Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of H.P. & Others vs Kanshi Ram Through Lrs & Others on 4 January, 2023
Author: Satyen Vaidya
Bench: Satyen Vaidya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RFA No. 305 of 2016 a/w RFAs No. 306,
307, 308, 40, 41 and 42 of 2016
.
Reserved on:26.12.2022
Date of decision :4.1.2023.
1. RFA No. 305 of 2016
State of H.P. & others ...Appellants.
Versus
Kanshi Ram through LRs & others ...Respondents
2. RFA No. 306 of 2016
State of H.P. & others ...Appellants
Versus
Kanshi Ram through LRs & others ...Respondents
3. RFA No. 307 of 2016
State of H.P. & others ...Appellants
Versus
Kamlesh. ...Respondent
4. RFA No. 308 of 2016
State of H.P. & others ...Appellants
Versus
Lekh Ram through LRs & others ...Respondents
5. RFA No. 40 of 2016
Kanshi Ram through LRs & others ...Appellants
Versus
Kanshi Ram & others ...Respondents
6. RFA No. 41 of 2016
Kanshi Ram through LRs & others ...Appellants
Versus
::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:50 :::CIS
-2-
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents
7. RFA No. 42 of 2016
Lekh Ram through LRs & others ...Appellants
.
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the petitioner : Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, Addl. A.G. for
the appellants in RFA Nos. 305,
306, 307 and 308 of 2016 and for
respondent-State in RFA No. 40, 41
r and 42 of 2016.
For the respondents : Mr. J. L. Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj,
Advocate, for the appellants in RFA
Nos. 40, 41 and 42 of 2016 and for
respondents in RFA Nos. 305, 306
and 308 of 2016.
Mr. Malay Kaushal, Advocate, for
the respondent in RFA No. 307 of
2016.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge:
All these appeals are being decided by common judgment as these arise from the same common award dated 16.10.2015, passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur in Land 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:50 :::CIS -3-Reference Petition Nos. 28/4 of 2013, 29/4 of 2013, 30/4 of 2013 and 31/4 of 2013.
.
2. The total land measuring 11-07-00 bighas was proposed to be acquired by the State Government for construction of link road "Namhol-Bahadurpur" in village Tipra, District Bilaspur.Notification dated 25.11.2009 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in Rajpatra dated 3.12.2009.
Land Acquisition Collector vide award No. 14 of 2011 dated 9.12.2011 awarded the marked price ranging from Rs. 1,54,284/- to Rs. 7, 97,134/- per bigha, depending upon the classification of the land.
3. Aggrieved against the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, the claimants preferred Reference Petitions under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which came to be registered as Reference Petition Nos. 28/4 of 2013, 29/4 of 2013, 30/4 of 2013 and 31/4 of 2013 before learned District Judge, Bilaspur. The reference Court re-determined the market value at the rate of Rs. 10,28,571/- per bigha, irrespective of the classification.
4. Aggrieved against the common judgment/award, passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur dated 16.10.2015, the State has preferred RFA Nos. 305, 306, 307 and 308 of ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:50 :::CIS -4- 2016. The claimants in Land Reference Nos. 29/4 of 2013, 30/4 of 2013and 28/4 of 2013 have also assailed the .
award/judgment dated 16.10.2015, passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur by way of RFA Nos. 40, 41 and 42 of 2016.
5. The State has assailed the judgment/award, passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur on the grounds that the standard deduction, in accordance with law,was not allowed from the market value. It is contended on behalf of the State that in terms of the judgment, passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kasturi & others vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (1) SCC 354 and Haridwar Development Authority, Haridwar vs. Raghubir Singh etc. AIR SC 2016 SC 1754, the deduction was bound to be made from the market value. On the other hand, it has been contended on behalf of the claimants that since the purpose of the acquisition of land was construction of a rural road, no deduction was permissible.
6. By way of RFA Nos. 40, 41 and 42 of 2016, the claimants have contended that their land was utilized for construction of road in the year 2005 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued in the year 2009, therefore, they were entitled to be compensated for a ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:50 :::CIS -5- period between 2005 to 2009, as they had been divested from their valuable land.
.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.
8. Before dealing with the rival objections,it can be noticed that the purpose of the acquisition in the present case was construction of a rural road for linking the rural areas to the State Highway andthe exampler sale deed relied upon was of 7 biswas of land, whereas the total acquired land was 11 Bighas 7 Biswas.The purpose of acquisition was the same.
These factsare not disputed by either side. Learned Reference Court awarded compensation at uniform rate irrespective of the classification of the land.
9. It is settled that when entire land is acquired for the same purpose, the compensation of market value at the uniform rate is justifiable. Reference can be made to 2018 (2) SLC 739 titled as General Manager, NHPC & another vs. Rattan Dass & others as under:-
"8. At the outset, it may be observed that it is settled principle of law that if the entire land is put for a public use and no area is left out for carrying out any developmental activity, then the claimants are entitled for compensation for the entire acquired land, at uniform rates, regardless of its categorization. This aspect of the ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:50 :::CIS -6- case has been considered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in RFA No. 282 of 2010 titled Suresh Kumar and others vs. Collector Land Acquisition, NHPC, decided on .
22.10.2016 alongwith connected matters, wherein it was observed as under:
"26. It is a settled principle of law that if the entire land is put for a public use and no area is left out for carrying out any developmental activity, then the claimants are entitled for compensation for the entire acquired land, at uniform rates, regardless of its categorization. 27. The apex Court in r Haridwar Development Authority vs. Raghubir Singh & others, (2010) 11 SCC 581 has upheld the award of compensation on uniform rates.
28. In Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh and others 2005(12) SCC 564, while determining the compensation for acquisition of land pertaining to five different villages, the apex Court uniformly awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- per acre, irrespective of the classification and the category of land.
29. Further, in Nelson Fernades vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer 2007(9) SCC 447 while dealing with the case where the land was acquired for laying a Railway line, the Court held that no deduction by way of development charges was permissible as there was no question of any development thereof.
30. Similar view stands taken by this Court in Gulabi and etc. Vs. State of H.P., AIR 1998 HP 9 and later on in H.P. Housing oard vs. Ram Lal & Ors.2003 (3) Shim. L.C. 64, which judgment has ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:50 :::CIS -7- attained finality as SLP (Civil) No. 15674-15675 of 2004 titled as Himachal Pradesh Housing Board vs. Ram Lal (D) by LRs & Others, filed by the H.P. .
Housing Board came to be dismissed by the Apex Court on 16.8.2004. 31. This judgment was subsequently referred to and relied upon by this Court in Executive Engineer & Anr. Vs Dilla Ram {Latest HLJ 2008 HP 1007} and relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Harinder Pal Singh (supra), wherein the market value of the land under acquisition situated in five different villages was r assessed uniformly, irrespective of its nature and quality, also awarded compensation on uniform rates."
10. The learned Additional Advocate General insupport of his contention has placed reliance on the following extract of Kasturi & others vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (1) SCC 354:
10. "This Court in Administrator General of West Bengal vs. Collector, Varansi [(1988) 2 SCC 150] referring to earlier decisions has held that prices fetched for small plots cannot form basis for valuation of large tracts of land as the two are not comparable properties. Para 12 of the said judgment reads:
"It is trite proposition that prices fetched for small plots cannot form safe bases for valuation of large tracts of land as the two are not comparable properties. (See Collector of Lakhimpur v. B.C. Dutta [(1972) 4 SCC 236]; Mirza Naushervan Khan v. Collector (Land Acquisition), Hyderabad [(1975) 2 SCR 184]; Padma Uppal v. State of Punjab [(1977) 1 ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:50 :::CIS -8- SCR 329]; Smt. Kaushlya Devi Bogra v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad [(1984) 2 SCR 900]). The principle that evidence of market value of .
sales of small, developed plots is not a safe guide in valuing large extents of land has to be understood in its proper perspective. The principle requires that prices fetched for small developed plots cannot directly be adopted in valuing large extents. However, if it is shown that the large extent to be valued does not admit of and is ripe for use for building purposes; that building lots that could be laid out on the land would be good selling propositions and that valuation on the basis of the method of hypothetical lay out could with justification be adopted, then in valuing such small laid out sites the valuation indicated by sale of comparable small sites in the area at or about the time of the notification would be relevant. In such a case, necessary deductions for the extent of land required for the formation of roads and other civil amenities; expenses of development of the sites by laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines, and the interest on the outlays for the period of deferment of the realization of the price; the profits on the venture etc. are to be made. In Sahib Singh Kalha v. Amritsar Improvement Trust [(1982) 1 SCC 419], this Court indicated that deductions for land required for roads and other developmental expenses can, together, come up to as much as 53 per cent. But the prices fetched for small plots cannot directly be applied in the case of large areas, for the reason ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:50 :::CIS -9- that the former reflects the 'retail' price of the land the latter the 'wholesale' price."
.
11. Similarly, reliance has also been placed on the judgment, reported in Haridwar Development Authority, Haridwar vs. Raghubir Singh etc. AIR SC 1754, as under:-
"9. The claimants do not dispute the appropriateness of the said sale transaction taken as the basis for determination of compensation. Their grievance is that no deduction or cut should have been effected in the price disclosed by the sale deed, for arriving at the market value, in view of the following factors: (i) that the acquired lands were near to the main Bye-pass Road and had road access on two sides; (ii) that many residential houses hadalready come up in the surrounding areas, and the entire area was already fast developing; and (iii) that the acquired land had the potential to be used an urban residential area. When the value of a large extent of agricultural land has to be determined with reference to the price fetched by sale of a small residential plot, it is necessary to make an appropriate deduction towards the development cost, to arrive at the value of the large tract of land. The deduction towards development cost may vary from 20% to 75% depending upon various factors (see : Lal Chand vs. Union of India - 2009 (15) SCC 769). Even if the acquired lands have situational advantages, the minimum deduction from the market value of a small presidential plot, to arrive at the market value of a larger agricultural land, is in the usual course, will be in the range of 20% to 25%. In this case, the Collector has himself adopted a 25% deduction which has been ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:50 :::CIS -10- affirmed by the Reference Court and High Court. We therefore do not propose to alter it."
.
12. From the facts of aforesaid cases, it is clear that the purpose of acquisition of land was the construction of residential and commercial buildings, which involved the development activities for allied facilities like road, path, parks, and sewer etc. The aforesaid judgment will not help the cause of the State as the purpose of acquisition and the actual use to which acquired land has been put becomes relevant.
r By constructing a link road, every inch of the acquired land has been utilized for the road. No part of land has been left for any other developmental activity.
13. This Court in number of judgments has consistently taken a view that the deduction will not be permissible where the purpose of acquisition of land is the construction of road, rail track or any other purpose relatable to the public at large, without any component of profit or loss.
14. Reference can be made to 2014 (3) SLC 1356 titled as G.M. Northern Railway vs. Gulzar Singh & others as under:-
"10. Even previously in judgments reported, in 1997 (2) SLC 229 and 1998(2) All India Land Acquisition Act LACC (1) SC, it has been mandated that when the purpose of ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:50 :::CIS -11- acquisition is common, the award of compensation at a uniform rate for different classification/categories of land, is, tenable. Hence, it can be forthrightly concluded, that, .
the award of a uniform rate of compensation by the learned Additional District Judge Una for different lands bearing different classifications/categories, is, not legally infirm, especially when on acquisition they acquire a uniform potentiality.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has concerted, to also espouse before this Court, that even though, reliance upon Ex. PW1/C by the learned Court below, is not misplaced, in as much, as it fulfilled the relevant enshrined legal parameter for its invocation/applicability, in as much, as (i) it being proximate to the land subjected to acquisition, as also (ii) its execution being contemporaneous to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Nonetheless, he has canvassed that (i) given the largeness or expanse and immensity/immenseness of size of the land subjected to acquisition vis-à-vis the area of the land sold/ comprised in Ex.PW 1/C, the market value of the land comprised in Ex.PW1/C could not have been, as a whole applied to the entire land subjected to the acquisition, unless, deductions for developmental costs as warranted and mandated by the decisions relied upon by him had been made/accorded. Since, the learned Additional District Judge, Una omitted to give/make deductions from the total compensation arrived at/worked out on the basis of the value of the land sold/comprised in Ex.PW1/C, whereas, he was enjoined to do so, he has committed a grave legal error necessitating interference by this Court.
::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:50 :::CIS -12-12. While proceeding to gauge the sinew of the above contention canvassed before this Court, it is necessary to bear in mind that the judgments cited in support of the .
above view espoused by the learned counsel for the appellant, are distinguishable, vis-à-vis, the facts at hand, hence, in the humble view of this Court, not reliable as (a) all the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, concert to marshal the view, of, deductions from the lump sum compensation assessed qua a large tract of land on the score of market value of a small/minimal piece of land being made. In other words, the emphasis in the aforesaid citations, is that, for the market value of small a tract of land to be comprising an admissible parameter, for, on its strength working out the compensation for a large tract of land, it is, imperative that deductions towards development costs is made.
However, distinguishably in the citations aforesaid, the acquisition was made for the development of sites for allotment for housing purpose or for construction of a housing colony or the purpose of acquisition had an inherent profiteering motive. Therefore, given the purpose for which the land was acquired, in, the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, deductions were enjoined to be imperative or necessary, as, the entity for whom the land was brought under acquisition, would be entailed/obliged, to, make the land fit for the purpose for which it was acquired, in as much, as, such an entity concomitantly being driven to incur exorbitant expenses, towards its development for rendering it fit for use. As such, given the magnified increase in the scale of economies or given the ultimate manifold increase, in, the ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:50 :::CIS -13- scale of economies or such incurring of exorbitant expenses on development, hence, acquiring the capacity to proportionately reduce their profit, as such, rendering the .
project for which the land was acquired financially viable, or, to obviate the losses accruing from the steep rates of compensation as may be awarded that deductions were permitted. In other words, deduction from compensation mandated to not render the venture and the purpose for which the land was acquired, in the aforesaid citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, to be financially un-whole some, as well as, unviable. More so, when r the land is acquired for State holdings, building/housing agency(ies) or the agencies carrying out and engaged in profiteering work. However, in contra distinction, to the facts of the judgments, as relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, in the instant case, the land has been subjected to acquisition, for the purpose of construction of a railway track. In the appellant engaging itself in the construction of a railway track, it has assumed the role of doing so, as, a welfare measure and not as a profiteering measure. The railway track would continue to be owned by the appellant, in distinction to the facts of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, where the agency for whom the land was subjected to acquisition, would on developing the land, sell it further or gain profit. (b) The appellant has omitted to adduce cogent evidence on record displaying the fact that each of the land holder, whose land was subjected to acquisition was holding a vast expanse of land. Omission to adduce into evidence such proof demonstrative of each of the land holders, whose land was subjected to acquisition, owing a wide ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:50 :::CIS -14- expanse or a large sized holding, vis-à-vis, the sale transaction comprised in Ex. PW1/C, a firm conclusion can be formed, that, the size of the holding or the size of .
the land of the each of the land holders, whose land was subjected to acquisition was more or less equal to or not disproportionately larger in size to the area of the land comprised in Ex.PW1/C. Hence, there was no jurisdictional error, on the part of the learned Additional District Judge, Una, in not affording deduction, given the smallness in size of the land comprised, in, Ex.PW1/C, vis-à-vis, the lands of each of the individual land owners, whose land was subjected to acquisition. Besides, it has also not been cogently proved by the appellant that any part of the land owned by each of the land owners and subjected to acquisition did not bear potentiality nor would have commanded a market value, lesser than the value earned by the expanse of land comprised in Ex.PW1/C. It appears, that, given the proximity of the acquired land, as deposed by PW-4 Gulzar Singh and PW-
3 Gurbachan Singh, to educational institution, temple and abadi of the villagers it enjoyed or commanded immense market value. Therefore, when each parcel of the land subjected to acquisition bore a market value, equivalent to the land subjected to acquisition, hence, there was, no, legal error committed by the learned Additional District Judge in relying upon for the market value depicted, in, Ex.PW1/C and applying it to the entire tracts of the land subjected to acquisition even, when it was smaller in size vis-à-vis the land subjected to the acquisition.
::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:50 :::CIS -15-15. Similar, reiteration can be found in 2017 (Suppl.) SLC 263titled Jaswant Singh &others vs. State of H.P. & .
others:
"21. Plea of the appellants on this issue is misconceived. In present case, acquisition is not for the purpose of developing a Housing Colony, setting up a commercial unit or any other purpose of like nature which may have resulted development of area on the cost of the State. In the judgments relied upon by the appellants, the deductions were allowed for two purposes i.e. (a) deduction for providing development infrastructure and (b) deduction for development expenditure/expenses and these deduction have been explained by the Apex Court in case titled Chandrashekar (dead) by LRs and others Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2012)1 SCC 390, which is as under:-
"19. Based on the precedents on the issue referred to above it is seen, that as the legal proposition on the point crystallized, this Court divided the quantum of deductions (to be made from the market value determined on the basis of the developed exemplar transaction) on account of development into two components. 19.1 Firstly, space/area which would have to be left out, for providing indispensable amenities like formation of roads and adjoining pavements, laying of sewers and rain/flood water drains, overhead water tanks and water lines, water and effluent treatment plants, electricity sub stations, electricity lines and street lights, telecommunication towers etc. Besides ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:50 :::CIS -16- the aforesaid, land has also to be kept apart for parks, gardens and playgrounds. Additionally, development includes provision of civic amenities .
like educational institutions, dispensaries and hospitals, police stations, petrol pumps etc. This "first component", may conveniently be referred to as deductions for keeping aside area/space for providing developmental infrastructure. 19.2 Secondly, deduction has to be made for the expenditure/expense which is likely to be incurred in providing and raising the infrastructure and civic r amenities referred to above, including costs for levelling hillocks and filling up low lying lands and ditches, plotting out smaller plots and the like. This "second component" may conveniently be referred to as deductions for developmental expenditure /expense.
20. It is essential to earmark appropriate deductions, out of the market value of an exemplar land, for each of the two components referred to above. This would be the first step towards balancing the differential factors. This would pave the way for determining the market value of the undeveloped acquired land on the basis of market value of the developed exemplar land.
22. Further, in Nelson Fernades Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer 2007 (9) SCC 447 while dealing with the case where the land was acquired for laying a Railway line, the Court held that no deduction by way of development charges was permissible as there was no question of any development thereof. 23. In the present case, acquisition is for the purpose of establishing ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:50 :::CIS -17- substation and construction of road and therefore, deduction price of development on the basis of either of the aforesaid two components is not applicable.
.
24. Deduction can be made for various reasons and in present case deduction of 1/3 value has been made as discussed above to the value of land available on record in agreements Ex. PW-4/A, Ex. PW-4/B and Ex. PW-4/C pertaining to the same village for the same period but with additional right of access to land from remaining land.
25. Learned District Judge has awarded Rs.39,000/- per biswa, which is nearer to Rs.40,000/-. Further, land owners have not preferred any appeal or cross-objection for enhancement of the amount of compensation.
Therefore, as discussed above, no interference in the rate determined by learned District Judge, i.e.Rs.39,000/- per biswa is warranted."
16. In 1991 (4) SCC 506, titled as Bhagwathula Samanna & others vs. Special Tehsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality, Visakhapatnam, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
13. The proposition that large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are sold is not absolute proposition and in given circumstances it would be permissible to take into account the price fetched by the small plots of land. If the larger tract of land because of advantageous position is capable of being used for the purpose for which the smaller plots are used and is also situated in a developed area with ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:50 :::CIS -18- little or no requirement of further development, the principle of deduction of the value for purpose of comparison is not warranted. With regard to the nature of .
the plots involved in these two cases, it has been satisfactorily shown on the evidence on record that the land has facilities of road and other amenities and is adjacent to a developed colony and in such circumstances it is possible to utilise the entire area in question as house sites. In respect of the land acquired for the road, the same advantages are available and it did not require any further development. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court has erred in applying the principle of deduction; and reducing the fair market value of land from Rs. 10 per sq. yard to Rs. 6.50 paise per sq. yard. In our opinion, no such deduction is justified in the facts and circumstances of these cases. The appellants, therefore, succeed."
17. Thus, the contention of learned Additional Advocate General cannot be upheld for the reasons firstly, that no deduction will be permissible keeping in view the purpose of acquisition involved in the instant appeals, secondly, every inch of acquired land was put to the same use for which it was acquired and lastly, the area of land in exampler sale deed and the acquired holdings of each claimant did not have contrasting dimensions.
18. Now I proceed to deal with the contention raised on behalf of claimants that they were also entitled to be ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:50 :::CIS -19- compensated for the period between actual utilization of land and issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land .
Acquisition Act. Learned District Judge, on fact, has held that though the road was constructed in the year 2005 but the claimants were not entitled to any compensation as they had voluntarily asked the State to construct the road. The view so taken by learned Reference court cannot be countenanced for the reason thatafter construction of road, the claimants had approached this Court by way of writ petitions and thereafter their land was acquired vide notification, issued in the year 2009.Once the acquisition was there, the question of voluntariness of the claimants to surrender the land becomes redundant.
19. In Madishetti Bala Ramul (dead) by LRs vs. Land Acquisition Officer (2007) 9 SCC 650 Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the interest @ 15% per annum on the market value assessed by the Reference Court on the ground that the land was utilized for public purpose without acquisition and payment of compensation for considerable long period. The relevant extract from aforesaid judgment is quoted for reference as under:
::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:50 :::CIS -20-"9. The short question which, therefore, arises for consideration is as to whether Section 25 of the Act will have any application in the fact of the present case. Two .
notifications were issued separately. The second notification was issued as the first notification did not survive. Valuation of the market rate for the acquired land, thus, was required to be determined on the basis of the notification dated 23.12.1991. The earlier notification lost its force. If the notification issued on 16.03.1979 is taken into consideration for all purposes, the subsequent award awarding market value of the land @ Rs. 65/- per square yard cannot be sustained. As the said market value has been determined having regard to the notification issued on 23.12.1991, possession taken over by Respondent in respect of 3 acres 5 guntas of land, pursuant to the said notification dated 16.03.1979 was in the eye of law, therefore, illegal. The High Court evidently directed grant of additional market value @ 12% per annum on the enhanced market value from the date of the publication of the notification dated 23.12.1991 as also interest thereupon from the said date instead and place of 18.05.1979. We generally agree therewith.
15. The Land Acquisition Officer took possession of the land on the basis of a notification which did not survive. Respondent could not have continued to hold possession of land despite abatement of the proceeding under the 1984 Act. It was directed to be decided by the High Court upon a reference made by the Collector in terms of Section 30 of the Act. The State, therefore, itself realized that its stand in regard to the ownership of 3 acres and 5 ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:50 :::CIS -21- guntas of land was not correct. It, therefore, had to issue another notification having regard to the provisions contained in the Land Acquisition .
(Amendment) Act, 1984. Whereas the High Court may be correct in interpreting the question of law in view of the decision of this Court, but the same would not mean that Appellants would not get anything for being remaining out of possession from 1979 to 1991.
20. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, although the proper course for us would have r to remand the matter back to the Collector to determine the amount of compensation to which the Appellants would be entitled for being remained out of possession since 1979, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be met if this appeal is disposed of with a direction that additional interest @ 15% per annum on the amount awarded in terms of award dated 02.01.1999 for the period 16.03.1979 till 22.12.1991, should be granted, which, in our opinion, would meet the ends of justice."
20. In Balwan Singh and others vs. Land Acquisition Collector and another (2016) 13 SCC 412, the same view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by directing the acquiring authority to award additional interest by way of damages @ 15% per annum from the date when the respondents-claimants were ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:50 :::CIS -22- dispossessed till the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. It shall be apposite to refer to the relevant .
observations which read thus:
"1. The short issue arising for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellants are entitled to interest for the period from the date of dispossession to the date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (For short 'the Act'). That issue is no more res integra. In R.L. Jain Vs. DDA (2004) 4 SCC 79 at para 18, this Court has taken the view that the land owner is not entitled to interest under the Act. However, it has been clarified that the land owner will be entitled to get rent or damages for use and occupation for the period the Government retained possession of the property.
2. Noticing the above position, this Court in Madishetti Bala Ramul Vs. Land Acquisition Officer (2007) 9 SCC 650, took the view that it may not be proper to remand the matter to the Collector to determine the amount of compensation to which the appellants therein would be entitled for the period during which they remained out of possession and hence, in the interest of justice, this Court directed that additional interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, shall be paid for the period between the date of dispossession and the date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act.
3. The said view was followed by this Court in Tahera Khatoon Vs. Land Acquisition Officer (2014) 13 SCC 613.::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:50 :::CIS -23-
4. Following the above view taken by this Court, these appeals are disposed of directing the respondents to award additional interest by way of damages, at the rate .
of 15% per annum for the period between 1.7.1984, the date when the appellants were dispossessed till 2.9.1993, the date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Needless to say, that this compensation will be on the basis of land value fixed by the Reference Court. The amount as above, shall be calculated and deposited before the Reference Court within a period of three months from today."
21. In the facts of given cases also learned reference court had arrived at a specific finding of fact in respect of utilization of land for construction of road by the State in the year 2005, which has not been assailed before this Court. Even otherwise, such finding of fact is ascertainable from material on record. Admittedly, the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 3.12.2009. The claimants are, therefore, held entitled to additional interest by way of damages, at the rate of 15% per annum for the period between 2005, the date when the appellants were dispossessed till 3.12.2009, the date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Needless to say, that this compensation will be on the basis of land value fixed by the Reference Court. The amount as above, shall be calculated and deposited before the Reference Court within a period of three months from today.
::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:50 :::CIS -24-22. In result, RFAs 305 of 2016, 306 of 2016, 307 of 2016 and 308 of 2016 are dismissed. RFAs 40 of 3016, 41 of 2016 and 42 .
of 2016 are allowed to above extent. All the appeals are accordingly disposed of so also the miscellaneous application(s), if any.
(Satyen Vaidya)
4th January, 2023 Judge
(kck)
::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:50 :::CIS