villages Mundera And Chak Maida Patti At A Uniform Rate @ Rs.2400/- Per Bigha While For The Land Acquired In Village Neem Sarai, The Special Land Acquisition Officer Adopted The Belting System. The Market Rate Of The Land Falling In The First, Second And Third Belt Was Determined At Rs. 20,338.98 Per Bigha, Rs. 13,559.32 Per Bigha And Rs. 10,169.49 Per Bigha Respectively. The Reference Court, However, Has Determined The Market Rate Of The Land Situated In These Three Villages At Different Rates Namely Rs.4000/- Per Bigha, Rs.20,000/- Per Bigha, Rs.20,338.98 Per Bigha, Rs. 15,000/- Per Bigha, Rs. 10,000/- Per Bigha, Rs.40/- Per Sq. Meter And Rs.10/- Per Sq. Yard.
The Details Of The Awards In Respect Of These First Appeals Are Given Below In The Form Of A Tabular Chart:

Sl. No.
First Appeal No.
Name Of Parties
Ref. No.
Name Of Village
Date Of Award Of SLAO
Date Of Award Of Ref. Court
Rate Of Land Awarded By Ref. Court
Rate Of Solatium Awarded By Ref. Court
Rate Of Interest Awarded By Ref. Court
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
1.
FA 1156/90
Ram Adhar Vs. State & Others
21/81
Mundera

11.6.1980
19.4.1983
15.9.1984
Rs.4,000 Per Bigha
Not Mentioned
Not Mentioned
2.
FA 392/83
K.U.M.S. Vs. Punnu Lal & Ors. (sons Of Baij Nath)
20/81
Mundera

10.6.1980
31.5.1983
Rs. 40/- Per Sq. Metre
15%
6%
3.
FA 391/83
K.U.M.S. Vs. Ram Narain
22/81
Mundera

11.6.1980
31.5.1983
Rs. 40/- Per Sq. Metre
15%
6%
4.
FA 364/98
K.U.M.S. Vs. Smt. Chandrawati
27/82
Neem Sarai

10.7.1981
14.1.1987
Rs.20,338.98 Per Bigha
30%
9/15%
5.
FA 1163/88
K.U.M.S. Vs. Deoki Nandan Agarwal
37/82
Neem Sarai

10.7.1981
14.1.1987
Rs.20,338.98 Per Bigha
30%
9/15%
6.
FA 771/89
K.U.M.S. Vs. D.N. Agarwal
36/82
Neem Sarai

10.7.1981
14.1.1987
Rs.20,338.98 Per Bigha
30%
9/15%
7.
FA 212/96
K.U.M.S. Vs. Dakhni Prasad & Ors.
169/82
Neem Sarai

10.7.1981
18.3.1988
Rs. 10/- Per Sq. Yard
30%
9%
8.
FA 313/93
K.U.M.S. Vs. Manna Lal
43/82
Neem Sarai

10.7.1981
10.5.1988
Rs.20,338.98 Per Bigha
30%
9/15%
9.
FA 197/96
K.U.M.S. Vs. Vs. G.D. Mukherjee
42/82
Neem Sarai

10.7.1981
21.10.89
Rs. 20,000/- Per Bigha
30%
9/15%
10.
FA 207/96
K.U.M.S. Vs. Mohd. Akram
33/82
Neem Sarai

10.7.1981
30.1.1989
Rs.20,338.98 Per Bigha
30%
9/15%
+
23 (1-A)
11.
FA 126/91
K.U.M.S. Vs. Kafeel Ahmad
32/82
Neem Sarai

10.7.1981
4.11.1987
Rs.20,338.98 Per Bigha
30%
9/15%
12.
FA 219/88
Kafeel Ahmad Vs. State Of U.P.
32/82
Neem Sarai

10.7.1981
4.11.1987
Rs.20,338.98 Per Bigha
30%
9/15%
13.
FA 35/83
Moti Lal Vs. State Of U.P.
8/82
Chak Maida Patti

10.7.1981
12.10.82
Rs.20,000/- Per Bigha
15%
6%
14.
FA 73/83
K.U.M.S. Vs. Moti Lal
8/82
Chak Maida Patti

10.7.1981
12.10.82
Rs.20,000/- Per Bigha
15%
6%
15.
FA 74/83
K.U.M.S. Vs. Moti Lal
9/82
Chak Maida Patti

10.7.1981
12.10.82
Rs. 20,000/- Per Bigha
15%
6%
16.
FA 383/83
K.U.M.S. Vs. Khursheeda Bibi
11/82
Chak Maida Patti

10.7.1981
8.4.1983
Rs. 20,000/- Per Bigha
15%
6%
17.
FA 389/83
K.U.M.S. Vs. Sharifunnisa
14/82
Chak Maida Patti

10.7.1981
8.4.1983
Rs. 20,000/- Per Bigha
15%
6%
18.
FA 390/83
K.U.M.S. Vs. Amina Bibi
13/82
Chak Maida Patti

10.7.1981
8.4.1983
Rs. 20,000/- Per Bigha
15%
6%
19.
FA 393/83
K.U.M.S. Vs. Munni Lal
16/82
Chak Maida Patti

10.7.1981
20.5.1983
Rs. 15,000/- Per Bigha
15%
6%
20.
FA 178/84
K.U.M.S. Vs. Sri Ram & Ors.
15/82
Chak Maida Patti

10.7.1981
20.5.1983
Rs. 20,000/- Per Bigha
15%
6%
21.
FA 179/84
K.U.M.S. Vs. Aisha Bibi & Ors.
23/82
Chak Maida Patti

10.7.1981
8.4.1983
Rs. 20,000/- Per Bigha
15%
6%
22.
FA (138)/91
K.U.M.S. Vs. State Of U.P. & Ram Narain Yadav
10/82
Chak Maida Patti

10.7.1981
1.10.1983
Rs.10,000/- Per Bigha
15%
9%

The First Three First Appeals Mentioned In The Aforesaid Chart Relate To Village Mundera, The First Appeals Mentioned From Serial Nos.4 To 12 In The Chart Relate To Village Neem Sarai While The First Appeals Mentioned From Serial Nos. 13 To 22 In The Chart Relate To Village Chak Maida Patti. It Would, Therefore, Be Appropriate To Separately Deal With The Awards Relating To These Villages.
MUNDERA
First Appeal Nos. 1156 Of 1990, 392 Of 1983 And 391 Of 1983 Relate To Village Mundera. While First Appeal No.1156 Of 1990 Has Been Filed By The Claimant For Enhancement Of The Market Rate Determined By The Reference Court @ Rs.4000/- Per Bigha, The Remaining Two First Appeals Have Been Filed By The Mandi Samiti For Reduction Of The Market Rate Determined By The Reference Court @ Rs.40/- Per Sq. Meter.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer Had Determined The Market Rate Of The Land Involved In These Three First Appeals @ Rs.2400/- Per Bigha. This Market Rate Had Been Determined By Him Taking Into Consideration The Sale Deed Executed On 1st July, 1975 By Pachu In Favour Of Ram Surat And Others For The Land Situated In Plot No.216 In The Same Village @ Rs.3200/- Per Bigha But Since The Sale Deed Was For A Small Area Of Land, The Special Land Acquisition Officer Made A Deduction Of 25% And Determined The Market Rate @ Rs.2400/- Per Bigha.
In First Appeal No.1156 Of 1990, Which Arises Out Of LA Case No.21 Of 1981, The Reference Court Considered The Two Awards Given Earlier By The Reference Court In Respect Of The Same Acquisition. These Awards Were Rendered In LA Case No.8 Of 1982 (Moti Lal Vs. State Of U.P.) And LA Case No.170 Of 1981 (Lala Lal Vs. State Of U.P.). The Claimants Had Placed Reliance Upon The Award Given In LA Case No.8 Of 1982 In Which The Market Rate Of The Land For Village Chak Maida Patti Was Determined @ Rs.20,000/- Per Bigha While The Mandi Samiti Had Placed Reliance Upon The Award Given In LA Case No.170 Of 1981 In Which The Market Rate Of The Land Situated In Village Mundera Was Determined @ Rs.4000/- Per Bigha. The Reference Court Proceeded To Accept The Market Rate Of The Land Involved In LA Case No.170 Of 1981 Since It Related To Land Situated In The Same Village Mundera And Accordingly Awarded Market Rate @ Rs.4000/- Per Bigha. However, Even After Having So Determined The Market Rate Of The Land, It Rejected The Reference By The Award Dated 19th April, 1983 Under The Mistaken Impression That The Land Acquisition Officer Had Also Awarded Rs.4000/- Per Bigha Whereas In Fact The Land Acquisition Officer Had Awarded Rs.2400 Per Bigha. Accordingly, An Application Under Order 47 Rule 1 Read With Section 151 CPC Was Filed By The Claimant Which Was Registered As Misc. Case No.11 Of 1984 And Ultimately The Award Dated 19th April, 1983 Was Modified To The Extent That The Claimant Was Held Entitled To Market Rate Of The Land @ Rs.4000/- Per Bigha.
In First Appeal No.392 Of 1983 Which Arises Out Of Land Acquisition Reference No.20 Of 1981 And First Appeal No.391 Of 1983 Which Arises Out Of Land Acquisition Reference No.22 Of 1981, The Reference Court Determined The Market Rate Of The Land Situated In Village Mundera By The Award Dated 31st May, 1983 @ Rs.40/- Per Sq. Meter Solely On The Basis Of The Circle Rate Determined By The Collector Under Section 47-A Of The Stamp Act Read With Rules 340 And 341 Of The Stamp Act Rules. It Needs To Be Mentioned That The Circle Rate Had Been Fixed By The Collector For The Land Situated In The Said Village Between Rs.40/- Per Sq. Meter To Rs.50/- Per Sq. Meter In The Year 1977. The Reference Court Discarded The Award Given In LA Reference No.18 Of 1981 (Munni Lal Vs. State Of U.P.) In Respect Of Village Mundera Relied Upon By The State Wherein The Market Rate Of The Land Was Determined @ Rs.4000/- Per Bigha As Well As The Award Made In LA Reference No.8 Of 1982 In Respect Of Village Chak Maida Patti Relied Upon By The Claimant Wherein The Market Rate Of The Land Was Determined As Rs.20,000/- Per Bigha On The Ground That In These Two Awards The Reference Court Had Not Taken Into Consideration The Circle Rate Of The Land Determined By The Collector Under The Stamp Act.

NEEM SARAI
First Appeal Nos. 364 Of 1998, 1163 Of 1988, 771 Of 1989, 212 Of 1996, 313 Of 1993, 197 Of 1996, 207 Of 1996, 126 Of 1991 And 219 Of 1988 Relate To Land Situated In Village Neem Sarai. All The Aforesaid First Appeals Except First Appeal No.219 Of 1988, Have Been Filed By The Mandi Samiti For Reduction Of The Market Rate Of The Land Determined By The Reference Court. The Reference Court Determined The Market Rate Of The Land @ Rs.20,338.98 Per Bigha In All These First Appeals Except First Appeal No.212 Of 1996 In Which The Market Rate Was Determined @ Rs.10/- Per Sq. Yard. First Appeal No.219 Of 1988 Has Been Filed By The Claimant For Enhancement Of The Market Rate.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer In All These Cases Had Determined The Market Rate Of The Land By The Award Dated 10th July, 1981 @ Rs.20,338.98 Per Bigha. The Special Land Acquisition Officer Noticed That Out Of The Various Sale Deeds Filed By The Claimants As Well As By The State, The Sale Deeds Mentioned At Serial Nos. 1 To 41 Related To Land Situated In Plot Nos.170 And 171 Which Were Not Only Very Near To The Land Under Acquisition But Were Also Of The Same Period And Since In 19 Of These Sale Deeds, The Rate Of The Land Was Rs.27,118.84 Per Bigha, The Special Land Acquisition Officer Thought It Appropriate To Take Into Consideration This Rate For Determining The Market Rate Of The Land Under Acquisition And After Making A Deduction Of 25%, The Special Land Acquisition Officer Determined The Market Rate Of The Land @ Rs.20,338.98 Per Bigha. However, He Further Divided The Land Into Three Belts. The Rate Of Land For The First Belt Was Determined By The Special Land Acquisition Officer @ Rs.20,338.98 Per Bigha, For The Second Belt @ Rs.13,559.32 Per Bigha And For The Third Belt @ Rs.10,169.49 Per Bigha.
The Reference Court, However, Awarded A Uniform Rate @ Rs.20,338/- For The Land Situated In Village Neem Sarai Since In Its Opinion There Was No Necessity Of Adopting The Belting System After Having Made A Deduction Of 25% On Account Of The Largeness Of The Land Acquired Viz-a-viz The Land Covered By The Examplar Sale Deeds. This Market Rate Of Land Has Been Determined By The Reference Court In The Awards Giving Rise To All The First Appeals Except The Award Giving Rise To First Appeal No.212 Of 1996.
In First Appeal No.212 Of 1996, Which Arises Out Of LA Case No.169 Of 1982, The Reference Court Determined The Market Rate Of The Land By The Award Dated 18th March, 1988 @ Rs.10/- Per Sq. Yard. Before The Reference Court, The Claimant Had Placed Reliance Upon The Award Given Earlier By The Reference Court In Respect Of The Same Acquisition On 31st May, 1983 In LA Case No.22 Of 1981 Wherein The Market Rate Was Determined For The Land Situated In Village Mundera @ Rs.40/- Per Sq. Meter But The Reference Court Taking Into Consideration The Location Of The Plot And Came To The Conclusion That Rs.10/- Per Sq. Yard Would Be The Appropriate Market Rate Of The Land At The Time Of Acquisition And Accordingly Determined The Market Rate Of The Land @ Rs.10/- Per Sq. Yard.

CHAK MAIDA PATTI
First Appeal Nos. 35 Of 1983, 73 Of 1983, 74 Of 1983, 383 Of 1983, 389 Of 1983, 390 Of 1983, 393 Of 1983, 178 Of 1984, 179 Of 1984 And (138) Of 1991 Relate To The Land Acquired In Village Chak Maida Patti. Except First Appeal No.35 Of 1983 Which Has Been Filed By The Claimant For Enhancement Of The Market Rate Determined By The Reference Court @ Rs.20,000/- Per Bigha, All The Other First Appeals Have Been Filed By The Mandi Samiti For Reduction Of The Market Rate Determined By The Reference Court @ Rs.20,000/- Per Bigha, Rs.15,000/- Per Bigha And Rs.10,000/- Per Bigha.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer Had Determined The Market Rate Of The Land @ Rs.2400/- Per Bigha In Respect Of The Land Covered By All The Aforesaid First Appeals. In First Appeal Nos. 35 Of 1983, 73 Of 1983, 74 Of 1983, 383 Of 1983, 389 Of 1983, 390 Of 1983, 178 Of 1984 And 179 Of 1984, The Reference Court Determined The Market Rate Of The Land @ Rs.20,000/- Per Bigha. In Determining The Aforesaid Rate Of Rs.20,000/- Per Bigha The Reference Court Relied Upon The Exemplar Sale Deed Executed On 17th February, 1976 In Which The Market Rate Of The Land Was Rs.2040/- Per Biswa Or Rs.40,800/- Per Bigha And After Making Deduction For The Largeness Of The Area Of The Land Under Acquisition Viz-a-viz The Land Covered By The Sale Deed, The Reference Court Determined The Market Rate Of The Land @ Rs.20,000/- Per Bigha.
In First Appeal No.393 Of 1983, The Reference Court Determined The Market Rate Of The Land @ Rs.15,000 Per Bigha. The Reference Court Has Placed Reliance Upon The Award Given In L.A. Case No. 8 Of 1982 In The Case Of Moti Lal Wherein The Market Rate Of The Land Was Awarded @ Rs. 20,000/- Per Bigha But Has Reduced The Market Rate To Rs. 15,000/- Per Bigha On Account Of The Fact That The Land Covered By The Award In The Case Of Moti Lal Was Better Situated.
In First Appeal No.(138) Of 1991, The Reference Court Determined The Market Rate Of The Land @ Rs.10,000/- Per Bigha By Award Made On 1st October, 1983 On The Basis Of The Same Award Of The Reference Court In LA Case No.8 Of 1982 But Because Of The Location Of The Plots Under Consideration Determined The Market Rate Of Land At Rs.10,000/- Per Bigha.
I Have Heard Sri B.D. Mandhyan, Learned Senior Counsel Appearing For The Mandi Samiti And Sri O.P. Srivastava, Sri M. Islam, Sri K.K. Dubey And Sri Manish Goyal, Learned Counsel For The Claimants.
Sri B.D. Mandhyan, Learned Senior Counsel Appearing For The Mandi Samiti Has Submitted That In View Of The Decision Of The Supreme Court In Avas & Vikas Parishad Vs. Gyan Devi, AIR 1995 SC 725 And Agra Development Authority Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors., JT 2001 (2) SC 489, The Determination Of The Market Rate By The Reference Court Under The Awards Cannot Be Sustained As The Acquiring Body Namely Mandi Samiti Had Not Been Impleaded As A Party Before The Reference Court And Consequently Had No Opportunity Of Leading Evidence But At The Same Time He Submitted That Since The Award Made By The Special Land Acquisition Officer Was Binding Upon The Mandi Samiti And The Acquisition Was Very Old Relating To The Year 1977, The Mandi Samiti Would Be Satisfied If This Court Uniformally Fixes The Market Rate For The Land Situated In All The Three Villages At Rs.20,000/- Per Bigha Or Rs.20,338.98 Per Bigha. He Has Further Submitted That The Reference Court In First Appeal No.392 Of 1983, First Appeal No. 391 Of 1983 And First Appeal No. 212 Of 1996 Fell In Error In Determining The Market Rate Of The Land @ Rs.40/- Per Sq. Meter Or Rs. 10/- Per Sq. Yard As The Circle Rate Could Not Have Been Taken As A Criterion For Determination Of The Market Rate. He Further Submitted That In First Appeal No.1156 Of 1990 The Market Rate Of The Land Situated In Village Mundera May Be Enhanced From Rs.4000/- Per Bigha .
Learned Counsel Appearing For The Claimants Submitted That The Reference Court Committed No Error In Determining The Market Rate Of The Land @ Rs.40/- Per Sq. Meter On The Basis Of The Circle Rate Determined By The Collector Under The Stamp Act And In Any Case The Claimants Were Entitled To The Statutory Benefits Under Amendment Act No.68 Of 1984. In Some Of The First Appeals Filed By The Claimants, Learned Counsel Have Also Claimed Amount Towards The Acquisition Of Tube Wells And Trees.
The Dispute, Therefore, Between The Claimants And The Mandi Samiti In All These First Appeals Basically Relates To Three Issues Namely The Determination Of The Market Rate Of The Land, The Statutory Benefits Available To The Claimants Under Sections 23 (1-A), 23(2) And 28 Of The Act, And In Some Of The Appeals The Amount For Acquisition Of Trees And Tube-wells.
DETERMINATION OF MARKET RATE
As Would Be Noticed, The Reference Court Determined The Market Rate Of The Land At Different Rates.
Sri B.D. Mandhyan Learned Senior Counsel Appearing For The Mandi Samiti Has Submitted That In Seven Cases The Reference Court Determined The Market Rate Of The Land Situated In Village Neem Sarai @ Rs. 20,338.98/- Per Bigha And In Eight Cases Relating To Village Chak Maida Patti The Reference Court Determined The Market Rate @ Rs. 20,000/- Per Bigha. He Made A Statement During The Course Of His Submissions As Well As In The Written Submissions Filed By The Mandi Samiti That Though The First Appeals Filed By The Mandi Samiti Deserved To Be Remanded For A Fresh Determination Of The Market Rate As The Mandi Samiti Was Not Impleaded As A Party In The References, Yet The Mandi Samiti Would Have No Objection If This Court Were To Uniformly Fix The Market Rate Of The Land At Rs. 20,338.98/- Per Bigha Because The Special Land Acquisition Officer Himself Had Offered This Market Rate For The Land Situated In The First Belt But Had Erroneously Adopted The Belting System Thereafter. He Has, Therefore, Very Fairly Stated That The Mandi Samiti Would Have No Objection If This Rate Is Determined In The First Appeals Filed By The Claimants As Well As In First Appeal No. 392 Of 1983, First Appeal No. 391 Of 1983 And First Appeal No. 212 Of 1996 Filed By The Mandi Samiti Since If The Matter Is Remanded To The Reference Court It Would Take A Lot Of Time Even Though 30 Years Have Already Lapsed And Further Delay Would Not Be In The Interest Of Either Of The Party. It Is His Submission That In The Awards Giving Rise To These Three First Appeals Filed By The Mandi Samiti, The Reference Court Committed An Error In Determining The Market Rate Of The Land Solely On The Basis Of The Circle Rate Of The Land Determined By The Collector Under The Stamp Act.
On The Other Hand, In The Three First Appeals Filed By The Claimants For Enhancement Of Market Rate, The Learned Counsel For The Claimants Have Placed Reliance Upon The Award Given In L.A. Case No. 20 Of 1981 And L.A. Case No. 22 Of 1981 Relating To Village Mundera Wherein The Reference Court Determined The Market Rate Of The Land @ Rs. 40/- Per Square Metre And Have, Accordingly, Submitted That They Are Entitled To The Same Market Rate.
In View Of The Very Fair Statement Made By Sri B.D. Mandhyan Learned Senior Counsel For The Mandi Samiti, The Dispute Narrows Down To A Few Appeals Only As The First Appeals Filed By The Mandi Samiti For Reduction Of The Market Rate From Rs. 20,338.98/- Per Bigha Or Rs. 20,000/- Per Bigha Will Have To Be Dismissed.
It Would, Therefore, Be Appropriate To First Examine Whether The Reference Court Had Correctly Determined The Market Rate Of The Land @ Rs. 40/- Per Square Metre Or Rs.10/- Per Sq. Yards Because This Will Take Care Of The Submissions Made On Behalf Of The Mandi Samiti In First Appeal No. 391 Of 1983, First Appeal No. 392 Of 1983 And First Appeal No. 212 Of 1996 As Well As The Submissions Advanced On Behalf Of The Claimants For Enhancement Of The Market Rate To Rs. 40/- Per Square Metre.
This Determination Has Been Made By The Reference Court In L.A. Case No. 20 Of 1981, L.A. Case No. 22 Of 1981 And L.A. Case No. 169 Of 1982 Giving Rise To First Appeal No. 392 Of 1983, First Appeal No. 391 Of 1983 And First Appeal No. 212 Of 1996 Respectively. The Awards In L.A. Case No. 20 Of 1981 (Baij Nath Vs. State Of U.P.) And L.A. Case No. 22 Of 1981 (Ram Narain Vs. State Of U.P.) Were Made On The Same Date I.e. 31st May, 1983 While The Award In L.A. Case No. 169 Of 1982 Was Made Subsequently On 18th March, 1988.
In L.A. Case No. 20 Of 1981 And L.A. Case No. 22 Of 1981 Identical Reason Has Been Given By The Reference Court For Determining The Market Rate Of The Land @ Rs. 40/- Per Square Metre And The Same Is As Follows:-
"The Claimant Has Also Filed A Certificate Of Circle Rate Of Village Mundera Obtained From Tehsildar, Chail. Photostat Copy (paper No. C-45 And C-46) Are On The File And The Original Is In The File Of L.A. Reference No. 22 Of 1981, And The Same Has Been Read In This Case With The Consent Of The Parties. A Perusal Of This Document Will Go To Show That The Circle Rate Of The Land Of Village Mundera In The Year 1977 Was Between Rs. 40/- Per. Sq. Meter And Rs. 50/- Per Sq. Meter. The Type Of The Land Is Mentioned As 'MANJHA-I'. It May Be Mentioned Here That The Land In Dispute Was Acquired In The Year 1977. According To The Learned Counsel For The Claimant The Value Of The Land In Dispute Has Been Fixed By The Government At The Rate Of Rs. 40/-, Rs.50/- Per. Sq. Meter, And Compensation Should Also Be Awarded At This Rate. On The Other Hand, The Learned Counsel For The State Has Argued That Compensation Cannot Be Awarded At This Rate Because This Is Not The Market Value Of The Property In Dispute. The Contention Of The Learned Counsel For The State Cannot Be Accepted.
U.P. Government Has Framed Stamps Rules In The Year 1942, Under Indian Stamp Act, Chapter XV Of The Rules Deals With Rules For Determining The Market Value Of Certain Instruments. Rule 340 Provides That Certain Particulars Are To Be Furnished In An Instrument Of Conveyance Etc, Relating To Immovable Property. Section 341, Provides That For The Purposes Of Payment Of Stamp Duty The Minimum Of Market Value Of Immovable Property Forming Subject Of An Instrument Of Conveyance Etc, Referred To In Section 47-A(1) Of The Stamp Act, Shall Be Deemed To Be Not Less Than That As Arrived On The Basis Of Multiples Given Below. The Circle Rates Have Been Fixed By The Collector Under The Provisions Of Section 341 Of The U.P. Stamp Rules. The Collector Has Determined The Market Value Of The Property On Which The Stamp Duty Is Chargeable. This Shows That The State Government Has Fixed Prices Of The Land On The Market Value Of The Land. Therefore, It Cannot Be Said That The Prices Fixed Under These Rules, By The State Government, Are Not Market Value Of The Land Which Will Be The Subject Matter Of Sale Etc. The Court Can Also Fix The Market Value Of The Property Acquired On The Basis Of Circle Rates Fixed By The Government For The Land Of That Village In The Year In Which The Land Was Acquired. Therefore The Contention Of The Learned Counsel For The State Cannot Be Accepted For The Above Reason."

In The Subsequent Award Made By The Reference Court On 18th March, 1988 In L.A. Case No. 169 Of 1982, The Same Logic Has Been Applied But The Rate Has Been Reduced To Rs. 10/- Per Square Yard Because Of The Location Of The Plot.
Sri B.D. Mandhyan Learned Senior Counsel Appearing For The Mandi Samiti Submitted That The Market Rate Of The Land Under The Act Cannot Be Determined On The Basis Of The Circle Rate Determined Under The Stamp Act Or The Rules Framed Thereunder. On The Other Hand Sri. K.K. Dubey Learned Counsel Appearing For The Claimants In First Appeal No. 391 Of 1983 And First Appeal No. 392 Of 1983 Has Defended The Determination Of The Market Rate Given By The Reference Court On The Basis Of The Circle Rate And Has Also Contended That The Reference Court Has Not Determined The Market Rate Solely On The Basis Of The Circle Rate But Has Taken Into Consideration The Entire Evidence On The Record. Sri O.P. Srivastava Learned Counsel For The Appellant In First Appeal No. 1156 Of 1990 Has Also Contended That The Market Rate Of The Land Which Has Been Determined By The Reference Court @ Rs. 4,000/- Per Bigha Should Also Be Raised To Rs. 40/- Per Square Metre. Likewise, Sri M. Islam Learned Counsel Appearing For The Claimants In First Appeal No. 219 Of 1988 Has Contended That The Market Rate Should Be Raised To Rs. 40/- Per Square Metre.
The Issue, Therefore, That Arises For Determination Is Whether The Market Rate Of The Land Under The Act Can Be Fixed On The Basis Of The Circle Rate Determined By The Collector Under The Provisions Of The Stamp Act And The Rules Framed Thereunder. It Would Be Seen That The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 Provides For Payment Of Stamp Duty On "market Value" On Certain Instruments. So Far The State Of U.P. Is Concerned, Section 47-A Was Inserted In The Stamp Act By The UP Legislature In The Year 1969. It Permits The Stamp Authorities To Investigate The Market Value Stated In Such Instruments To Check Evasion Of Stamp Duty. Section 47-A Also Empowers The Framing Of Rules For Fixation Of Minimum Market Value. In Exercise Of Such Powers, The UP Government Added Rule, 340-A In The UP Stamp Rules, 1942. Subsequently, After Repealing This Rule 340-A, The UP Stamp (Valuation Of Property) Rules, 1997 Have Been Brought Into Force.
The Relevance Of The Minimum Market Value (i.e. Circle Rates) Fixed By The Collector Under S. 47-A Of The Stamp Act Read With The Rules For The Purposes Of Determination Of Market Value Under The Act Has Been Considered In A Catena Of Decisions And It Has Been Repeatedly Held By The Supreme Court That The Rate Determined By The Collector Under The Stamp Act And The Rules Framed Thereunder For The Purposes Of Collecting Stamp Duty Cannot Form The Foundation For Determining The Market Rate Of The Land Under Section 23(1) Of The Act.
In Jawajee Nagnatham Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, A.P. & Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 595, The Supreme Court Held That The Basic Value Register Is Maintained Only For The Purpose Of Collecting Stamp Duty And Cannot Form The Foundation To Determine The Market Value Under Section 23(1) Of The Act. The Observations Are As Follows:-
"The Question, Therefore, Is Whether The Basic Valuation Register Would Form Foundation To Determine The Market Value. The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 Provides The Power To Prescribe Stamp Duty On Instruments, Etc. Entry 44 Of List III, Concurrent List, Of The VIIth Schedule Read With Article 254 Of The Constitution Empowers The State Legislature To Amend The Indian Stamp Act, 1899. In Exercise Thereof All The State Legislature Including The Legislature Of A.P. Amended The Act And Enacted Section 47-A Empowering The Registering Officer To Levy Stamp Duty On Instruments Of Conveyance, Etc, If The Registering Officer Has Reason To Believe That The Market Value Of The Property, Covered By The Conveyance, Exchange, Gift, Release Of Right Or Settlement, Has Not Been Truly Set Forth In The Instruments, He May Refuse Registering Such Instrument And Refer The Same To The Collector For Determination Of The Market Value Of Such Property And The Proper Duty Payable Thereon. On Receipt Of Such Opinion, He May Call Upon The Vendor As Per The Rules Prescribed, To Pay The Additional Duty Thereon. If The Vendor Is Dissatisfied, He Has Been Given The Right To File An Appeal And Further Getting Reference Made To The High Court For Decision In That Behalf. Section 47-A Would Thus Clearly Show That The Exercise Of The Power Thereunder Is With Reference To A Particular Land Covered By The Instrument Brought For Registration. When He Has Reasons To Believe It To Be Undervalued, He Should Get Verified Whether The Market Value Was Truly Reflected In The Instrument For The Purpose Of Stamp Duty; The Collector On Reference Could Determine The Same On The Basis Of The Prevailing Market Value. Section 47-A Conferred No Express Power To The Government To Determine The Market Value Of The Lands Prevailing In A Particular Area, Village, Block, District Or The Region And To Maintain Basic Valuation Register For Levy Of Stamp Duty For Registration Of An Instrument, Etc. No Other Statutory Provision Or Rule Having Statutory Force Has Been Brought To Our Notice In Support Thereof.................. It Is, Therefore, Clear That The Basic Valuation Register Prepared And Maintained For The Purpose Of Collecting Stamp Duty Has No Statutory Base Or Force. It Cannot Form A Foundation To Determine The Market Value Mentioned Thereunder In Instrument Brought For Registration. Equally It Would Not Be A Basis To Determine The Market Value Under Section 23 Of The Act, Of The Lands Acquired In That Area Or Town Or The Locality Or The Taluk Etc. Evidence Of Bona Fide Sales Between Willing Prudent Vendor And Prudent Vendee Of The Lands Acquired Or Situated Near About That Land Possessing Same Or Similar Advantageous Features Would Furnish Basis To Determine Market Value.
......................

Accordingly We Hold That The Basic Value Of Registration Has No Statutory Lands Under Section 23 Of The Act. The Burden Of Proof Is Always On The Claimant To Prove, In Each Case The Prevailing Market Value As On The Date Of Notification Published In The State Gazette Under Section 4(1) Of The Act With Reference To The Sale Deeds Of The Same Lands Or Neighbour's Lands Possessed Of Same Or Similar Advantages And Features Executed Between Willing Vendor And Willing Vendee Or Other Relevant Evidence In The Reference Court."(emphasis Supplied)

This View Was Reiterated By The Supreme Court In P. Ram Reddy & Ors., Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad, Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad & Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 305, And K.S. Shivadiramma & Ors., Vs. Assistant Commissioner And Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. (1996) 2 SCC 62.
The Relevance Of The Circle Rates Under The Stamp Act Was Also Considered By The Supreme Court In Ramesh Chand Bansal Vs. Collector Ghaziabad, AIR 1999 SC 2126, And It Was Observed:
"......Reading Section 47-A With The Aforesaid Rule 340-A It Is Clear That The Circle Rate Fixed By The Collector Is Not Final But Is Only A Prima Facie Determination Of Rate Of The Area Concerned Only To Give Guidance To The Registering Authority To Test Prima Facie Whether The Instrument Has Properly Described The Value Of The Property. The Circle Rate Under This Rule Is Neither Final For The Authority Nor To One Subjected To Pay The Stamp Duty. So Far Sub-sections (1) And (2) Are Concerned They Are Very Limited In Their Application As They Only Direct The Registering Authority To Refer To The Collector For Determination In Case The Property Is Undervalued In Such Instrument. The Circle Rate Does Not Take Away The Right Of Such Person To Show That The Property In Question Is Correctly Valued As He Gets An Opportunity In Case Of Undervaluation To Prove It Before The Collector After Reference Is Made. This Also Marks The Dividing Line For The Exercise Of Power Between The Registering Authority And The Collector. In Case The Valuation In The Instrument Is Same As Recorded In The Circle Rate Or Is Truly Described It Could Be Registered By The Registering Authority But In Case It Is Undervalued In Terms Of Sub-section (1) Or Sub-section (2), It Has To Be Referred To And Decided By He Collector. Thus, The Circle Rate, As Aforesaid, Is Merely A Guideline And Is Also Indicative Of A Division Of Exercise Of Power Between The Registering Authority And The Collector......"

In Krishi Utapadan Mandi Samiti Vs. Bipin Kumar, (2004) 2 SCC 283: AIR 2004 SC 1850, The Supreme Court Also Took The View That The Basic Valuation Register Maintained For Stamp Duty Purposes Cannot Be Relied On While Determining The Market Value. The Supreme Court, In Ranvir Singh Vs. Union Of India, AIR 2005 SC 3467 Held That The Notification Issued By The Union Of India, Fixing Circle Rates, Is Inadmissible In Evidence.
In The Aforesaid Two L.A. Case No. 20 Of 1981 And L.A. Case No. 22 Of 1981, As Seen Above, The Reference Court Has Placed Reliance Upon The Circle Rate Determined By The Collector Under The Provisions Of The Stamp Act And The Rules Framed Thereunder. These Rates Could Not Have Been Taken Into Consideration For Determination Of The Market Rate In View Of The Aforesaid Decisions Of The Supreme Court.
Sri K.K. Dubey Learned Counsel Appearing For The Claimants, However, Made A Submission That The Rate Of Rs. 40/- Per Square Metre Has Been Determined By The Reference Court Not Only On The Basis Of The Circle Rate Fixed By The Collector Under The Stamp Act But Also On The Basis Of Other Evidence On Record. This Submission Cannot Be Accepted As A Perusal Of The Awards Leaves No Manner Of Doubt That The Market Rate Of The Land Was Determined By The Reference Court Only On The Basis Of The Circle Rate Determined By The Collector. The Sale Deeds Which Were Filed By The Claimants Before The Reference Court Were Not Taken Into Consideration By The Reference Court For The Determination Of This Market Rate. Even The Award Of The Reference Court In L.A. Case No. 8 Of 1981 On Which Reliance Was Placed By The State For Determining The Market Rate @ Rs. 4,000/- Per Bigha Was Not Accepted By The Reference Court As In That Case The Court Had Not Considered The Circle Rate. Likewise, The Award In L.A. Case No. 8 Of 1982 On Which Reliance Was Placed By The Claimants For Determining The Market Rate @ Rs. 20,000/- Per Bigha, Was Discarded By The Reference Court As The Circle Rate Had Not Been Taken Into Consideration.
The Market Rate Of The Land Has Now To Be Determined. Section 23(1) Of The Act Provides That The Market Value Of The Land Has To Be Determined With Reference To The Date Of Issuance Of The Notification Under Section 4(1) Of The Act.
In Raghuvans Narain Singh V. The U.P. Government AIR 1967 SC 465, The Supreme Court Explained What 'market Value' Meant By Stating It To Be "the Price That A Willing Purchaser Would Pay To A Willing Seller Having Due Regard To Its Existing Condition, With All Its Existing Advantages And Its Potential Possibilities When Laid Down In Its Most Advantageous Manner, Excluding Any Advantage Due To The Carrying Out Of The Scheme For The Purposes For Which The Property Is Compulsorily Acquired." Similar View Was Also Expressed By The Supreme Court In Thakur Kanta Prasad Singh (dead) By LRs. Vs. State Of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2219.
In Ravindra Narain Vs. Union Of India, AIR 2003 SC 1987, The Supreme Court Explained The Approach To Be Adopted For Determining The 'market Value' Of The Acquired Land:
"While Determining The Market Value Of The Land Acquired, It Has To Be Correctly Determined And Paid So That There Is Neither Unjust Enrichment On The Part Of The Acquirer Nor Undue Deprivation On The Part Of The Owner. The Price Which A Willing Vendor Might Reasonably Expect To Receive From The Willing Purchaser Must Be Taken Into Consideration While At The Same Time Disinclination Of The Vendor To Part With His Land And The Urgent Necessity Of The Purchaser To Buy It Must Be Disregarded. Potentiality Of Land Is Also To Be Considered Based On Materials As Are Available."

The Various Acceptable Methods For Determining Market Value Include (i) Comparable Sales Method (ii) Rent Capitalization Method And (iii) Experts Opinion. The Most Favoured Method For Fixing Market Value Is The Comparable Sales Method. Therefore, When There Are Several Comparable Sales Or Awards Pertaining To Different Lands, The Court Is Required To Choose That Sale Or Award Relating To A Land Which Closely Or Nearly Compares With The Land Under Acquisition And To Take The Price Of Land Of Such Sale Or Award As The Basis For Determining The Market Value. However It Has To Be Seen Whether The Sale Instance Of One Revenue Village Would Have Relevance For The Land Of Other Revenue Village If The Two Lands Are Similarly Situated And Possess Similar Location And Building Potentiality.
In Union Of India Vs. Harinder Pal Singh, (2005) 12 SCC 564 Uniform Rate For Five Villages Was Upheld By The Supreme Court:
"............. Took A Pragmatic Approach In Fixing The Market Value Of The Lands Forming The Subject-matter Of The Acquisition Proceedings At A Uniform Rate. From The Sketch Plan Of The Area In Question, It Appears To Us That While The Lands In Question Are Situated In Five Different Villages, They Can Be Consolidated Into One Single Unit With Little To Choose Between One Stretch Of Land An Another. The Entire Area Is In A Stage Of Development And The Different Villages Are Capable Of Being Developed In The Same Manner As The Lands Comprised In Kala Ghanu Pur Where The Market Value Of The Acquired Lands Was Fixed At A Uniform Rate Of Rs. 40,000 Per Acre......."

Thus, Artificial Barriers Like Village Boundaries Cannot Be Given Undue Importance Because The Land In Any Particular Area Or In Close Proximity Normally Possess Similar Potentially And Market Value. The Market Value Of The Land In Such Cases Should, Therefore, Normally Be Uniform For Adjoining Villages Of The Area Irrespective Of The Village Demarcations.
In The Present Case, It Is Not Disputed By The Parties That All The Three Villages Are Adjoining Villages. It Is For This Reason That Sri B.D. Mandhyan Learned Senior Counsel Appearing For The Mandi Samiti States That The Same Rate May Be Determined For The Land Situated In All The Three Villages. Learned Counsel Appearing The Claimants Have Also Stated That There Is No Such Marked Difference In The Quality Of The Land In These Three Villages So As To Call For A Different Determination Of The Market Rate. In Fact, It Would Be Seen That In L.A. Case No. 20 Of 1981, L.A. Case No.21 Of 1981 And L.A. Case No. 22 Of 1981 Which Relate To Land Of Village Mundera The Claimants Themselves Had Relied Upon The Award Given In L.A. Case No. 8 Of 1982 In Respect Of Land Situated In Village Chak Maida Patti, Wherein The Market Rate Was Determined @ Rs. 20,000/- Per Bigha.
Thus, In All These Three First Appeals Namely First Appeal No. 1156 Of 1990, First Appeal No.392 Of 1983 And First Appeal No. 391 Of 1983 The Market Rate Can Be Determined @ Rs. 20,338.98/- Per Bigha Which Is The Higher Of The Two Rates And And To Which, As Stated Earlier, Learned Senior Counsel For The Mandi Samiti Has No Objection.
In First Appeal No.1156 Of 1990 Sri O.P. Srivastava Learned Counsel Appearing For The Claimant Has Also Claimed An Amount Towards The Acquisition Of Well. Sri B.D. Mandhyan Learned Senior Counsel Appearing For The Mandi Samiti States That The Court May Award Rs. 5,000/- For The Well As Has Been Done In Some Other Cases. This Is Acceptable To The Counsel For The Claimant. Thus, In Addition To The Market Value Of The Land, The Claimant Shall Also Be Entitled To Rs. 5,000/- For The Acquisition Of Well.
For The Same Reason The Market Rate Of The Land In First Appeal No. 212 Of 1996 Arising Out Of L.A. Case No. 169 Of 1982 Determined By The Reference Court @ Rs. 10/- Per Square Yard Should Also Be Reduced To Rs. 20,338.98/- Per Bigha Since The Said Determination By The Reference Court Is Based Solely On The Circle Rate Under The Stamp Act.
In First Appeal No. 35 Of 1983 Relating To Village Chak Maida Patti The Reference Court Has Awarded Rs. 20,000/- Per Bigha. Though This Rate Has Been Determined By The Reference Court In A Number Of Cases But Only One Claimant Has Filed The Appeal Under Section 54 Of The Act For Enhancement Of The Claim. In View Of The Fact That A Uniform Rate Should Be Awarded For The Land Situated In All The Three Villages, The Market Rate Of The Land Should Be Enhanced To Rs. 20,338.98/- Per Bigha In This First Appeal.
The Only Remaining First Appeal Filed By The Claimant Is First Appeal No. 219 Of 1988. Strong Emphasis Was Placed By Sri M. Islam Learned Counsel For The Claimant That The Market Rate Should Be Determined @ Rs. 40/- Per Square Metre As Was Determined In L.A. Case No. 20 Of 1981 And L.A. Case No. 22 Of 1981. In The First Appeals Filed By The Mandi Samiti For Reduction Of This Market Rate, As Noticed Hereinabove, The Market Rate Of The Land Has Been Reduced To Rs. 20,338.98/- Per Bigha. This Is The Rate Which Has Been Awarded To The Claimant In This First Appeal No. 219 Of 1988. The Claim For Enhancement Of The Market Value Is, Therefore, Rejected. Learned Counsel For The Appellant, However, Urged That The Reference Court Has Not Awarded Any Amount For The Acquisition Of The Tube-well Or The Orchard. Sri B.D. Mandhyan Learned Senior Counsel Appearing For The Mandi Samiti States That The Court May Award Rs. 10,000/- For The Tube-well And Rs. 5,000/- For The Orchard. This Is Acceptable To The Counsel For The Claimant. Thus, In First Appeal No. 219 Of 1988, In Addition To The Market Value Of The Land, The Claimant Shall Also Be Entitled To An Amount Of Rs. 10,000/- For The Tube-well And Rs. 5,000/- For The Orchard.
In The Remaining First Appeals Filed By The Mandi Samiti The Claim For Reduction Of The Market Rate Of The Land Cannot Be Sustained. It Also Needs To Be Mentioned That Such Determination Of The Market Rate Of The Land Takes Care Of The Submission Of Sri B.D. Mandhyan, Learned Senior Counsel For The Mandi Samiti About Non Impleadment Of The Mandi Samiti In The References.
STATUTORY BENEFITS
The Last Issue That Remains To Be Addressed Is About The Statutory Benefits Under The Land Acquisition Amendment Act No.68 Of 1984 By Which Section 23(1-A) Was Inserted And The Rate Of Solatium Under Section 23(2) And The Rate Of Interest Under Section 28 Were Enhanced. The Amended Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) And 28 Are As Follows:-

23(1-A). 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.
23(2) In Addition To The Market Value Of The Land, As Above Provided, The Court Shall In Every Case Award A Sum Of Thirty Per Centum On Such Market Value, In Consideration Of The Compulsory Nature Of The Acquisition.

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 Not Award As Compensation, The Award Of The Court May Direct That The Collector Shall Pay Interest On Such Excess At The Rate Of Nine Per Centum Per Annum From The Date On Which He Took Possession Of The Of 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.

Section 30 Of Amendment Act No.68 Of 1984 Contains The Transitional Provisions And Is As Follows:-
30. Transitional Provisions (1) The Provisions Of Sub-section (1-A) Of Section 23 Of The Principal Act, As Inserted By Clause (a) Of Section 15 Of This Act, Shall Apply, And Shall Be Deemed To Have Applied, Also To, And In Relation To,-
(a) Every Proceeding For The Acquisition Of Any Land Under The Principal Act Pending On The 30th Day Of April, 1982 [the Date Of Introduction Of The Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, In The House Of The People], In Which No Award Has Been Made By The Collector Before That Date;
(b) Every Proceeding For The Acquisition Of Any Land Under The Principal Act Commenced After That, Whether Or Not An Award Has Been Made By The Collector Before The Date Of Commencement Of This Act.
(2). The Provisions Of Sub-section (2) Of Section 23 And Section 28 Of The Principal Act, As Amended By Clause (b) Of Section 15 And Section 18 Of This Act Respectively, Shall Apply, And Shall Be Deemed To Have Applied, Also To, And In Relation, To Any Award Made By The Collector Or Court Or To Any Order Passed By The High Court Or Supreme Court In Appeal Against Any Such Award Under The Provisions Of The Principal Act After The 30th Day Of April, 1982 [the Date Of Introduction Of The Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, In The House Of The People] And Before The Commencement Of This Act."

The Aforesaid Provisions Have Come Up For Interpretation Before The Supreme Court In A Number Of Decisions.
A Constitution Bench Of The Supreme Court In Union Of India Anr. Vs. Raghubir Singh (dead) By LRs. Etc., AIR 1989 SC 1933 Examined Section 30 Of The Aforesaid Transitional Provision Contained In Amendment Act No.68 Of 1984 For The Purpose Of Payment Of Solatium At The Amended Higher Rate And Observed:-
"................ In Other Words S. 30(2) Of The Amendment Act Extends The Benefits Of The Enhanced Solatium To Cases Where The Award By The Collector Or By The Court Is Made Between 30 April, 1982 And 24 September, 1984 Or To Appeals Against Such Awards Decided By The High Court And The Supreme Court Whether The Decisions Of The High Court Or The Supreme Court Are Rendered Before 24 September, 1984 Or After That Date. All That Is Material Is That The Award By The Collector Or By The Court Should Have Been Made Between 30 April, 1982 And 24 September, 1984. ............
......... We Think That What Parliament Intends To Say Is That The Benefit Of S. 30(2) Will Be Available To An Award By The Collector Or The Court Made Between The Aforesaid Two Dates Or To An Appellate Order Of The High Court Or Of The Supreme Court Which Arises Out Of An Award Of The Collector Or The Court Made Between The Said Two Dates. The Word ''or' Is Used With Reference To The Stage At Which The Proceeding Rests At The Time When The Benefit Under S. 30(2) Is Sought To Be Extended. If The Proceeding Has Terminated With The Award Of The Collector Or Of The Court Made Between The Aforesaid Two Dates, The Benefit Of S. 30(2) Will Be Applied To Such Award Made Between The Aforesaid Two Dates. If The Proceeding Has Passed To The Stage Of Appeal Before The High Court Or The Supreme Court, It Is At That Stage When The Benefit Of S. 30(2) Will Be Applied. But In Every Case, The Award Of The Collector Or Of The Court Must Have Been Made Between 30 April, 1982 And 24 September, 1984."(emphasis Supplied)

The Supreme Court In Assistant Commissioner, Godaj Sub-Division, Godaj Vs. Mahapathi Bas Ovannewwa & Ors. AIR 1995 SC 2492 Observed That The Object Of Introducing Section 23(1-A) In The Act Is To Mitigate The Hardship Caused To The Owner Of The Land Who Has Been Deprived Of The Enjoyment Of The Land By Taking Possession From Him And Using It For The Public Purpose, Because Of Considerable Delay In Making The Award And Offering Payment Thereof. To Obviate Such Hardship, Section 23(1-A) Of The Act Was Introduced And The Legislature Envisaged That The Owner Of The Land Is Entitled To 12% Per Annum Additional Amount On The Market-value For A Period Commencing On And From The Date Of Publication Of The Notification Under Section 4(1) Of The Act In Respect Of Such Land Up To The Date Of The Award Of The Collector Or The Date Of Taking Possession Of The Land, Whichever Is Earlier.
In Respect Of The Amount Under Section 23(1-A) Of The Act, The Supreme Court In K.S. Paripoornan Vs. State Of Kerala & Ors., (1994) 5 SCC 593 Observed:-
"By Order Dated 17-12-1991, These Matters Have Been Referred To A Larger Bench To Consider The Correctness Of The Decision In Union Of India V. Zora Singh (1992) 1 SCC 673 (decided By A Bench Of Three Judges). In Zora Singh Case This Court Has Held That The Payment Of Additional Amount Payable @ 12% Per Annum On The Market Value Under Sub-section (1-A) Inserted In Section 23 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter Referred To As ''the Principal Act') By The Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (hereinafter Referred To As ''the Amending Act') Is To Be Ordered In Every Case Where The Reference Was Pending Before The Reference Court On The Date Of Commencement Of The Amending Act Even Though The Award Of The Collector Was Made Prior To 30-4-1982."
.......................................
For The Reasons Aforementioned It Must Be Concluded That In Respect Of Acquisition Proceedings Initiated Prior To Date Of Commencement Of The Amending Act The Payment Of The Additional Amount Payable Under Section 23(1-A) Of The Act Will Be Restricted To Matters Referred To In Clauses (a) And (b) Of Sub-section(1) Of Section 30 Of The Amending Act. Zora Singh Insofar As It Holds That The Said Amount Is Payable In All Cases Where The Reference Was Pending Before The Reference Court On 24-9-1984, Irrespective Of The Date On Which The Award Was Made By The Collector, Does Not Lay Down The Correct Law."


In Respect Of The Amount Of Solatium Under Section 23(2) And The Interest Under Section 28 Of The Act, The Supreme Court In K.S. Paripoornan (II) Vs. State Of Kerala & Ors., (1995) 1 SCC 367 Observed:-
"This Court Thereby Clearly Held That Even In The Pending Reference Made Before 30-4-1982, If The Civil Court Makes An Award Between 30-4-1982 And 24-9-1984, Section 30(2) Gets Attracted And Thereby The Enhanced Solatium Was Available To The Claimants. Since Section 30(2) Deals With Both The Amendments To Section 23(2) And Section 28 Of The Principal Act By Section 15(b) And Section 18, Respectively, Of The Amendment Act By Parity Of The Reasoning The Same Ratio Applies To The Awards Made By The Civil Court Between Those Dates. The Conflict Of Decisions As To Whether Section 23(2) As Amended By Section 15(b) Of The Amendment Act Through Section 30(2) Of The Transitory Provisions Would Be Applicable To The Pending Appeals In The High Court And The Supreme Court Was Resolved In Raghubir Singh Case By The Constitution Bench Holding That The Award Of The Collector Or The Court Made Between 13-4-1982 And 24-9-1984 Would Alone Get Attracted To Section 30(2) Of The Transitory Provision. The Restricted Interpretation Should Not Be Understood To Mean That Section 23(2) Would Not Apply To The Award Of The Civil Court Pending At The Time When The Act Came Into Force Or Thereafter. In This Case, Admittedly The Award Of The Civil Court Was Made After The Act Had Come Into Force, Namely, 28-2-1985.
.............................
The Question Relating To The Payment Of 12% Additional Compensation Under Section 23(1-A) Over The Excess Compensation Has Already Been Covered By The Constitution Bench Judgment Of This Court In K.S. Paripoornan (I) V. State Of Kerala (1994) 5 SCC 593. Therefore, The Appellant Is Not Entitled To This Benefit As The Collector Made The Award Prior To The Date Of The Amendment Act Came Into Force."

The Position, Therefore, That Emerges From These Decisions Is As Follows:-

(i) If The Award Of The Collector And The Reference Court Is Before 30-4-1982, The Claimant Would Not Be Entitled To The Benefit Of The Amending Act 68 Of 1984.
(ii) If The Award Of The Collector Is After 30-4-1982, The Claimant Would Be Entitled To All The Benefits Under The Amending Act 68 Of 1984.
(iii) If The Award Of The Collector Is Before 30-4-1982 But The Award Of The Reference Court Is After 30-4-1982, The Claimant Would Be Entitled To The Benefits Under Section 23(2) And Section 28 Of The Act As Amended By The Amending Act 68 Of 1984, But Would Not Be Entitled To The Benefit Under Section 23(1-A) Of The Act Added By Amending Act 68 Of 1984.


However, Recently In Smt. Leelawati Agarwal Vs. State Of Jharkhand & Anr., 2008 AIR SCW 2723 The Supreme Court Has Referred The Matter To A Larger Bench To Consider The Correctness Of The View Expressed In Paragraph 4 In Paripurnan II's Case (supra) That A Restricted Interpretation Should Not Be Given, In The Face Of What Was Stated In Paragraph 34 Of Raghubir Singh's Case (supra). In This Case The Award Of The Collector Was Made On 6.4.1972 And The Reference Court Gave The Award On 30.9.1985. The High Court, In View Of The Decision Of The Supreme Court In K.S. Paripurnan (I), Denied The Benefit Under Section 23(1-A), 23(2) And Section 28. It Was Urged Before The Supreme Court By The Claimant That In View Of The Decisions Of The Supreme Court In Raghubir Singh (supra) And K.S. Paripurnan (II), The Benefit Under Section 23(1-A) May Not Be Available, But The Benefit Under Section 23(2) And Section 28 Of The Act Was Available. The Supreme Court Observed:-
"In Raghubir Singh's Case (supra) Two Terminus Points Were Fixed I.e. Award By The Collector Or Decision Of The Reference Court Must Have Been Taken Between 30.4.1982 And 24.9.1984. It Has Been Clearly Stated In The Last Line Of Para 34 That Every Case "must" Have Been Decided Between The Aforesaid Terminus. In Paripurnan II's Case (supra) At Para 4 It Was Observed That Restrictive Interpretation Should Not Be Given. With Great Respect We Are Unable To Subscribe To The View. As A Matter Of Fact A Three Judge Bench Was Trying To Give An Interpretation Different From What Was Specifically Given By The Constitution Bench."

The Larger Bench Has Not Decided The Matter And So The Earlier Decisions Will Govern These Appeals.
In First Appeal No. 207 Of 1996, The Reference Court Has Given The Statutory Benefit Under Section 23(1-A) Of The Act Even Though The Award Of The Collector Was Made Prior To 30th April, 1982. Such A Benefit Could Not Have Been Given In View Of The Decision Of The Supreme Court In K.S. Paripoornan (supra).
It Is Noticed That In Some Of The First Appeals Filed By The Mandi Samiti The Reference Court Has Not Granted The Benefit Of The Amending Act 68 Of 1984 In So Far As The Enhanced Amount Of Solatium And Interest Are Concerned Even In Cases Where The Award Of The Reference Court Was Made After 30th April, 1982. The Claimants, However, In These Cases Have Not Filed Any Appeal Or Cross-objection. It Has, Therefore, To Be Examined Whether The Claimants Can Be Granted The Aforesaid Benefits In The First Appeals Filed By The Mandi Samiti For Reduction Of The Market Rate.
The Question As To Whether The Statutory Benefits Under The Amending Act 68 Of 1984 Can Be Granted To The Claimants In The Appeals Filed By The Acquiring Body Even If The Claimants Have Not Filed First Appeals Or Cross-Objections, Was Examined By The Supreme Court In Shree Vijay Cotton And Oil Mills Ltd. Vs. State Of Gujarat, AIR 1991SC 656. The High Court Had Rejected The Claim For Interest On The Ground That The Claimants Could Not Claim The Same In The Appeals Filed By The State Particularly When Their Cross-objections Had Been Rejected As Time Barred. The Supreme Court Did Not Agree With The Reasoning Of The High Court And Observed That It Was Not Necessary For The Claimants To Have Filed Separate Appeals/Cross-objections For The Purposes Of Claiming Interest Under Section 28 Or 34 Of The Act And The Claimant Could Claim Interest In The State Appeal. It Was Also Observed That The Dismissal Of The Cross-Objections As Being Barred By Time Was Wholly Irrelevant.
This Issue Was Also Examined By The Supreme Court In Shri Narain Das Jain (since Deceased) By Lrs. Vs. The Agra Nagar Mahapalika, Agra, JT 1991 (1) SC 461 And The Relevant Observations Are As Follows:-
"The Importance Of The Award Of Solatium Cannot Be Undermined By Any Procedural Blocades. It Follows Automatically The Market Value Of The Land Acquired, As A Shadow Would To A Man. It Springs Up Spontaneously As A Part Of The Statutory Growth On The Determination And Emergence Of Market Value Of The Land Acquired. It Follows As A Matter Of Course Without Any Impediment. That It Falls To Be Awarded By The Court "in Every Case" Leaves No Discretion With The Court In Not Awarding It In Some Cases And Awarding In Others. Since The Award Of Solatium Is In Consideration Of The Compulsory Nature Of Acquisition, It Is A Hanging Mandate For The Court To Award And Supply The Omission At Any Stage Where The Court Gets Occasion To Amend Or Rectify. This Is The Spirit Of The Provision, Wherever Made.
...............
We Do Not Appreciate The Distinction Made By The High Court In This Regard. The Appellant Had All The Same Not Pleaded For Grant Of Solatium In The Grounds Of Appeal Before The High Court While Claiming Enhanced Compensation, And Yet The High Court Felt That It Was Under The Statutory Duty To Grant Solatium On The Amount Enhanced By It. The High Court Did Not Shut Out The Claim Of The Appellant On The Ground That He Had Not Asked For It Specifically In The Grounds Of Appeal. If That Is So, The Legal Error Which Was Otherwise Patent Needed To Be Rectified By The High Court In Favour Of The Appellant; More So When There Was A Cross Appeal Of The Nagar Mahapalika Before It And Resort Could Be Had To The Provisions Of Order 41 Rule 33 C.P.C. ............"

This Court In Nagar Mahapalika, Agra Vs. Kalawati Devi, AIR 1976 All. 40 Also Observed That The Claim Of Solatium Is A Statutory Right And The Court Can Grant The Same Even If The Claimant Has Not Filed Appeal Or Cross-Objection.
Thus, The Claimants Would Be Entitled To The Statutory Benefits Under The Amended Section 23(2) And Section 28 Of The Act In The First Appeals Filed By The Mandi Samiti In Cases Where The Award Of The Reference Court Was Made After 30th April, 1982 And The Claimants Have Not Filed First Appeals Or Cross-Objections.
In View Of The Discussion Made Above, The Aforesaid First Appeals Are Decided In The Following Manner:-
First Appeal No.1156 Of 1990 Deserves To Be Allowed To The Extent That The Claimant(s) Would Be Entitled To The Market Value Of The Land @ Rs.20,338.98 Per Bigha And Would Also Be Entitled To The Amount Of Rs.5000/- For The Well. The Claimant(s) Would Also Be Entitled To The Benefit Of Amending Act 68 Of 1984 For Calculating The Solatium And Interest Under Sections 23(2) And 28 Of The Act. The Claimant(s) Would, However, Not Be Entitled To The Benefit Of Section 23(1-A) Of The Act.
First Appeal No.392 Of 1983 Is Allowed To The Extent That The Market Rate Of The Land Is Reduced To Rs.20,338.98/- Per Bigha. The Claimant(s) Would Also Be Entitled To The Benefit Of Amending Act 68 Of 1984 For Calculating The Solatium And Interest Under Sections 23(2) And 28 Of The Act. The Claimant(s) Would, However, Not Be Entitled To The Benefit Of Section 23(1-A) Of The Act.
First Appeal No.391 Of 1983 Is Allowed To The Extent That The Market Rate Of The Land Is Reduced To Rs.20,338.98/- Per Bigha. The Claimant(s) Would Also Be Entitled To The Benefit Of Amending Act 68 Of 1984 For Calculating The Solatium And Interest Under Sections 23(2) And 28 Of The Act. The Claimant(s) Would, However, Not Be Entitled To The Benefit Of Section 23(1-A) Of The Act.
First Appeal No.364 Of 1998, First Appeal No.1163 Of 1988, First Appeal No.771 Of 1989, First Appeal No.313 Of 1993, First Appeal No.197 Of 1996 And First Appeal No.126 Of 1991 Are Dismissed.
First Appeal No.207 Of 1996 Is Allowed To The Extent That The Claimant(s) Would Not Be Entitled To The Benefit Of Section 23(1-A) Of The Act.
First Appeal No. 212 Of 1996 Is Allowed To The Extent That The Market Rate Of The Land Is Reduced To Rs.20,338.98 Per Bigha.
First Appeal No.219 Of 1988 Is Allowed To The Extent That The Claimant(s) Would Be Entitled For The Amount Of Rs.10,000/- For The Acquisition Of Tubewell And Rs.5000/- For The Acquisition Of Orchard I.e. Rs.15,000/- Over And Above The Market Value Of The Land Awarded By The Reference Court. On This Amount The Claimant(s) Would Also Be Entitled To The Benefit Of Amending Act 68 Of 1984 For Calculating The Solatium And Interest Under Sections 23(2) And 28 Of The Act. The Claimant(s) Would, However, Not Be Entitled To The Benefit Of Section 23(1-A) Of The Act.
First Appeal No.35 Of 1983 Is Allowed To The Extent That The Claimant(s) Would Be Entitled To The Market Rate Of The Land @ Rs.20,338.98 Per Bigha. The Claimant(s) Would Also Be Entitled To The Benefit Of Amending Act 68 Of 1984 For Calculating The Solatium And Interest Under Sections 23(2) And 28 Of The Act. The Claimant(s) Would, However, Not Be Entitled To The Benefit Of Section 23(1-A) Of The Act.
First Appeal No.73 Of 1983, First Appeal No.74 Of 1983, First Appeal No.383 Of 1983, First Appeal No.389 Of 1983, First Appeal No.390 Of 1983, First Appeal No.393 Of 1983, First Appeal No.178 Of 1984, First Appeal No.179 Of 1984 And First Appeal No.(138) Of 1991 Are Dismissed But The Award Of The Reference Court Is Modified To The Extent That The Claimant(s) Would Also Be Entitled To The Benefit Of Amending Act 68 Of 1984 For Calculating The Solatium And Interest Under Sections 23(2) And 28 Of The Act. The Claimant(s) Would, However, Not Be Entitled To The Benefit Of Section 23(1-A) Of The Act.
Parties Shall Bear Their Own Costs In All The First Appeals.
Date: 26.9.2008
GS/NSC/SK






SCHEDULE

First Appeal No.1156 Of 1990
Ram Adhar Vs. State Of U.P. & Others

Connected With

First Appeal No.392 Of 1983
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs. Punnu Lal & Ors.

First Appeal No.391 Of 1983
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs. Ram Narain

First Appeal No364 Of 1998
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs. Smt. Chandrawati

First Appeal No.1163 Of 1988
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs. Deoki Nandan Agarwal

First Appeal No.771 Of 1989
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs. D.N. Agarwal

First Appeal No.212 Of 1996
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs. Dakhni Prasad & Ors.

First Appeal No.313 Of 1993
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs. Manna Lal

First Appeal No.197 Of 1996
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs. Vs. G.D. Mukherjee

First Appeal No.207 Of 1996
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs. Mohd. Akram

First Appeal No. 126 Of 1991
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs. Kafeel Ahmad

First Appeal No. 219 Of 1988
Kafeel Ahmad Vs. State Of U.P.

First Appeal No.35 Of 1983
Moti Lal Vs. State Of U.P.

First Appeal No.73 Of 1983
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs. Moti Lal

First Appeal No.74 Of 1983
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs. Moti Lal

First Appeal No.383 Of 1983
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs. Khursheeda Bibi

First Appeal No.389 Of 1983
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs. Sharifunnisa

First Appeal No.390 Of 1983
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs. Amina Bibi

First Appeal No.393 Of 1983
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs. Munni Lal

First Appeal No.178 Of 1984
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs. Sri Ram & Ors.

First Appeal No.179 Of 1984
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs. Aisha Bibi & Ors.

First Appeal No.(138) Of 1991
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs. State Of U.P. & Ram Narain Yadav

Go to Navigation