Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Gokul vs Hindustan Zinc Ltd. And Anr. on 4 April, 2005
Equivalent citations: RLW2005(2)RAJ1324
Author: Manak Mohta
Bench: N.N. Mathur, Manak Mohta
JUDGMENT Manak Mohta, J.
1. There above mentioned special appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 6.8.2001 passed in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 571 of 1999 along with 69 other connected appeals mentioned in the Schedule 'A' annexed with the judgment, whereby, the learned Single Judge has allowed the appeals holding that the claimants are not entitled to claim solatium and the additional amount of 12 percent per annum as awarded by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Chittorgarh Reference Court vide its judgment dated 13.7.1998 along with applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. Later on, the delay was condoned vide order dated 2.7.2003 by this Court.
2. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in the aforesaid appeals, therefore, these appeals are finally heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment for the sake of convenience.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
4. The facts, in brief, relating to the matter are that the land of the private agriculturists situated at village Putholi and Ajoliyon Ka Khera, Tehsil Gangrar, District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan) was required to be acquired for the purpose of Hindustan Zinc Limited "the Company". For that purpose, notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were published on 8.6.83 and 3.8.83 respectively. Notices under Section 9 of the said Act were also issued to the concerned agriculturists (some of them are appellants-non- petitioners) to submit their claims.
5. It appears from the record that during acquisition proceedings long negotiations took place between the land- holders, their Advocates and representatives of the Company. A seven persons' Committee was constituted and a meeting was called which was presided over by Shri Narpat Singh Chauhan, who was Revenue Appellate Authority at that time. Thereafter a written agreement was drawn on 26.11.1988 in the share of a compromise, which was finally accepted by the parties and was placed on record as Ex.A/1. It is also revealed from the record that the Land Acquisition Officer, after satisfaction, passed the award on the basis of the compromise Ex.A/1 but he did not award solatium payable under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act of 1894') and also did not award additional amount calculated at the rate of 12 percent per annum as per Section 23 (1-A) of the Act of 1894. Therefore, applications were submitted by some of the agriculturist-claimants before the Land Acquisition Officer stating therein that the agriculturist-claimants are accepting the award amount under protest and requested the Land Acquisition Officer to either award the amount of solatium and interest or sent the dispute to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act of 1984. It appears from the record that the Land Acquisition Officer after considering the matter rejected the applications for making reference under Section 18 of the said Act and held that the amount which has been awarded in the award is inclusive of solatium and additional amount and, therefore, decided that the agriculturist-claimants are not entitled for any additional amount vide order dated 4.8.1989.
6. The agriculturist-claimants challenged the said order of the Land Acquisition Officer dated 4.8.89 before this Court by way of writ petitions. It appears that in this respect S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 180 of 1990 and other 35 connected writ petitions were allowed on 23.3.1990 and the matters were directed to be referred to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act of 1894.
7. Therefore the matters were referred to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the said Act to the Reference Court Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Chittorgarh. The learned reference court after concluding the proceedings vide order dated 13.7.98 held that amount of solatium and additional amount are not included in the amount agreed upon in the compromise Ex.A/1 the basis of award hence the learned reference court Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Chittorgarh held the the agriculturist-claimants are entitled to the amount 30 percent solatium and an additional amount at the rate of 12 percent per annum. Thereafter, by separate order dated 9.10.98, the learned reference court determined the amount for each claimant.
8. Thereafter against the judgment of the learned reference court Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Chittorgarh dated 13.7.98, the respondent No. 1-Hindustan Zinc Limited preferred separate appeals under Section 54 of the Act of 1894 before this court. All the appeals were heard together by the learned Single Judge as the common questions of fact and law were involved and while holding that the award of solatium and additional amount awarded by the learned reference court was contrary to law, set aside the order and allowed all the appeals vide judgment dated 6.8.2001 filed by respondents No. 1-Hindustan Zinc Limited. Against this, the present special appeals under Section 18 of the High Court Ordinance have been filed by the agriculturist-claimants. Notices were issued to the respondents.
9. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants while challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court submitted that admittedly, the appellants' land was acquired for respondent No. 1 and in that respect, a written compromise dated 26.11.88 was entered into between the parties, which is on record as Ex.A/1 but that was only with regard to the cost of land and not for any other matter like the statutorily payable solatium or additional amount or other benefits awardable under Section 23(2) and 23(1-A) of the Act of 1894. The learned counsel for the appellants again submitted that the amount mentioned in the compromise dated 26.11.88 was not inclusive of statutorily awardable solatium at the rate of 30 percent and additional amount at the rate of 12 percent per annum and other benefits.
10. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Land Acquisition Officer on the basis to compromise Ex.A/1 dated 26.11.88 passed the award under Section 11(2) of the Act that was contrary to law. It was also contended that the Land Acquisition Officer also rejected the applications for referring the matter to Civil Court. Later on, by the direction of this Court, the matter was referred to the Reference Court Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Chittorgarh and the learned Reference Court granted 30 percent solatium and 12 percent additional amount vide order dated 13.7.98, it was also submitted on behalf of the appellants that the learned reference court after taking into account all the materials rightly came to the conclusion that amount of solatium and additional amount were not included in the compromise. The conclusion of the reference court was based on sound reasons that should be maintained. It was also submitted that the learned Single Judge also confirmed the findings of the Reference Court but still the appeals of the respondent No. 1 were not dismissed. The learned Single Judge has given much importance to the compromise Ex.A/1 and Section 11(2) of the Act of 1894 without taking full facts into consideration and did not correctly interpret the provisions of Section 11(2) and 23 of the Act of 1894 and reversed the judgment of the learned reference court and allowed the appeals.
11. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that with regard to rate of land, no further enquiry was required as there was compromise between the parties, therefore, awarding the cost of land as per rates mentioned in the compromise is not disputed by the appellants but with regard to awardable solatium and additional amount, the position was clear that these were not included in the rate of land mentioned in the compromise Ex.A/1 dated 26.11.88. The Reference Court held that these statutorily awardable additional amounts were not included in the cost of land. The learned Single Judge without disturbing the findings on this matter incorrectly held that these additional amount were included in the compromise and set aside the judgment of the Reference Court and allowed the appeals that is contrary to record and the judgment of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the appellants drew our attention towards the provisions of law narrated in Section 23(1- A) and 23(2) of the Act of 1894 and also referred to Union of India v. Ram Mehar and Ors., AIR 1973 SC 305, State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh and Anr., AIR 1987 SC 758 and Union of India v. Smt. ulochana Devi and 13 Ors., 2000(1) WLC (Raj.) 515) = (RLW 2000(1) Raj. 398, in support of his contentions. The learned counsel for appellants tried to distinguish the rulings, cited on behalf of respondent No. 1 in the case of Ishwarlal Premchand Shah and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., AIR 1996 SC 1616 and State of Gujarat and Ors. v. Daya Shamji Bhai and Ors., 1995 (5) SCC 746, and prayed that the appeals be allowed. The judgment of the Reference Court be restored and the judgment of the learned Singe Judge be quashed.
12. On the contrary, the learned counsel for respondents No. 1 while supporting the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 6.8.2001 submitted that the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants are baseless and are not tenable.
13. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 Further submitted that near-about the land of 200 agriculturists was acquired for respondent No. 1. Later on some persons out of them have raised objections. It was also submitted that in this respect, during acquisition proceedings while keeping in mind the interest of the agriculturists and taking into consideration the market rate of the land prevalent at that time and the rate at which similarly situated land was acquired and taking into consideration the amount of solatium and additional amount by mutual negotiations between the agriculturists and their legal representatives and representative of the Company, the terms of compromise were settled and the land rate was determined, which was inclusive of solatium and additional amount. A compromise deed was prepared and the compromise was not disputed by the appellant-side. The compromise dated 26.11.88 (Ex.A/1) was placed before the Land Acquisition Officer. Even before him, no dispute was raised by the agriculturist-claimants. In that situation, the Land Acquisition Officer was bound to pass the Award as per the terms of compromise without making further enquiry as land down under Section 11(2) of the Act of 1894. The learned Land Acquisition Officer acted in accordance with law and passed the award.
14. The learned counsel also emphasised that in view of the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act of 1894, nothing remained for further enquiry and determination. The learned counsel also submitted that the respondents accepted the award and acted on the terms of compromise and total awarded amount has been paid and received by the agriculturist-claimants.
15. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 further submitted that it was legally permissible for the parties to compromise. The concerned persons consciously, knowingly and willingly stated that terms of compromise and placed the same before the Land Acquisition Officer. Under Section 11(2) of the Act of 1894, the award has been passed strictly in terms of the agreement. In fact, there was no dispute with regard to the terms of compromise. In this way, there was no need to refer the matter to the learned Civil Court. Under Section 18 of the Act of 1894, the reference is only required when the dispute is raised with regard to determination of value of the land but in this particular case, no such dispute existed between the parties, so the very reference was not required under Section 18 of the Act of 1894. The respondent No. 1 drew the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 18 of the Act of 1894.
16. The respondent No. 1 further contended that in the acquisition proceedings there was nothing to be determined as the rate for different types of land were agreed and a written compromise was made. No further proceedings was required under Section 23 of the Act of 1894 with regard to the cost of the land.
17. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 further submitted that the amount of solatium under Section 23(2) and additional amount under Section 23(1-A) were only needed to be ascertained when the cost of the land was to be determined but in the present case, the cost of the land inclusive of solatium and additional amount was agreed by way of mutual agreement between the parties, so, no need for any pre-de-termination of solatium and additional amount arose to add the same to the agreed rat of the land otherwise that would go beyond the terms of the agreement settled between the parties.
18. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 while referring the relevant provisions of Section 11(2), 23(1-A), 23(2) and Section 31 of the Act of 1894, further submitted that though on the applications of some of the agriculturist-claimants, the matters have been referred to the learned Civil Court but looking to the total terms of the compromise minutely, no further enquiry with regard to determination of value of the land under Section 23 of the said Act was required. The State Government submitted that the learned Reference Court should to have taken a different view and should not have taken a different view and should not have held that the solatium and additional amount were not included in the agreed cost of the land. In this way, the judgment of the learned Reference Court was not in accordance with the agreed terms mentioned in the written compromise Ex.A/1 dated 26.11.88 and the judgment was rightly set aside by the learned Single Judge after detailed discussion. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 also placed reliance on Ishwarlal Premchand Shah and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., AIR 1996 SC 1616 and State of Gujarat and Ors. v. Daya Shamji Bhai and Ors., 1995(5) SCC 746. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has stated that the rulings cited by the appellants' side are not applicable at all as there was no need to determine the cost of the land under Section 23 and the amount of solatium and additional amount under Section 23(2) and 23(1-A) of the Act of 1894. Therefore, the procedure laid down under Section 23 of the Act was not required to be followed. The law laid down in the afore-mentioned citations with regard to solatium and additional amount is not applicable. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has prayed that no serious illegality and material irregularity have been pointed out by the appellants' side. The judgment of the learned Single Judge be maintained and the appeals of the appellants be dismissed.
19. We have considered the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, have perused the authorities cited by them and have gone through the record of the case.
20. The judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 6.8.2001 reveals that after considering the rival contentions of the parties, the relevant provisions of the Act of 1894 the agreed terms of the compromise Ex.A/1 dated 26.11.88, it was concluded that at the time of settlement of the terms, the claimants were well aware and conscious of the terms of the compromise. On that basis, where agreed terms of the settlement were mentioned in the compromise including also, the terms which were not directly connected with the acquisition proceedings such as employment to the claimants will be provided by respondent No. 1, have been inserted in the compromise Ex.A/1, it cannot be inferred that the claims with regard to solatium and additional amount were not included in the said compromise. The learned Single Judge on the basis of this conclusion and keeping in view the position of law under Section 11(2) of the Act that where the parties agreed to the compromise terms, the Land Acquisition Officer was under a legal obligation to include the agreed terms of the written compromise without making further enquiry and to pass and award according to the terms of such agreement. For ready reference, Section 11(2) of the Act of 1894 is reproduce as under:-
"Section 11(2). Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), if at any stage of the proceedings, the Collector is satisfied that all the persons interested in the land who appeared before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be included in the award of the Collector in the form prescribed by rules made by the appropriate Government, he may, without making further enquiry, make an award according to the terms of such agreement."
21. Learned Single Judge after discussing the matter at lenity, came to the conclusion that after the compromise on the agreed written terms, no matters remained for determination under Section 23 of the Act and dismissed the claims regarding solatium and additional amount under Sections 23(2) and 23(1A) of the Act of 1984.
22. It is an admitted position from the record of the case that private agriculture land, situated at village Putholi and Ajoliyon Ka Khera Tehsil Gangrar Distt. Chittorgarh of near-about 200 persons, was to be acquired for the requirement of respondent No. 1 and in this respect, the acquisition proceedings were instituted. The fact is not disputed that during acquisition proceedings, mutual negotiation took place between the parties with the help of intervenor and representatives of the parties and it is also apparent from the record that different types of land were to be acquired, so with the consent of the parties, different rates were determined for different type of land. Later on, the agreed different rates of land were mentioned in the written compromise dated 26.11.88. It is also contended by the respondents side that the rates were so arrived after taking into account, all factors relating to rate of the land and inclusive of the amount of solatium and additional amount. Therefore, the terms with regard to the claim of solatium and additional amount were not included in the compromise.
23. It is revealed from the record that on the agreed terms f the settlement between the parties on 26.11.88, a written compromise came into existence, different rates for different types of land were mentioned in the compromise Ex.A/1 but the terms with regard to the claim of solatium and additional amount were not mentioned in the compromise. It can be inferred that if the parties intended to have additional claims with regard to solatium and additional amount, that term would have been included in the compromise Ex.A/1. Looking to the total agreed terms of the compromise Ex.A/1, it seems that the said compromise is exhaustive and parties knowingly and consciously agreed to the terms of the compromise. For ready reference, the relevant terms of the compromise Ex.A/1 are mentioned here, which are as follows:-
^^1-fpRrkSM+x<+ HkhyokM+k jksM ls yxh gqbZ vokfIr esas vkus okyh Hkwfe ftlds dqy 7 uEcj gS tks djhc 26&27 ch?kk ds gksrh gS A ;g lHkh vjkth;kr jsdMZ esa flafpr mRre ntZ gS o cgqr gh de jdck chM+ o ckMk ;kfu vU; fdLesa gSa A bu uEcjku dh dher 40000½ izfr ch?kk ls eqvkotk jkf'k r; dh tkrh gS A 2- vokfIr Hkwfe esa nhxj fdLeksa dh Hkwfe dh jsV fuEu izdkj r; dh tkrh gS %& ¼v½ pkgh izFke 36]000½ izfr ch?kk ¼c½ pkgh f}rh;
27]000½ izfr ch?kk ¼l½ pkgh r`rh;
18]000½ izfr ch?kk ¼n½ tk- izFke I 18]000½ izfr ch?kk ¼;½ tk- f}rh; II 18]000½ izfr ch?kk ¼j½ tk- r`rh; III 18]000½ izfr ch?kk ¼y½ ckjkuh izFke] f}rh;
12]000½ : izfr ch?kk ¼o½ chM catj vkfn 10]000½ : izfr ch?kk 3- fdlh vflafpr Hkwfe ij fiNys rhu o"kZ esa vxj nks Qlysa gks jgh gS tks fd ftalokjh esa ntZ gksxh] mldh jsV 18]000½ :i;s izfr ch?kk r; dh tkrh gS A** 4- D;ksafd cqokbZ dk le; gS o dbZ dk'rdkjksa us jsyuh dj nh gS o cqokbZ Hkh dj nh gS] bl ckr dk fgUnwLrku ftad }kjk Hkjld iz;kl fd;k tk;sxk fd orZeku Qly lEcaf/kr dk'rdkj idus ij izkIr dj ysos] vxj vokfIr dh otg ls dksbZ ekSds ij fgUnqLrku ftad }kjk dk;Z djus ls Qly u"V gks x;h rks mldk vyx ls eqvkotk fn;k tk;sxk A eqvkots esa dksbZ fookn gksxk rks Hkh ujir th rks r; djsaxs og nksuksa i{kksa dks ekU; gksxk A 5- pwafd vke le>kSrk gksus tk jgk gS] blfy, dksbZ Hkh i{kdkj u;s rkSj ij jsyuh o cqokbZ ugha djsaxs A vxj djaxs rks mldk eqvkotk izkIr ugha dj ldsaxs A 6- ftu Ñ"kdksa dh Hkwfe vokIr dh tk jgh gS] ml Ñ"kd ds izR;sd ifjokj esa ls ,d lnL; vFkok mlds okfjl dks ;ksX;rkuqlkj fgUnqLrku ftad }kjk vius izfr"Bku esa fu;qfDr nh tk;sxh A**
24. On the basis of the above mentioned compromise Ex.A/1, the Land Acquisition Officer acted under Section 11(2) of the Act of 1894 and included the terms of the written compromise with regard to rate of land and passed the Award in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. The agreement quoted above reveals that ^^eqvkotk jkf'k** was agreed between the parties that means ^^eqvkotk** that is to say, compensation was agreed which is obviously inclusive of solatium and additional amount as provided in Section 23(1A) and 23(2) of the Act of 1894, it is also clear that the compromise Ex.A/1 was not disputed by the appellant- claimants. Only some of the claimants have raised the dispute to this extent that the above mentioned rates of land in the compromise were not inclusive of solatium and additional amount but it is very clear that such type of averments have not been mentioned in the compromise Ex.A/1. When all settled terms were condensed in the compromise, if in fact, the parties intended to determine solatium and additional amount separately then such terms would have been expressly included in the compromise. It was argued that it has not been specifically mentioned in the compromise that the agreed land rates are inclusive of solatium and additional amount, therefore, the non-mentioning of such terms, keeps the matter open to determine statutorily awardable amount of solatium and additional amount but looking to the over- all terms of the compromise, we are of the opinion that such inference could not be drawn and the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants in this regard have no force. The compromise is not denied. The compromise does not contain terms with regard to solatium and additional amount. The compromise Ex.A/1 was placed voluntarily by the parties before the Land Acquisition Officer and even at that time, no such type of objections were raised. The Land Acquisition Officer was not required to make further enquiry and he was supposed to pass award in accordance with terms of the agreement as laid down under Section 11(2) of the Act of 1894.
25. As per above discussion, where the parties were agreed to the terms of the compromise with regard to compensation of land, nothing remained for determination under Section 23 of the Act. The title words of Section 23 of the Act are as follows:-
"Matters to be considered in determining compensation."
Sections 23(1A) and 23(2) fall under the same title and section, therefore, when compensation was agreed between the parties, nothing remained to be determined under Section 23(1 A) and 23(2) of the Act.
26. Therefore, the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants' side that additional amount under Section 23(1A) and amount under Section 23(2) of the Act were statutorily awardable amounts, should have been determined separately are having no force. In such position, the determination of separate solatium and additional amount were not required. The authorities cited by the learned counsel for the appellants in this respect are AIR 1973 SC 305, Union of India v. Ram Mehar and Ors. (supra), AIR 1987 SC 758, State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh and Anr. (supra) and 2000(1) WLC (Raj.) 515) = (RLW 2000(1) Raj. 398, Union of India v. Smt. Sulochana Devi and Ors. (supra). There authorities are related to determination of rate of land under Section 23 of the Act and in that case , it has been that cost of the land is not inclusive of solatium and additional amount. In the aforesaid authorities, there were matters under consideration arising on determination of the rates of land but this is not the position is the instant case. Here, in the instant case, the parties have agreed with regard to the compensation and the agreed terms have been reduced in writing vide compromise Ex.A/1. In such situation, the authorities cited by the appellants' side are not supporting their contentions and the authorities cited by the respondents' side are more relevant and the learned Single Judge has rightly relied on AIR 1973 SC 305 Ishwarlal Premchand Shah and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (supra) and AIR 1987 SC 758 State of Gujarat and Ors. v. Daya Shamji Bhai and Ors. (supra).
27. During arguments, the other contentions were raised on behalf of the appellant-claimants' side that there was a finding of Reference Court that the agreed land rates mentioned in the compromise were not inclusive of solatium and additional amount and that finding has been confirmed by the learned Single Judge yet the learned Single Judge decided the appeals against the appellants. Looking to the over-all terms of the compromise with regard to rate of land on the agreed terms, the compensation was agreed between the parties and in view of law laid down in Section 11(2) of the Act, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge did not commit any error or illegality. No interference is required in the judgment.
28. In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant-claimants are are liable to be dismissed. Hence, thereby all the appeals are dismissed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is confirmed. No order as to costs.