Gujarat High Court
Chimanlal Chunilal vs Second Special Land Acquisition ... on 3 July, 2015
Author: Vipul M. Pancholi
Bench: Vipul M. Pancholi
C/FA/374/1991 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 374 of 1991
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to
see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law
as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
================================================================
CHIMANLAL CHUNILAL....Appellant(s)
Versus
SECOND SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (DISTRICT),
A'BAD....Defendant(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR NITIN M AMIN, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MRS. V.S. PATHAK, ADVOCATE for the Defendant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 03/07/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, Page 1 of 10 C/FA/374/1991 JUDGMENT 1894 against the judgment and decree dated 11.1.1983 rendered by the learned Extra-Assistant Judge, District Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol, by which the reference filed by the appellant-original claimant came to be partly allowed. Learned District Court awarded Rs.7/- per sq.mt. with 8% additional compensation as severance charges. Interest @ 4.5% was awarded from the date of taking over the possession of the land till the amount is deposited in the court. Learned trial court further directed the Land Acquisition Officer to pay 15% solatium to the claimants.
2. The appellant-original claimant has preferred this appeal for a limited purpose making a grievance that the appellant is entitled to get interest @ 15% and solatium @ 30%.
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as under:
3.1 The land bearing Survey No. 197 admeasuring 1012 sq.mt. was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer for Sabarmati-Gandhinagar broad gauge railway line. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 came to be issued in the Gazette on 3.5.1973, whereas notification under Section 6 of the Act came to be issued on 27.6.1974. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on 29.7.1977, whereby the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @ Rs.1.25 per sq.mt. The said award was challenged before the District Court by filing reference, being Land Acquisition Case No. 39 of 1981.
3.2 Before the learned trial court, the claimant examined himself by giving deposition at Exh.13. Documentary evidence was also produced before the trial court. The land is situated near village Chharodi, proximate to the old Ahmedabad-Delhi railway line. The said land is in a fast developed area, and after the acquisition of the land for Gandhinagar Page 2 of 10 C/FA/374/1991 JUDGMENT Capital Project, the value of the land has also increased. The village has got all the facilities like school and commercial activities. Villages Jagatpur and Tragad are one kilometer away from the land in question.
The land is also situated near Sarkhej-Gandhinagar Highway. In support of the deposition given by the claimant, he produced the judgment, Exh.11 rendered by the concerned court, by which compensation in respect of village Khoraj was awarded. Similarly, judgment of village Chandlodiya was produced at Exh.12. It was deposed that village Khoraj is to the north of village Chharodi wherein the land in dispute is acquired. It is pointed out that the High Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.5 to Rs.7 per sq.mt.
3.3 The learned District Court after considering the documentary as well as oral evidence on record granted compensation @ Rs.7/- per sq.mt. against Rs.1.25 per sq.mt. to the claimant. However, interest @ 4.5% was awarded and 15% solatium was awarded in favour of the claimant on the aforesaid amount of compensation.
4. The appellant has, therefore, preferred this appeal, as observed hereinabove, for a limited purpose with regard to interest as well as solatium.
5. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nitin Amin for the appellant and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mrs. V.S. Pathak for the respondent.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Amin mainly submitted that after the award and decree was passed by the District Court on 11.1.1983, Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act of 1984 being Act No.68 of 1984 came into force from 24.9.1984, and under the provisions of the said Act, more particularly under Section 30(2) and Section 30(3), additional rights and Page 3 of 10 C/FA/374/1991 JUDGMENT benefits of enhanced rate of solatium and interest were created and granted in favour of the land owners whose lands were acquired. Learned advocate Mr. Amin further submitted that as per the said amendment solatium @ 30% on the market value of the land is required to be awarded to the appellant as per the amended Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.
Learned advocate Mr. Amin further submitted that under the provisions of said Act No. 68 of 1994, interest @ 9% per annum from the date on which the possession of the land was taken is required to be granted for the first year and thereafter interest is required to be granted @ 15% from the beginning of the second year till the payment of the amount of compensation into the court as per the amended Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Learned advocate Mr. Amin has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another Vs. Raghubir Singh (dead) by LRs etc. reported in AIR 1989 SC 1933 and submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court, and therefore, this appeal be allowed and interest @ 15% and solatium @ 30% be awarded in favour of the appellant.
7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader, Mrs. V.S. Pathak strongly opposed this appeal. She has submitted that this appeal is filed only against grant of interest and solatium at a lesser rate relying upon the Act No.68 of 1984. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that the Act No.68 of 1984 came to be issued on 13.4.1992. However, it came into force from 24.9.1984, and therefore, when the learned District Court has passed the award in January 1983, appellant is not entitled to get the interest and solatium at Page 4 of 10 C/FA/374/1991 JUDGMENT the higher rate as per the amended Act, and therefore, this appeal be dismissed.
8. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of learned advocates for the parties. I have also gone through the record and proceedings and the documentary as well as oral evidence produced on record. I have also gone through the Act No.68 of 1984 as well as the decision relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellant.
9. In this appeal certain aspects are undisputed. The District Court has awarded compensation @ Rs.7/- per sq.mt. to the claimant against Rs.1.25 per sq.mt. awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. From the submissions canvassed by the learned advocate for the appellant, it is clear that the State Government has not challenged the said award by filing appeal before this Court because in another case where the land is situated at a nearby village Khoraj, this Court has awarded Rs.7/- per sq.mt. Therefore, the limited issue, which is required to be considered by this Court, is whether in view of the amended Act No.68 of 1984, the solatium as well as the interest awarded by the District Court is proper or not. Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, being Act No.68 of 1984 came to be issued on 30.4.1982. However, the said Act came into effect from 24.9.1984. Section 30 of the said Act reads as under:
"30. Transitional provisions.- (1) The provisions of sub- section (1A) of Section 23 of the principal Act, as inserted by clause (a) of Section 15 of this Act, shall apply, and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation to,-
(a) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the principal Act pending on 30th day of April, 1982 [the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982 in the House of the People], in which no award has been made by the Collector before that date;Page 5 of 10
C/FA/374/1991 JUDGMENT
(b) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the principal Act commenced after that date, whether or not an award has been made by the Collector before the date of commencement of this Act.
(2)The provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 23 and Section 28 of the principal Act, as amended by clause (b) of Section 15 and Section 18 of this Act respectively, shall apply, and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation to, any award made by the Collector or Court or to any order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court in appeal against any such award under the provisions of the principal Act after the 30th day of April, 1982 [the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, in the House of the People] and before the commencement of this Act.
(3) The provisions of Section 34 of the principal Act, as amended by Section 20 of this Act, shall apply, and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, in relation to,-
(a) every case in which possession of any land acquired under the principal Act had been taken before the 30th day of April, 1982 [the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, in the House of the People], and the amount of compensation for such acquisition had not been paid or deposited under Section 31 of the principal Act until such date, with effect on and from that date; and
(b) every case in which such possession has been taken on or after that date but before the commencement of this Act without the amount of compensation having been paid or deposited under the said Section 31, with effect on and from the date of taking such possession."
10. It is further clear from the record that in the present case Section 4 notification came to be published in the Gazette on 3.5.1973, Section 6 notification was published on 27.6.1974, award under Section 11 was Page 6 of 10 C/FA/374/1991 JUDGMENT declared by the Land Acquisition Officer on 29.7.1977, and the District Court passed the award on 11.1.1983.
11. The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Raghubir Singh (Supra) held in paragraphs No. 31 and 32 as under:
"31. We now come to the merits of the reference. The reference is limited to the interpretation of s. 30(2) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act of 1984. Before the enactment of the Amendment Act, solatium was provided under s. 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act (shortly, "the parent Act") at 15% on the market value of the Land computed in accordance with s. 23(1) of the Act, the solatium being provided in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. The Land Acquisition Amendment Bill, 1982 was introduced in the House of the People on 30 April, 1982 and upon enactment the Land Acquisition Amendment Act 1984 commenced operation with effect from 24 September, 1984. S.15 of the Amendment Act amended s.23(2) of the parent Act and substituted the words '30 per centum' in place of the words '15 per centum'. Parliament intended that the benefit of the enhanced solatium should be made available albeit to a limited degree, even in respect of acquisition proceedings taken before that date. It sought to effectuate that intention by enacting s.30(2) in the Amendment Act, S.30(2) of the Amendment Act provides:
"(2) the provisions of sub-s. (2) of s.23 ......of the principal Act, as amended by clause (b) of s.15 ........of this Act ....... shall apply and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation to, any award made by the Collector or Court or to any order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court in appeal against any such award under the provisions of the principal Act after the 30th day of April, 1982 [the date of Page 7 of 10 C/FA/374/1991 JUDGMENT introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, in the House of the People] and before the commencement of this Act." In construing s.30(2), it is just as well to be clear that the award made by the Collector referred to here is the award made by the Collector under s. 11 of the parent Act, and the award made by the Court is the award made by the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction under s. 23 of the parent Act on a reference made to it by the Collector under s. 19 of the parent Act. There can be no doubt that the benefit of the enhanced solatium is intended by s.30(2) in respect of an award made by the Collector between 30 April 1982 and 24 September, 1984. Likewise the benefit of the enhanced solatium is extended by s.30(2) to the case of an award made by the Court between 30 April 1982 and .24 September 1984, even though it be upon reference from an award made before 30 April, 1982.
32. The question is: what is the meaning of the words "or to any order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court on appeal against any such award?" Are they limited, as contended by the appellants, to appeals against an award of the Collector or the Court made between 30 April 1982 and 24 September 1984, or do they include also, as contended by the respondents, appeals disposed of between 30 April, 1982 and 24 September 1984 even though arising out of awards of the Collector or the Court made before 30 April, 1982. We are of opinion that the interpretation placed by the appellants should be preferred over that suggested by the respondents. Parliament has identified the appeal before the High Court and the appeal before the Supreme Court by describing it as an appeal against 'any such award'. The submission on behalf of the respondents is that the words 'any such award' mean the award made by the Collector or Court, and carry no greater limiting sense; and that in this context, upon the language of s.30(2), the order in appeal is an appellate order made between 30 April 1982 and 24 September 1984 in which case the related award of the Collector or of the Court may have been made Page 8 of 10 C/FA/374/1991 JUDGMENT before 30 April 1982. To our mind, the words 'any such award' cannot bear the broad meaning suggested by learned counsel for the respondents. No such words of description by way of identifying the appellate order of the High Court or of the Supreme Court were necessary. Plainly, having regard to the existing hierarchical structure of for a contemplated in the parent Act those appellate orders could only be orders arising in appeal against the award of the Collector or of the Court. The words 'any such award' are intended to have deeper significance, and in the context in which those words appear in s.30(2) it is clear that they are intended to refer to awards made by the Collector or Court between 30 April, 1982 and 24 September, 1984. In other words s.30(2) of the Amendment Act extends the benefit of the enhanced solatium to cases where the award by the Collector or by the Court is made between 30 April, 1982 and 24 September, 1984 or to appeals against such awards decided by the High Court and the Supreme Court whether the decisions of the High Court or the Supreme Court are rendered before 24 September, 1984 or after that date. All that is material is that the award by the Collector or by the Court should have been made between 30 April, 1982 and 24 September, 1984. We find ourselves in agreement with the conclusion reached by this Court in K. Kamalajammanniavaru (dead) by Lrs. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (supra), and find ourselves unable to agree with the view taken in Bhag Singh and Others v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, (supra). The expanded meaning given to s. 30(2) in the latter case does not, in our opinion, flow reasonably from the language of that sub-section. It seems to us that the learned judges in that case missed the significance of the word 'such' in the collocation 'any such award' in s.30(2). Due significance must be attached to that word, and to our mind it must necessarily intend that the appeal to the High Court or the Supreme Court, in which the benefit of the enhanced solatium is to be given, must be confined to an appeal against an award of the Collector or of the Court rendered between 30 April, 1982 and 24 September, 1984."
Page 9 of 10C/FA/374/1991 JUDGMENT Thus, in view of the observations made by the Honourable Supreme Court, it is clear that the benefit of enhancement of solatium is required to be extended to cases where the award was made by the court between 30.4.1982 and 24.9.1984, even though the said reference was filed against the award of the Land Acquisition Officer before 30.4.1982. In the present case, though the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award in July 1977, the District Court passed the award on 11.1.1983, i.e. during the period between 30.4.1982 and 24.9.1984, and therefore, the appellant is entitled to get the benefit of the amended Act as well as the decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is allowed.
The award passed by the learned District Court is modified to the extent that instead of interest @ 4.5%, the appellant is entitled to get interest @ 9% for the first year and @ 15% from the second year onwards till the date of deposit of the amount of compensation before the District Court. The appellant is also entitled to solatium @ 30% instead of 15% awarded by the learned District Court. The award of the learned District Court shall stand modified accordingly.
The record and proceedings shall be sent back to the District Court forthwith.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.) sndevu Page 10 of 10