Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 696 of 1973.

From the Judgment and Order dated 14.7.1972 of the Orissa High Court in First Appeal No. 117 of 1971. B.P. Singh and Ranjit Kutnar for the Appellants. Vijay Mohanty, P.N. Misra S.K. Jaina for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by, SINGH, J. This appeal on certificate under Art. 133(1)(a) of the Constitution is directed against the Judg- ment and Order of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack set- ting aside the order of the Subordi-

nate Judge, Cuttack and reducing the amount of compensation awarded to the appellants.

The appellants are owners of plots in dispute which include Plot Nos. 177/16, 177/16-A, 177/17 and 177/17-A and situate in village Jagbhairab having an area of about 12 acres. A notification under sec.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was'issued on 2.2.67 and in pursuance thereof the appellants' land along with other land was acquired by the Government for the purpose of construction of Aviation Research Centre at Charbatiya. The Collector award compensa- tion to the appellants at the rate of Rs.2,000 per acre. On a reference made at the instance of the appellants the Subordinate Judge, Cuttack awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.15,000 per acre. On appeal by the respondents, the High Court modified the order of the Subordinate Judge and directed that the appellants be paid compensation at the rate of Rs.7,500 per acre. Aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this appeal after obtaining certificate from the High Court.

177. On a perusal of those judgments, it is evident the High Court has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 15,000 per acre for the land which is quite adjacent to the appellants land. The High Court has observed in its Judgment in First Appeal No. 173 of 1971 connected with First Appeal No. 174 of 1971, Collector, Cuttack v. Karunakar Mahanty, decided on October 21, 1975, that the Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State conceded that in view of the decision of the High Court in respect of the similar land in the vicini- ty it was not possible on his part to question the valuation of the acquired land as fixed by the Subordinate Judge at the rate of Rs. 15,000 per acre. In that case plot no. 177/13 was the subject matter of the acquisition. We have also perused a copy of the map which is on record. We find that the appellant's land is quite adjacent to those plots which were the subject matter of the decision in the appeals decided by tile High Court where compensation has been awarded at the rate of Rs. 15,000 per acre. In the circum- stances there is no valid reason to award compensation to the appellant at a reduced rate specially so when the re- spondents have failed to point out any material difference in the situation, topography, lay out of the appellants' land with that of the adjacent land in respect of which compensation has been awarded at the rate of Rs. 15,000 per acre. If the impunged order of the High Court under appeal is upheld an anomalous position would arise inasmuch as the appellants will be denied that amount of compensation which has been awarded to other claimants in respect of similar adjacent land. We are therefore of the opinion that the High Court committed error in interferring with the order of the Subordinate Judge and in determining the compensation at the rate of Rs.7,500 per acre. We hold that the appellants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 15,000 per acre as determined by the learned Subordinate Judge. The High Court has awarded solatium at the rate of 15% in consideration of compulsory nature of acquisition and it has further awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of taking over the possession till the date of deposite of amount of compensation Learned counsel for the appellants urged that in view of the amendment made in Section 23 and 28, of the Act by the Amending Act of 1984 appellants were entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% of the compensation and they are further entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum. He placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Bhag Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, [1985] Suppl. 2 115 where it was held that in view of Sec. 30(2) of the Amending Act the amended Sec. 23(2) which provided for solatium at the rate of 30% is applicable to all pending proceedings whether they may be pending before the Collector, Court, High Court or the Supreme Court. We are informed that this question has been referred to a larger Bench and a Constitution Bench has heard argument and the judgment is reserved. In this view we refrain from expressing any opinion on the question, if and when judgment is delivered in the matter and if the appel- lants are found entitled to the increased amount of solatium and interest they would also be entitled to receive the same in accordance with law.