Orissa High Court
State Of Orissa Through The Land ... vs Smt. Bhanurani Devi And Three Ors. on 11 October, 2007
Equivalent citations: 105(2008)CLT369, 2008(I)OLR61
Author: A.K. Parichha
Bench: A.K. Parichha
ORDER A.K. Parichha, J.
1. Heard.
This is an appeal by the State challenging the award passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jajpur in L.A. Misc. Case No. 35 of 1991 answering a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (herein after referred to as 'Act').
2. Ac. 8.48 decimals of lands appertaining to Plot No. 13, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35 under Khata No. 1/4 of village-Kanjiapal belonging to the claimant-respondents were acquired for Ashokjhari Minor Irrigation Project, Kanjiapal under declaration No. 17555 dated 16.3.1982. The Land Acquisition Officer after inquiry awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,27,650.20 including interest etc. for the acquired lands. The claimant-respondents received that amount under protest and prayed for reference of the matter to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act for adjudication of the proper market value of the acquired lands and that is how the matter came up before learned Civil Judge in the aforesaid L.A. Misc. Case.
3. To justify claim of higher compensation the claimants examined respondent No. 2-Rajendra Singh as their only witness. The present appellant did not produce any evidence. On consideration of the evidence, learned referral Court came to the conclusion that the annual income from the acquired lands was Rs. 1,000/- per acre at the relevant point of time. By use of 10 multiplier under capitalization method he concluded that the market value of the acquired lands was Rs. 10,000/- per acre at the time of acquisition. He accordingly directed payment of compensation for the acquired land @ 10,000/- per acre along with the additional compensation @ 15%, solatium @ 30% and interest as awarded by the L.A. Officer from 1.07.1966 to 31.03.1982. The said award is under challenge in this appeal.
4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel appearing for the State submits that the market value assessed for the acquired lands is unreasonably high, that additional compensation @ 15% is not permissible as law provides for additional compensation of 12% only. He further states that the additional compensation and interest are payable from the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and not from the date of taking over advance possession of the acquired lands in the year 1966. In support of his contention Mr. Das cited the cases of Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. and Smt. Lila Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, .
5. Mr. Samantaray, learned Counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents while supporting the impugned award submits that the market value assesses is not only reasonable but it is rather on the lower side. He concedes that in view of Section 23(1-a) of the Act the additional compensation is payable @ 12% and not 15%. He, however, contends that in view of Sections 28 and 34 of the Act the additional compensation and interest are payable from the date of taking over possession of the acquired lands when such possession was earlier in point of time then the notification as the claimant-respondents were deprived of their lands since the date of advance possession of the land. Mr. Samantaray also relies on the case of Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and another (supra) and Special Tahasildar (L.A.) P.W.D. Schemes, Vijayawada v. M.A. Jabbar, 1995 SC 762.
6. From the acquisition proceeding as well as from the statement of P.W.1 it is apparent that the acquired lands were cultivable lands. Taking note of the fact that the claimants were having agricultural income and also considering the facts that some neighbouring lands had been sold at a considerably high rate, learned referral Court came to the conclusion that the average annual income from the acquired land was Rs. 1,000/- per acres By use of 10 multiplier he thus concluded that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 10,000/- per acre. The assessment appears very reasonable and 10 multiplier was acceptable as in some cases, the apex Court has already ruled that multiplier up to 12 can be used for agricultural land. The assessment of market value of the acquired land by the referral Court thus cannot be faulted.
7. Section 23(1-A) of the Act contemplates that in addition to the market value of the acquired land, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier.
The provision clearly says that only 12% of additional compensation can be granted. Grant of 15% of additional compensation by the referral Court was therefore, not proper. The claimants are entitled to additional compensation @ 12%.
8. The next question is from which date the additional compensation and the interest is payable. While learned Counsel for the appellant takes the stand that it is payable from the date of notification and not from the date of taking over possession, learned Counsel for the claimant-respondents claims that such compensation and interest are payable from the date of dispossession of the claimants from the lands in question, which was much before the notification. In the case of Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and another (supra), the possession of the land was taken over on 1st June, 1977 and notification under Section 4(1) in relation to the said land was issued on 8th March, 1991. The Apex Court ruled that the claimant owner was entitled to additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) from the date of Section 4 Notification i.e. 8th March, 1991 to the date of award which was passed on 6th February, 1992 and that the owners were not entitled to additional compensation from the date on which possession of the land was taken i.e. 1st June, 1977 to the date on which Section 4 notification was issued. In paragraph-5 of the judgment, it was reasoned that Section 23(1 -A) gives starting point for the purposes of calculating the amount to be awarded @ 12% per annum on the market value, as the date of publication of Section 4 notification. The terminal point for the purpose is either the date of the award or the date of taking over possession, which ever is earlier. Since the possession of the land had already been taken prior to the notification that terminal was not available and that only available terminal was the date of the award. In the case of Smt. Lila Ghosh (supra), it was observed that interest follows the award and therefore interest cannot be granted prior to the award. However, it was clarified in the later part in paragraph-19 that normally interest is to be granted from the date of award, but there may be cases under Section 17 whereby invoking urgency clause possession has been taken before the acquisition proceedings are initiated. In such cases compensation under the land acquisition act would be payable by virtue of the provision of Section 17 from the date possession was taken.
9. The cumulative reading of the interpretation given by the apex Court would show that Section 23(1-A) gives starting point only from the date of notification and not prior to that. Therefore, additional compensation can only granted from the date of notification, even if, possession is taken prior to the notification. So far as, interest is concerned if the advance possession of the land has been taken for emergency purposes as contemplated under Section 17, then interest would be granted from the date of dispossession of the claimants from the land. In the present case, admittedly the possession of the land of the claimants was taken over in advance for the purpose of construction Ashokjhari Minor Irrigation Project, Kanjiapal for the benefit of the public of the area. Although, in the notification emergency clause has not been spelt out specifically yet taking note of the purpose for which the land was acquired and advance possession was taken it becomes evident that advance possession of the land was necessary in public interest and that would bring the case within Section 17 of the Act. Since the claimant-respondents were deprived of possession and enjoyment of their land since 1966 learned Land Acquisition Collector also thought it proper to award interest from the date of taking over possession of the land. So grant of interest from the date of dispossession by the referral Court was neither illegal nor unjust.
10. The notification in the present case was issued on 23.06.1982 by which time amended L.A. Act had already come into force since 30th April, 1982. So the provision of the amended L.A. Act is applicable to the present case. That being so, the claimant-respondents would be entitled to market value of the land assessed by the referral Court, 12% additional compensation thereon from the date of notification till the date of award and interest from the date of taking over possession as prescribed under Sections 28 &.34 of the Amended Act.
In the result, the award is modified accordingly and the appeal is allowed in part.