JUDGMENT
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
1. Bishambar Dass claimant-land owner has filed the instant Regular First Appeal against the award dated 23.7.1985 passed by District Judge, Gurdaspur, vide which the petition filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for enhancement of compensation has been dismissed.
2. Vide notification dated 23.9.1982 issued under Section 4 of the Act the State of Punjab acquired 23 kanals 7 marlas of land situated in village Assa Bano, Tehsil Pathankot, which was owned by the appellant, for a public purpose namely for construction of Hydel Channel, U.B.D.C. Power House. The Land Acquisition Collector, vide his award dated 12.8.1983 assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 11,800/- per acre. In addition to that solatium at the rate of 15% under Section 23(2) of the Act was also granted. Since possession of the acquired land was taken on 11.2.1971 i.e. much prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, therefore, interest at the rate of 6% was also awarded from the date of taking possession till the date of award.
3. Feeling dissatisfied against the said award, the appellant sought reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation. It was pleaded that the market value of the acquired land at the relevant time was not less than Rs. 50,000/- per acre. It was also pleaded that 800 Safeda trees were standing on the acquired land for which no compensation was assessed and awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. It was further pleaded that possession of the land in dispute was taken by the Punjab State Electricity Board in the year 1964-65, therefore, the appellant should be awarded interest on the amount of compensation from the date of taking of possession of the land in question.
4. In reply to the reference application, it was pleaded by the acquiring department that possession of the acquired land was taken by it on 11.2.1971 instead of 1964-65. Regarding determination of the market value, it was pleaded that the same was rightly determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. However, it was denied that any Safeda trees were standing on the acquired land.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Reference Court framed the following issues;-
1. What was the market value of the land in dispute at the time the relevant notifications for its acquisition were issued?
2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector is inadequate. If so, to what amount of compensation is the applicant entitled?
3. Relief.
6. In support of his claim, the appellant proved on record various sale transactions including Exs.A2, A3 and A5 showing that at the time of the acquisition, the market value of the acquired land was not less than Rs. 50,000/- per acre. In addition to the aforesaid, the appellant also produced on record Akas Shajra Exs.A7 and A8 to prove the location of the acquired land. The learned Reference Court did not find any of the documents produced by the appellant to be relevant for determination of the market value of the acquired land, therefore, the reference was dismissed while observing that the appellant could not produce any relevant record to show that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was inadequate.
7. Against the said award, the instant appeal has been filed.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant raised the following submissions in support of the claim of the appellant for enhancement of compensation.
(i) That as per the Akas Shajra Exs.A7 and A8, the acquired land was situated at a distance of only 29 karams from the main road leading to Pathankot and this aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the Courts below;
(ii) That the learned Reference Court has wrongly not relied upon the sale transactions Exs.A2 and A3, which were very much relevant for the purpose of determining the true market value of the acquired land, as vide sale transaction Ex.A2, one kanal of land in village Gatora, an adjoining village, was sold on 19.11.1981 for Rs. 5,000/-, per acre price of which comes to Rs. 40,000/-, The said land was at a distance of only 520 karams from the acquired land of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant further pointed out that Lal Chand (AW2) has specifically stated that the land purchased by him vide sale transaction Ex.A2 and the acquired land were of the same quality. In spite of this evidence available on the record, the learned Reference Court has ignored the said sale transaction while observing that there is no cogent evidence on the record to show that the land of Ex.A2 was similarly situated as the acquired land and was having the same advantage. Similarly, vide sale transaction Ex.A3, 5 marlas of land situated in the village Assa Bano, in which the acquired land was situated, was sold for Rs. 800/- on 27.7.1981, per acre price of which comes to Rs. 25,600/-. This document too was not taken into consideration by the learned Reference Court while observing that the same was situated inside the village and cannot be considered for determining the market value of the land situated outside the village abadi;
(iii) That no compensation was assessed and paid on account of 800 Safeda trees standing on the acquired land. Learned counsel submitted that in paragraph 6 of the replication, the appellant has specifically stated that 800 Safeda trees were standing on the acquired land at the time of acquisition. It was further submitted that Krishna Devi (AW1) and Khazan Chand (AW3) have specifically proved this fact. But the learned Reference Court has not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter; and
(iv) That since admittedly possession of the acquired land was taken on 11.2.1971 i.e., much prior to the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, therefore, the appellant is entitled not only for the interest on the amount of compensation from the date of possession till the date of its payment at the statutory rate as mentioned in Sections 28 and 34 of the Act, but he is also entitled for the additional amount at the rate of 12% under Section 23(1-A) of the Act from the date of taking possession of the acquired land till the date of award or the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, whichever is earlier.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents refuted all the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that there was no material on the record on the basis of which the market value of the acquired land could be enhanced and therefore, the reference sought by the appellant has been rightly dismissed by the learned Reference Court.
10. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case.
11. From the perusal of Akas Shajra Exs.A7 and A8, it is clear that the acquired land was situated at a distance of 29 karams from the main link road to Pathankot, therefore, while determining the market value of the acquired land, this factor has to be taken into consideration. In my opinion, the sale deed Ex.A2, vide which 1 kanal of land was sold on 19.11.1981 at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per acre has been wrongly ignored by the learned Reference Court and the said sale transaction is a relevant piece of evidence for consideration and determination of the market value of the acquired land. The learned reference court has ignored this document while observing that this is of different village and there is no evidence to the effect that the land in the said sale transaction was of the same quality and advantage as the acquired land. The learned Reference Court further observed that it is a matter of common knowledge that prices of lands vary from village to village because of difference aspects including situation of the lands and the advantages enjoyed by the lands of different villages. Unless it is shown that the land of some particular village is similarly situated and has the same advantage, the same cannot be relied upon for determining the market value of the land situated in a different village.
12. The aforesaid observation of the learned Reference Court is contrary to the evidence available on the record. Firstly, the acquired land as well as the land sold vide Ex.A2 are the agricultural lands and the market value of the acquired land has to be assessed as an agricultural land. Therefore, in my opinion, the agricultural lands of two adjoining villages cannot be different particularly when in the instant case Lal Chand (AW2) has specifically stated that the two villages i.e. Assa Bano and Gatora adjoin each other and the acquired land as well as the land purchased by him vide sale deed Ex.A2 are of the similar nature and kind. On this aspect of the matter, he was not cross-examined by the respondents. In view of this fact, I am of the opinion that the learned Reference Court has wrongly ignored the sale transaction Ex.A2. Learned counsel for the respondents, at the time of arguments, submitted that this sale transaction is of smaller area, therefore, it cannot be accepted in toto for the purpose of assessing the market value of the acquired land. It is true that the area of sale transaction Ex.A2 is only one kanal but in view of the fact that the area of the acquired land was only 23 kanals 7 marlas, it will be appropriate and just to impose a cut of 25% on this sale transaction. On this basis, the market value of the acquired land should have been assessed at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per acre. The other sale transaction Ex.A3 though pertains to the same village vide which only 5 marlas of land was sold on 27.7.1981 for Rs. 800/-, but the same is not helpful in the instant case, because the said land was situated within the abadi of the village and was purchased for construction of the house, as stated by Khazan Chand (AW3). Thus, on the basis of the sale transaction Ex.A2, by imposing a cut of 25% the market value of the acquired land is assessed at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per acre.
13. Regarding the third submission of learned counsel for the appellant, which pertains to award of compensation on account of 800 Safeda trees standing on the acquired land, I do not find any sufficient evidence on record on the basis of which separate compensation can be awarded to the appellant. Merely on the basis of the statement made by Krishna Devi (AW1) and Khazan Chand (AW3), it cannot be held that 800 Safeda trees were standing on the acquired land on the date when possession of the same was taken by the respondent-State. In the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, it has been clearly mentioned that at the time of taking possession of the acquired land no tree was standing on the acquired land. On this aspect of the matter, neither any issue was framed by the learned Reference Court nor the matter was argued before it. In view of this fact, I do not find any force in this submission made by learned counsel for the appellant.
14. Now only two questions which left for determination are : (i) whether the appellant is entitled for the additional amount at the rate of 12% under Section 23(1-A) of the Act from the date of taking possession of the acquired land till the date of the award or whether he is entitled for the said benefit from the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act till the date of the award; and (ii) whether the appellant is entitled for the interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the subsequent years from the date of taking possession till payment of the compensation as mentioned in Sections 28 and 34 of the Act.
15. In the instant case, admittedly the possession of the acquired land was taken by the respondent-State on 11.2.1971 i.e., much prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, which was issued on 3.9.1982. Thus, in the instant case, the date of taking possession of the acquired land is 11.2.1971, date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act is 3.9.1982 and the date of award is 12.8.1983. Undisputedly, the petitioner is entitled for additional amount at the rate of 12% under Section 23(1-A) of the Act in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh etc., (1989)2 S.C.C. 754, K.S. Paripoornam (II) v. State of Kerala and Ors., (1995)1 S.C.C. 367 as the award in this case was passed after the cut off date i.e., 30.4.1982. Now, the question remains to be determined is the date from which the said amount has to be calculated i.e., from the date of taking possession of the acquired land or from the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Similar question, arose before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner, Gadaq Sub Division Gadaq v. Mathapathi Basavannewwa and Ors., (1995)6 Supreme Court Cases 355, wherein it was held that if the possession of the acquired land was taken prior to the publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the land owner-claimant shall be entitled to the additional amount by way of compensation at the rate of 12% from the date of taking possession to the date of award for the loss of enjoyment of the land. In that case, possession of the land was taken on 23.1.1971 whereas notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 2.8.1984 and the award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector on 15.1.1986. While replying to the question regarding the date from which the land owner shall be entitled to the benefit of Section 23(1-A) of the Act, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under;-
“The object of introducing Section 23(1-A) is to mitigate the hardship caused to the owner of the land, who has been deprived of the enjoyment of the land by taking possession from him and using it for public purpose, because of considerable delay in making the award and offering payment thereof. To obviate such hardships, Section 23(1-A) was introduced and the legislature envisaged that the owner of the land is entitled to 12 per cent per annum additional amount on the market value for a period commencing pn and from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in respect of such land up to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. At times, after publication of the notification under Section 4(1), by invoking power of urgency under Section 17(4), possession is taken before making the award. The additional amount at 12% per annum was intended to be paid as compensation from the date of taking possession.”
16. Thus, in the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the land owners shall be entitled to additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act from the date of taking possession till the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. In the said judgment, an earlier judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Tehsildar (LA), PWD Schemes, Vijayawada v. M.A. Jabbar, (1995)2 Supreme Court Cases 142, in which a different view was taken was not considered. In that case, possession of the acquired land was taken on 15.2.1965 whereas notification under Section 4(1) was published on 6.3.1980 and the award under section was made by the Collector on 30.9.1983. It was held that since the award was made after the amending Act 68 of 1984, therefore, the claimants-land owners were entitled to the benefit of solatium at the rate of 30% under Section 23(2) of the Act and interest at the amended rate under Section 28 of the Act. However, the only area of dispute was whether the claimants were entitled to additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act and if so from which date. It was held that the claimants were entitled to additional amount but the same shall be payable from the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act to the date of the award because awarding the said benefit from the date of taking possession would amount to giving retrospective effect to Sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984, even though the Amendment Act was prospective and the transitory provision had only retro-limited activity. In Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr., (2002)1 Supreme Court Cases 142, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the aforesaid two judgments. In this case, possession of the acquired land was taken on 1.6.1977 whereas notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 8.3.1991 and award by the Land Acquisition Collector was passed on 6.2.1993. After considering both the aforesaid judgments, the Hon’ble three Judges Bench of the Apex Court over ruled the view taken in Assistant Commissioner, Gadaq Sub Division Gadaq v. Mathapathi Basavannewwa and Ors. case (supra) and upheld the view taken in Special Tehsildar (LA), PWD Scheme Viayawada v. M.A. Jabbar’s case (supra), while making the following observations:-
“It is, as we see it, clear from Section 23(1-A) that the starting point for the purpose of calculating the amount to be awarded thereunder, at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the market value, is the date of publication of the Section 4 notification. The terminal point for the purpose is either the date of the award or the date of taking possession whichever is earlier. In the present case possession of the land having been taken prior to the publication of the Section 4 notification, that terminal is not available. The only available terminal is the date of the award. The High Court therefore, was in no error in holding that the appellants were entitled to the additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) for the period 8.3.1991 to 6.2.1993.
Section 23(1-A) admits of no meaning other than the meaning that we have placed upon it. There is no room here for any construction other than that given above. It is only where a provision is ambiguous that a construction that leads to a result that is more just can be adopted. Having regard to its clear terms. Section 23(1-A) must receive the only construction it can bear. We are of the view, therefore, that the law has been correctly laid down in the decision in Special Tehsildar (LA), PWD Schemes v. M.A. Jabbar and that it has not been correctly laid down in Asst. Commr. Gadag Sub Division v. Mathapathi Basavannewwa and, for that matter in State of H.P. v. Dharam Das.”
17. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the appellant is not entitled to additional amount from the date of taking possession of the acquired land to the date of award. However, he shall be entitled to the said benefit from the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act to the date of the award.
18. Now, the question which remains to be answered is form which date and at what rate the appellant is entitled to the interest on the amount of compensation. The Land Acquisition Collector has awarded interest from the date of taking possession to the date of payment at the rate of 6 per annum. It appears that when the award was passed, the Amendment Act No. 68 of 1984 had not come into force and that is why the appellant was awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The Amendment Act became applicable with effect from 24.9.1984. However, the provisions of Section 28 of this Amendment Act have been made applicable retrospectively by Section 30(2) which reads as under;-
“30. (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.”
19. Thus, the appellant was entitled for the benefit of interest at the rate provided under Section 28 of the Act. As far as the date from which the appellant is entitled to interest is concerned, in my opinion, there is no dispute because not only Section 28 but Section 34 of the Act provides that the claimant land owner shall be entitled for interest on the amount of compensation or on such excess amount awarded by the Court at the rate of 9% per annum from the date on which the possession was taken till the date of payment of the amount. Thus, the appellant in the instant case, is entitled for the interest at the aforesaid rate from the date of taking possession till date of payment. The Land Acquisition Collector himself has awarded interest to the appellant from the date of taking possession i.e., 11.2.1971 to the date of payment. However, the interest was granted only at the rate of 6% per annum which now, in view of the amended provision, should be 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the subsequent years.
20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is allowed and the market value of the acquired land is assessed at Rs. 30,000/- per acre. The appellant shall also be entitled for solatium at the rate of 30% on the said amount of compensation under Section 23(2) of the Act, additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act to the date of award under Section 23(1-A) of the Act and interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the subsequent years from the date of taking possession of the acquired land i.e. 11.2.1971 till the date of payment under Section 23 of the Act.
21. No order as to costs.