2008 (9) TMI 977 - HC - Indian Laws

2011 (2) TMI 1122 - AT

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of Market Rate
2. Statutory Benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2), and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act
3. Compensation for Acquisition of Trees and Tube-wells

Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of Market Rate:

The appeals concern the determination of the market rate for lands acquired in three villages: Mundera, Neem Sarai, and Chak Maida Patti. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) had set varying rates for different villages, and the Reference Court adjusted these rates. For village Mundera, the SLAO set the rate at Rs. 2400/- per bigha, which was later revised by the Reference Court to Rs. 4000/- per bigha or Rs. 40/- per sq. meter. In Neem Sarai, the SLAO used a belting system with rates ranging from Rs. 10,169.49 to Rs. 20,338.98 per bigha, but the Reference Court set a uniform rate of Rs. 20,338.98 per bigha. For Chak Maida Patti, the Reference Court set rates of Rs. 20,000/-, Rs. 15,000/-, and Rs. 10,000/- per bigha, based on the location and quality of the land.

The court concluded that the Reference Court erred in using circle rates under the Stamp Act to determine market rates, as these are meant for stamp duty purposes and not for land acquisition compensation. The court decided to uniformly fix the market rate at Rs. 20,338.98 per bigha for all three villages, considering the proximity and similar potential of the lands.

2. Statutory Benefits:

The statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Amendment Act No.68 of 1984 were also addressed. The amendments introduced Section 23(1-A) for additional compensation at 12% per annum, increased solatium under Section 23(2) to 30%, and enhanced interest rates under Section 28. The court clarified that these benefits apply depending on the dates of the Collector's and Reference Court's awards. If the Collector's award was before 30-4-1982 but the Reference Court's award was after, the claimant is entitled to benefits under Sections 23(2) and 28 but not under Section 23(1-A). The court also noted that these benefits could be granted in appeals filed by the acquiring body, even if the claimants had not filed separate appeals or cross-objections.

3. Compensation for Acquisition of Trees and Tube-wells:

In specific appeals, compensation for the acquisition of trees and tube-wells was also addressed. For example, in First Appeal No.1156 of 1990, the claimant was awarded Rs. 5000/- for a well, and in First Appeal No.219 of 1988, the claimant was awarded Rs. 10,000/- for a tube-well and Rs. 5000/- for an orchard.

Conclusion:

The court decided the appeals as follows:

- First Appeal No.1156 of 1990: Allowed; market rate set at Rs. 20,338.98 per bigha, Rs. 5000/- for the well, and benefits under Sections 23(2) and 28.
- First Appeal Nos.392 of 1983 and 391 of 1983: Allowed; market rate reduced to Rs. 20,338.98 per bigha, and benefits under Sections 23(2) and 28.
- First Appeal Nos.364 of 1998, 1163 of 1988, 771 of 1989, 313 of 1993, 197 of 1996, and 126 of 1991: Dismissed.
- First Appeal No.207 of 1996: Allowed; claimant not entitled to Section 23(1-A) benefits.
- First Appeal No.212 of 1996: Allowed; market rate reduced to Rs. 20,338.98 per bigha.
- First Appeal No.219 of 1988: Allowed; Rs. 10,000/- for tube-well, Rs. 5000/- for orchard, and benefits under Sections 23(2) and 28.
- First Appeal No.35 of 1983: Allowed; market rate set at Rs. 20,338.98 per bigha, and benefits under Sections 23(2) and 28.
- First Appeal Nos.73 of 1983, 74 of 1983, 383 of 1983, 389 of 1983, 390 of 1983, 393 of 1983, 178 of 1984, 179 of 1984, and (138) of 1991: Dismissed; Reference Court's award modified to include benefits under Sections 23(2) and 28.

Parties were ordered to bear their own costs in all the First Appeals.

← Previous Next →