State
of Bihar Vs. Ratan Lal Sabu & Vs [1996]
INSC 925 (8 August 1996)
Ramaswamy,
K.Ramaswamy, K..B. Pattanaik (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCALE (6)83
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
THE
8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1996 Present:
Hon'ble
Mr. Justice K.Ramaswamy Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik H.Agarwal, Sr. Adv. R.P.Singh
and B.B.Singh, Advs. with him for the appellant D.Mukherjee and Sanjay Ghosh,
Advs. for the Respondents
O R D
E R
The
following Order of the Court was delivered:
State
of Bihar V. Ratan Lal Sabu Ors. etc.
O R D
E R
Leave
granted.
We
have heard learned counsel on both sides.
Notification
under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) (for short,
the 'Act') was published on June 14, 1972 acquiring 20.40 acres of land for
construction of Getalsud Dam in Ranchi District of bihar State. The Land
Acquisition Officer in his award under Section 11 dated November 16,1977 granted total compensation of
Rs.1,59,505.33. On reference, the Subordinate Judge Ranchi awarded compensation
Rs. 13,000/- per acre; for the tank and well, he granted a sum of Rs.1,69,830/-.
He also awarded additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.
Dissatisfied
therewith, the appeal and carried the matter in appeals. The High Court in the
impugned judgment and decree in Original Decree Nos. 108 and 109 of 1987 dated January 10, 1994 confirmed the award and decree of
the reference Court. Thus, these appeal by special leave.
We
have gone through the judgment of the High Court and the reference Court. The
learned Judge has not referred to the correct principles of law in determining
the compensation. It is an admitted position that the reference Court has
relied upon an earlier award in respect of a neighbouring village determining
the compensation of land in Rs. 10,000/- per acre. We cannot leave any material
on record, nor has it discussed in either judgments the basis or reliance as
regards the relevant value of the land etc.
Under
those circumstances, relying on that judgment per se may not be wholly correct.
It is not in dispute that these are Class I wet crop lands. The Land
Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation for Class I lands @ Rs.2,226/- and
proportionately decreased the value as regards the quality of the other lands.
We take all the 20 acres of land as Class I land since there is no acceptable
material as regards the quality of the land.
Under
these circumstances, taking the totality of the facts and circumstances, we
think that the appropriate market value would be Rs. 6,000/- per acre. It is
now settled law that when the water is being used from the tank and the well
for cultivation of the land, no separate value could be granted towards the
tank and the well. This Court elaborately considered this aspect of the matter
in the case of O. Janardhan Reddy & Ors. vs. Spl. Dy. Collector. L.A. Unit - IV, LMD. Karimnagar, A.P. & Ors. [(1994)
6 SCC 456].
Accordingly,
we hold that the respondents are not entitled to the separate value of Rs.1,69,890/-
towards the value of the tank and the well. Since the award of the Collector is
of November 16, 1977, the grant of the additional amount
under Section 23(1-A) is clearly illegal. Accordingly, the additional amount
under Section 23(1-A) for a sum of Rs.1,16,000/- also stands set aside.
The
claimants are entitled to the interest from 1.1.1966, the date on which the
possession was taken for a period of one year @ 9% and thereafter @ 15% till
date of deposit on the enhanced compensation. The claimants are also entitled
to the solatium at 30% on the enhanced compensation till date of deposit. The
claimants are also entitled to the additional amount @ Rs. 12% on the market
value from the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) to the
date of award of the Collector or from the date of taking possession of the
land, whichever is earlier.
The
appeals are accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances without costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2
