Karnataka High Court
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, ... vs Noorahammad Husen Mulla And Ors. on 18 January, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(3)KARLJ13, 2002 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 1414, (2002) 3 KANT LJ 13 (2002) 1 LACC 537, (2002) 1 LACC 537
Author: D.V. Shylendra Kumar
Bench: D.V. Shylendra Kumar
JUDGMENT
1. Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 4849 of 1998 has been preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer, Jamkhandi and is directed against the judgment and award dated 18-4-1998 passed in L.A.C. No. 312 of 1997 on the file of the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jamkhandi. This land acquisition case was clubbed along with L.A.C. Nos. 591, 299, 301, 305, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315 and 318 of 1997 and the Reference Court has rendered the main judgment in L.A.C. No. 591 of 1997 in which case witnesses have been examined and documents have been marked. Following the judgment and award rendered in L.A.C. No. 591 of 1997 all other land acquisition cases have been disposed off on the same terms. As against the said judgment and award dated 18-4-1998 rendered in all the land acquisition cases referred to above the Land Acquisition Officer has preferred these appeals under Section 54(1) of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Act.
2. As against the judgment and award made in L.A.C. No. 591 of 1997 the Land Acquisition Officer has come up in M.F.A. No. 4851 of 1998 and the claimant respondents have also filed their cross-objections as Cross-Objection No. 25 of 1998.
3. Appeals have been preferred against all the land acquisition cases referred to above and the claimant respondents have preferred cross-objections in all the appeals as well.
4. We have heard Sri A.S. Mensinakai, learned Government Advocate for the appellants in all these cases, Sri G.S. Visveswara, learned Counsel appearing for Sri S.S. Patil and Sri T.S. Amarkumar, learned Counsel for the respondent-cross objector in M.F.A. No. 4869 of 1998 and M/s. S.S. Patil and Basavaraj Kareddy, appearing for the respondents in M.F.A. No. 4851 of 1998 and for the cross-objectors in Cross-Objection No. 25 of 1998.
5. As the record is common we are disposing off these three appeals namely, M.F.A. Nos. 4847, 4851 and 4869 of 1998 by this common judgment. The learned Government Advocate submits that in all the other appeals the arguments are common and therefore all the other appeals are also to be disposed off following this judgment.
6. The brief facts giving rise to the appeals are that by a preliminary notification dated 1-2-1996 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act a total extent of 46 acres 38 guntas of land comprising different survey numbers of Jamkhandi Town were notified for acquisition for a public purpose namely for rehabilitation of persons displaced due to the submergence of lands under the Upper Krishna Project particularly for persons who were residents of Alagur Village. The lands belonging to these persons were notified in the notification and of the extents as mentioned therein. In due course an award came to be passed as per the award dated 10-10-1996. The Land Acquisition Officer classified the acquired lands into three categories, namely irrigated land (GLBC) which were valued at Rs. 48,000/- per acre falling in the first category, the lands irrigated by well and without any source of supply from the public distribution as category (2) at Rs. 44,000/- per acre and dry lands as category (3) valued at Rs. 31,000/- per acre. The landowners have received the compensation amount under protest and sought for reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act praying for enhancement of the compensation amount and the reference came to be registered as land acquisition case numbers as referred to above and were ultimately disposed off by the judgment and award dated 18-4-1998 accepting the reference in part and the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs. 3,39,700/- per acre uniformly in respect of all categories of land, valuing the lands based on their non-agricultural potential and not on the agricultural character of the land. It is aggrieved by this judgment and award the Land Acquisition Officer has preferred appeals in all the land acquisition cases, whereas the claimant-owners have preferred cross-objections in all the appeals contending that the compensation as awarded by the Reference Court is not an adequate compensation and is much below the market value of the lands in question and have sought for enhancement of the same by Rs. 2,20,000/- per acre which works out to the ultimate valuation being at Rs. 5,59,700/- per acre.
7. The Reference Court for the purpose of enhancement of the valuation was mainly persuaded by the contentions urged on behalf of the landowners, that the acquired lands had considerable non-agricultural potential being located in a highly developed area and that the lands in the vicinity had been converted and put to non-agricultural use, though the lands had been described as agricultural lands in the revenue records, it should be valued mainly on the non-agricultural potential of the lands due to its location and for the purposes of such valuation, having based the sale transaction in respect of the lands in the vicinity which had belonged to one family who had divided among themselves and who had sold an extent of 1 acre 11 guntas in favour of M/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India at the rate of Rs. 16.11 per sq. ft. and having made considerable deductions from out of this rate in respect of the land sold in favour of M/s. LIC of India towards developmental charges and having regard to the large extent of land acquired under the acquisition in question. While the appellants question the correctness of this view by the Reference Court in making this transaction in favour of the LIC of India being made the basis for valuing the lands under the present acquisition and also disputed the correctness of the extent of deductions allowed by the Trial Court for purposes of valuing the lands under acquisition, even on such basis the claimant-owners have filed their cross-objections contending that their lands should have been valued at a much higher rate based on the sale transaction which they had produced before the Reference Court apart from the sale transaction in favour of the LIC of India that the Trial Court was not justified in disallowing enhancement towards escalation as the transaction in favour of M/s. LIC of India was of the year 1992 and the acquisition in the instant cases was of the year 1996. They contend that the deductions made are on the higher side. It is under such circumstances the appeals and cross-objections have come to be filed and agitated before this Court.
8. Sri A.S. Mensinakai, learned Government Advocate for the appellants has submitted the following contentions:
(1) That for purposes of valuing the lands under acquisition which was in respect of large extent, the Reference Court should not have relied upon the sale transaction in respect of a small extent of land as the value of small piece of land cannot and should not be taken as a comparable value for valuing large extents of lands.
(2) That the sale transaction in favour of LIC of India which was relied upon by the Reference Court for purposes of valuing the acquired lands should not have been relied upon as the vendor of the land had not been examined, which amounts that the sale has not been proved before the Reference Court. The 3rd contention canvassed is that the deductions at 40% towards developmental and other charges is permissible following the Full Bench decision of this Court is incorrect as the Supreme Court itself indicated that this deduction should go up to 53%.
(3) Valuing the acquired lands on the premise of it having non-agricultural potential is not correct inasmuch as the lands acquired were more than at a distance of 1/2 k.m. from the heart of the town and from the area where development had taken place and as such the Reference Court should have affirmed the valuation on the agricultural character of the lands as has been done by the Land Acquisition Officer and should not have resorted to valuing the lands on non-agricultural potential. The learned Government Advocate also placed reliance on the following decisions in Smt. Basavva and Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (sic) and Printers House Private Limited v. Mst. Saiyadan (deceased) by L.Rs and Ors., .
9. Sri T.S. Amarkumar and Sri G.S. Visveswara, both appearing for the respondents and cross-objectors have supported the reasonings given by the Reference Court that the lands should necessarily be valued for its non-agricultural potential. They contended that the Reference Court should have taken into consideration the other sale transactions placed before the Court by the owners which were in fact the sales effected by the Jamkhandi Town Municipal Council in respect of the sites auctioned by them and that the valuation therein represents the true market value of the lands as per Ex. P. 22 which should have been necessarily taken note of by the Reference Court.
10. They further contended that even while placing reliance on the transaction in favour of LIC as a comparable value, the Reference Court has made unwarranted and unjustified deductions and has drastically reduced the value of the lands to as low as Rs. 3,39,700/- per acre which works out to less than Rs. 8/- per sq. ft. The learned Counsel also contended that the Reference Court ought to have allowed escalation at 10% per year for the 4 years that is the difference in the period between the sale transaction in favour of the LIC and the Section 4(1) notification which were in the years 1992 and 1996 respectively. The learned Counsel for the respondent-landowners also submit that though the land sold under Exs. P. 24 to 28 in favour of the LIC was a converted land it had in fact not been developed and as such there was no scope for deducting any amount from out of the valuation in respect of this land towards developmental and other provisions inasmuch as under the transaction Exs. P. 24 to 28 a total extent of 1 acre 11 guntas has been sold and therefore could be taken as comparable value for valuing the lands under acquisition. Further the learned Counsel submit that as the total extent of the lands acquired under the present acquisition is 46 acres, some deductions may be allowed because of the large extent of the present acquisition.
11. Sri T.S. Amarkumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-cross objectors has also drawn the attention of the Court to Section 51(1)(a) of the Act and the decision of the Apex Court in AIR 2000 SC 1117 (sic), in support of his submission that non-examination of the purchaser is not a must for proving the documents under Exs. P. 24 to 28 which are the sale transactions effected in favour of the Life Insurance Corporation which transaction is not doubted. The learned Counsel has also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor v. Smt. L. Kamalamma (dead) by L.Rs and Ors., , in support of the proposition that when lands are required to be valued on its potentiality of being developed into urban land, categorisation of such lands on the agricultural character of the lands is not justified and submits that as the acquired lands were located within the municipal limits of Jamkhandi Town and all the surrounding areas having been fully developed and being put to non-agricultural use, the Reference Court was fully justified in taking the non-agricultural potential of the land as the basis for the potential value of the land for the purposes of determining the compensation.
12. The learned Counsel also submits that the deduction of 40% towards the total extent of land in respect of the acquired land is not justified as the basis for valuation of the land is by comparison to the transaction in favour of the LIC which was the transaction of a big extent of land and not a small piece of land which had already been laid out.
13. The learned Counsel for the respondent-cross objectors have also contended that the claimants are entitled for awarding of interest even on solatium under Section 23(1-A) of the Act as per the recent decision of the Apex Court and they can claim this amount based on the legal provisions though they had not raised it as a ground for such payment in the cross-objections. In view of such rival contentions on behalf of the appellants and the cross-objectors the question that fall for our consideration are:
(1) Whether the Trial Court was justified in relying upon the sale transaction effected in the year 1992 in favour of the LIC of India in respect of the land 1 acre 11 guntas as a comparable sale transaction for valuing the lands under the current acquisition which in all measures about 46 acres?
(2) Whether the deductions that have been allowed by the Reference Court based on such valuation on the sale transaction in favour of the LIC of India is on the lower side as contended by the appellants or on the higher side as contended by the owners-cross objectors?
(3) Whether the Reference Court should have taken into consideration the sale transaction under Ex. P. 22 which were in respect of the sites sold by the Jamkhandi Town Municipal Council in a public auction and which had fetched as high a rate as Rs. 53.34, Rs. 53.99 and Rs. 58.85 per sq. ft.?
(4) Whether the respondents-cross objectors are entitled for claiming escalation for the 4 years difference between the date of transaction in favour of LIC and the date of issue of Section 4(1) notification and if so, at what rate?
(5) Whether the respondents-cross objectors are entitled for awarding of interest on the solatium amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act?
14. With regard to the first point, that while valuing the lands which are of a large extent the sale transaction involving small piece of land particularly sold on sq. ft. basis cannot automatically form the basis for the large extent of land is an accepted proposition and cannot be disputed at all. But while valuing the land with potentiality for urban use the settled law is that instead of valuing the acquired land on its agricultural character it should be rather valued on its potential particularly having regard to the location of the land, the development that has taken place in the surrounding areas, the user to which lands surrounding the lands under acquisition have already been put to and as to whether the acquired land because of its location as such has any advantages. If the answer is yes, then the transaction in respect of such surrounding developed lands though may be in respect of a smaller extent can be used as a comparable transaction for valuing potential value of the acquired land. The law on this aspect that has been well-settled by norms laid down in a catena of cases by the Apex Court. The Apex Court had occasion to observe in the case of Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi, as under:
"The determination of market value of a land with potentialities for urban use is an intricate exercise which calls for collection and collation of diverse economic criteria. The market value of a piece of property, for purposes of Section 23 is stated to be the price at which the property changes hands from a willing seller to a willing, but not too anxious a buyer, dealing at arm's length. The determination of market value is the prediction of an economic event, viz., the price outcome of a hypothetical sale, expressed in terms of probabilities. Prices fetched for similar lands with similar advantages and potentialities under bona fide transactions of sate at or about the time of the preliminary notification are the usual, and indeed the best evidences of market value. Other methods of valuation are resorted to if the evidence of sale of similar lands is not available".
In a series of subsequent decisions of the Apex Court this decision has been followed and the Court has indicated as to what are the necessary deductions to be made in arriving at the value of the land under acquisition which is of a larger extent when it is sought to be valued on the basis of a sale transaction involving a small extent of land in an already developed area. Provisions towards allowing of roads and other amenities which can take up to 20% of the land and for purposes of development by laying roads and other amenities has been indicated to be in the range of 20 to 33 per cent of the value. Deductions can also be made if the land acquired is situated at a considerable distance from the developed land which is said to be used as a basis for valuation as the acquired land would take several years to reach the same level of development and value of the small bit of land/site located in the developed urban area. While these are some of the deductions that are required to be made if the acquired land is located in a developed area with an upward trend, then some escalation will have to be allowed for each year. If the transaction in question which is sought to be made the basis for valuing the acquired land is of an earlier period than the date of acquisition the Apex Court has allowed escalation of not less than 5% per year and at times up to 12% per year. Of course no hard and fast rules can be laid as it is depending on the facts and circumstances of each of the cases. The Division Bench of this Court in M.F.A. Nos. 847, 1207 and 1216 of 1996 by judgment dated 27-6-2001 in the case of Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Bijapur v. Smt. Shivalingawwa and Anr., 2001(6) Kar. L.J. 171 had occasion to refer to the decision of the Apex Court and on an exhaustive and in-depth scrutiny of the cases following the rulings of the Apex Court had categorically ruled that even for valuing larger extent of lands acquired the sale transaction in respect of a small piece of land even in a developed area can be made the basis if no other comparable transactions are available and the acquired lands also have such development potential.
15. While the main contention on behalf of the appellants is that the transaction in favour of the LIC involved a piece of land which was a land already converted for non-agricultural use, whereas the acquired land still retains the agricultural character and as such could not be made the basis for valuing the lands in question. When once it is accepted that the non-agricultural potential of the land is the consideration for valuing the land what one has to look at is as to what potential the acquired land has. It is not in dispute that the transaction in favour of the LIC of India was in respect of the land in a close proximity of the acquired land and there was considerable developmental activities surrounding the lands acquired. P.W. 1-Suresh, one of the claimants, has deposed that the acquired lands are within the municipal limits of Jamkhandi town, that there is considerable scope for developmental activities in the area of the acquired lands. In fact there is scope for development only in this area as in the other direction the lands are being submerged by the backwaters of the Upper Krishna Project and there is no scope for expansion in that direction. This witness has also established that there is a milk dairy, several sawmills, oil mills and hospitals in the neighbourhood and the distance between the Government Office is less than 1/2 k.m. and due to such advantageous location the value of the land is not less than Rs. 10 lakhs per acre. The non-agricultural potential of the acquired land is not disputed seriously either. Under such circumstances it cannot be said that the Reference Court is wrong in basing the transaction in respect of the lands sold in favour of the LIC of India and the transactions under Exs. P. 24 to 28 as comparable sale transactions for purposes of valuing the lands under acquisition.
16. This takes us to the question as to what are the proper deductions to be made when adopting the value under the sale transactions in favour of the LIC. It is not in dispute that even the total extent of land sold in favour of the LIC of India measured an area of 1 acre 11 guntas and it is not a residential or commercial site laid out in a developed area. The land under acquisition adds up to about 46 acres and odd it belongs to several owners measuring between 1 to 4 acres each. The Trial Court had made two types of deductions. Firstly, it has reduced Rs. 3.11 per sq. ft. from out of Rs. 16.11 per sq. ft. which is the rate in respect of the lands sold in favour of LIC and has made deduction from Rs. 13/- per sq. ft. which is the basis and from out of this had allowed a deduction of 40% towards developmental charges. We are of the view that both these deductions are not based on any sound legal principles. Firstly, there is no indication as to what is the reason or basis for giving the margin of Rs. 3.11 and 40% deductions towards developmental charges cannot be made basis on the reported decision of the Apex Court in Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, supra. In this case the Apex Court has arrived at a market value at Rs. 100/-per sq. yard of the facts of that case reduced the same to Rs. 60/- per sq. yard. This decision cannot be understood as laying down a general principle that 40% is the proper percentage of deduction to be made in all cases inasmuch as the deduction indicated therein is on the basis of the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case. In the instant case as the value of the land itself is to a larger extent applying the deductions such as 20% towards formation of roads and for laying out of sites 20% to 33% towards development of amenities cannot be fully applied.
17. The lands sold in favour of the LIC under Exs. P. 24 to 28 which is taken as the basis for valuing the land under acquisition were admittedly converted lands. Insofar as the lands under acquisition are concerned it appears that as per Exs. P. 16 to 21 certain extent of lands in Sy. Nos. 623, 107, 108 and 112 had been permitted for non-agricultural user. Based on these documents the claimants have contended that the lands covered by these orders were permitted for non-agricultural use as per the various orders issued during the years 1993, 1994 and 1995. The extent covered under these orders is little more than 50% of the land under acquisition. The claimants have examined 3 witnesses, P.W. 1-Suresh who was the owner of the land in one of the survey numbers acquired and who had deposed that the lands under acquisition have great non-agricultural potential being located just in the vicinity of the lands acquired by the Jamkhandi Town Municipality for laying out residential sites, that the acquired lands was located on such side of the Jamkhandi Town which had considerable growth potential as on the other side the backwater of the Upper Krishna Project was reaching the town and on another side of the town there was a hillock and the town limit has already reached up to the foot of the hillock. This witness has also deposed that the Jamkhandi Town was a most sought after place in the area, as persons displaced due to the submergence of their lands by the backwaters of the Upper Krishna Project were choosing the Jamkhandi Town for shifting their residences as the town had good educational facilities, was a good commercial centre and lot of trade and commercial activities are taking place in the town. This witness has claimed that the value of the lands acquired will not be not less than Rs. 10 lakhs per acre having regard to its growth potential and if they were to have been laid out as small sites and sold it could fetch up to Rs. 16 to 18 lakhs per acre. Nothing much has been elicited in the cross-examination of this witness except to suggest that the claimants are not trustworthy and the witness is deposing falsehood for claiming higher compensation. The 2nd witness P.W. 2, one Chandrasekhar Dashvan is the Chief Executive of the Jamkhandi Town Municipal Council who has deposed that the acquisition of lands in Sy. Nos. 7 and 8 which are just by the side of the land acquired were acquired for purposes of laying out sites which had been sold by the Town Municipality by public auction. P.W. 3 is a person who had purchased such site which had been sold by the Town Municipality and he had indicated that he had purchased the site measuring 30" x 40" for Rs. 52,000/-. These two witnesses have also stated that if the acquired lands should be laid out as sites and sold it could fetch even a better price than what the Municipality itself has realised in a public auction.
18. P.W. 1 has spoken about the sale of nearby lands in favour of the LIC of India and has also deposed that they are as per sale deeds marked as Exs. P. 24 to 28. On a perusal of the evidence of this witness and the location of the acquired lands it is clear that the acquired lands are located within the area which is already well-developed, within the limits of the Jamkhandi Town Municipality and definitely had considerable growth potential. Whereas the lands sold in favour of the LIC had been converted much prior to the sale only about 50% of the lands under acquisition had been permitted for non-agricultural user in a span of 1 to 2 years prior to the issue of acquisition notification. Also, that the lands sold in favour of the LIC under 5 sale deeds under Exs. P. 24 to 28 in all aggregate to an extent of 1 acre 11 guntas. It is not very clear as to whether any provisions had been made for developmental activities such as roads and other amenities and the land actually sold in favour of the LIC without including such lands as provided for. In fact even the lands sold under these sale deeds are if put together 1 acre 11 guntas and each piece of land by itself will measure 1/4th of an acre in the average which roughly measure about 10,000 sq. ft. In this view of the matter and having regard to the fact that we are required to value a large extent of lands of 46 and odd acres and half of which had been permitted for non-agriculture user, deduction for this aspect will have to be necessarily made even if the value of the sale deed in favour of the LIC is to be taken as the basis for valuing the lands in question. In fact, the respondent-cross objectors have also conceded that necessarily deductions will have to be made on this aspect.
19. The learned Counsel for the cross-objectors have also pleaded that even if Ex. P. 22 is taken into consideration the value works out to as much as Rs. 53/- per sq. ft. and the Reference Court has adopted the value of the land acquired at Rs. 3,39,700/- per sq. ft. by allowing deduction at 40% on a rate of Rs. 13/- per sq. ft. which in itself is not rational and is totally erroneous. The learned Counsel also submits that the Reference Court has simply indicated that as the valuation arrived at on the basis of Exs. P. 22 and 23 which are in respect of the sites sold by the Jamkhandi Town Municipal Council being very much higher ranging from Rs. 53.34 per sq. ft. to Rs. 58.85 per sq. ft. and being definitely much higher than the value as indicated in the transaction in favour of the LIC under Exs. P. 24 to 28 and thus the Court could prefer to rely upon the valuation under Ex. P. 28 rather than on the valuation under Exs. P. 22 and 23, and submitted that the Reference Court has not indicated any acceptable reasons for this preference except to say that the valuation arrived at on the basis of Exs. P. 22 and 23 is very much on the higher side. The Reference Court had allowed the deductions at 40% towards developmental activities. The cross-objectors have claimed that they should be provided enhancement to the escalation in prices due to the time gap between the transaction in favour of the LIC and the date of Section 4(1) notification which is about 4 years later. The learned Counsel for the cross-objectors also submits that even if the deduction is to be made in respect of non-converted lands under acquisition it cannot be more than rupee one per sq. ft. as it will be only conversion charges that is required to be paid by the landowners for such conversion. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent-cross objectors that at best from the rate of Rs. 16.11 per sq. ft. as indicated in the transaction in favour of the LIC under Exs. P. 24 to 28 a deduction at Rs. 1.11 could have been made due to the non-conversion aspect and Rs. 15/- per sq. ft. as the basic value for further deductions in respect of the acquired lands. They also prayed for escalation for the 4 years differ-
ence. Even if a deduction of Rs. 1.11 is allowed from the rate of Rs. 16.11 as indicated in the transaction in favour of the LIC further deduction from this towards provision for developmental activities will have to be necessarily made. We have already indicated the reasons for the same as supra. The Reference Court had allowed deduction at 40% towards this aspect and in these circumstances we feel it is reasonable to maintain this level of deduction though for different reasons as indicated earlier.
20. Insofar as the escalation aspect and enhancement on the same is concerned we have already noticed that the escalation allowed due to the time gap between the transaction based on which the value is sought to be worked out and the date of acquisition is also dependent on the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly the growth potential of the land located in the particular area. The Apex Court had allowed an escalation ranging from 5 to 12 per cent per year. The land in question having been valued on non-agricultural potential and the value of deduction in itself being on the premise that it had developed to that level the escalation can only be minimal. We are allowing 5% escalation as reasonable. On this premise for four years it will work out to 20% and allowing deduction of 40% from the basic value at Rs. 15/- per sq. ft. it would works out to Rs. 9/- per sq. ft. and allowing an escalation at 5% per year would go to Rs. 10.80 per sq. ft. If this rate is to be applied the value per acre works out to Rs. 4,70,448/-.
21. Accordingly we determine the proper market value of the lands under acquisition at Rs. 4,70,448/- per acre in place of the value as determined by the Reference Court and hold that the Reference Court has made more deduction than was necessary and had not made any provision towards escalation of prices which was not correct having regard to the settled legal principles in this regard.
22. We are also of the view that the Reference Court was justified in rejecting the valuation based on the transaction under Exs. P. 22 and 23 and as much as the transaction under Exs. P. 24 to 28 involving the lands sold in favour of the LIC and being of larger extent is definitely the more comparable transaction than of small pieces of house sites located in a developed area sold by public auction by the Town Municipal Council. We answer this point against the respondents and hold that the Reference Court was justified in not placing reliance of the valuation as arrived at on the basis of the transaction, Exs. P. 22 and 23.
23. We have also indicated that the respondent-cross objectors are entitled for escalation for the 4 years and we have indicated the percentage of such escalation to be at 5% per year.
24. The respondent-cross objectors have sought for enhancement by way of filing cross-objections, at Rs. 2,86,000/- per acre over and above what was permitted by the Reference Court. We allow the cross-objections to the extent of enhancing the value of the lands fixed by the Reference Court at Rs. 3,39,700/- to Rs. 4,70,448/- per acre rounded off to Rs. 4,70,500/- per acre. The cross-objections are allowed to this extent. We also hold that having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court on the interpretation of Section 23(1-A) of the Act the respondent-cross objectors are entitled for claiming interest on solatium amount also. The amount of interest on solatium is to be quantified and paid while the other benefits as awarded by the Reference Court such as 30% solatium, 12% additional market value per annum on the enhanced compensation etc. are maintained.
25. In the result, the appeals filed by the Land Acquisition Officer are dismissed without costs. The cross-objections filed by the respondent-cross objectors are allowed in part to the extent indicated above. The cross-objectors to get costs proportionate to the success in the cross-objections.
M.F. Saldanha and D.V. Shylendra Kumar, JJ.
18-1-2002
26. After pronouncement of the judgment, learned Counsel for the respondent-cross objector brought to our notice that at the time of passing of the interim order in the miscellaneous first appeal there was a condition that the compensation amount was to be released in favour of respondents on their furnishing security to the full extent, to the satisfaction of the Reference Court. Now that we have dismissed the appeals, the Reference Court is directed that the security furnished may be re-leased in favour of the respondent/s.