Abdul Kuddus
Mondal & Ors Vs. State of Assam & ANR [1999] INSC 293 (23 August 1999)
R.C.Lahoti,
N. Santosh Hegde
The
application, for bringing on record legal representatives of petitioner NO.2,
is allowed. Legal representatives are brought on record. They are present and
represented.
Delay
condoned.
Leave
granted.
This
appeal arises out of land acquisition proceedings. The preliminary Notification
under Section 6(1) of the Assam Land (Requisition etc.) Act, 1964 was issued by the
Collector, Dhubri and possession of subject land was taken over by the
Collector on 7th March,
1988.
The
Land Acquisition Collector made an Award in the case of the appellants whereby
land was assessed @ Rs.3804/- per Bigha of Basti/ Sali and Rs.15,953/- per Bigha
of Road side land/ trade site land. The appellants were also awarded a sum of
Rs.15,087.10 for demolition and removal of the malba of the houses belonging to
the appellants, which were standing on that land. The total Award made in favour
of the appellants on 2nd
April, 1991 was for a
sum of Rs.46,118.40 including compensation for Zirut. The amount was accepted
by the appellants under protest. The appellants sought a Reference under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Evidence was led before the
Reference Court of the learned District Judge, Dhubri by the parties. After
examination of the evidence, the learned Reference Court determined the market
value of the land at Rs.36,600/-; value of the houses at Rs.1,88,000/-; damages
on account of removal of houses at Rs.15,087.00; interest on the difference on
the amount of Award made by the Collector from the date of possession of the
land i.e. with effect from 7th March, 1988 @ 9 % per annum and Solatium @ 30%
on the market value of the land. The amount of compensation, on account of Zirut,
as made by the Collector, which was included in the detailed Award, was upheld.
The order of the Reference
Court dated 22nd August, 1994 was put in issue by the State
before the Gauhati High Court. The appellants also filed cross-objections in
the High Court and sought enhancement of the compensation fixed by the Reference Court. The Division Bench of the High
Court, vide order dated 7th February, 1996, while directing respondents to
deposit 50% of the amount awarded by the District Judge, Dhubri alongwith
interest calculated till 30th April, 1996, permitted the appellants to withdraw
the amount so deposited. The appeal was finally disposed of by the High Court
vide order dated 13th
August, 1998. The
Division Bench fixed the rate of the compensation for the acquired land at
Rs.20,000/- per bigha. Insofar as compensation for the houses is concerned, the
same was completely negatived and instead a sum of Rs.37,000/- being 20% of the
valuation of the houses fixed by the District Court was awarded as just and
proper compensation towards the loss and removal costs of the houses. The
directions regarding rate of interest and solatium were not interfered with nor
was compensation for Zirut upset. The appellants have put the order of the High
Court in issue.
We
have heard learned counsel for the parties.
It
appears to us that the High Court fell into a basic error in not awarding
compensation for the houses on the ground that since land had been acquired, it
is only compensation for removal of houses standing thereon, which could have
been granted because houses had not been acquired. That is not a correct
approach. The compensation was required to be paid for the houses which was
standing on that land. The land could not have been acquired without the houses
standing thereon. The Reference
Court had rightly
awarded compensation for the houses. The order of the High Court on this
account suffers from apparent error.
Insofar
as the reduction in the rate for land from Rs.36,600/-, as awarded by the Reference
Court to Rs.20.000/- per Bigha by the High Court is concerned, we are not
persuaded to disagree because we have not found any error to have been
committed by the High Court in that behalf. The High Court has not adverted to
the compensation on account of Zirut separately, though compensation on that
account had been awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector and upheld by the Reference Court. In the facts and circumstances of
this case and keeping in view the material on the record, more particularly the
evidence of the expert who had valued the houses belonging to the appellants,
we are of the opinion that while the appellants are entitled to compensation
for land @ 20,000/- per Bigha, the appellants are also entitled to compensation
towards cost of houses.
The
cost of houses was calculated by the Reference Court, on the basis of expert evidence, at Rs.1,88.000/-. Taking
into account proper calculations, in our opinion, the appellants are entitled
to receive Rs.1,70,000/- towards cost of houses and not Rs.1,88,000/-. Since,
we are allowing the cost of houses, the question of grant of damages and
compensation of Rs.15,087/- for removal of houses does not arise. The order to
that extent is set aside. Besides, the appellants are also entitled to a sum of
Rs.10,000/- for Zirut. So far as interest is concerned, the interest at the
rate of 9% per annum shall be so calculated as to take into account the amount
already deposited by the State in the Executing Court under orders of the High
Court, which amount was allowed to be withdrawn and has actually been withdrawn
by the appellants. The interest shall, therefore, be calculated only on the
differential amount for the remaining period from the date of possession of the
land by the Collector i.e. 7.3.1988. The appellants shall be entitled to Solatium
at the rate of 30%.
With
the aforesaid modification of the order of the High Court, the appeal is
disposed of. No costs.
Back