JUDGMENT
R.N. Prasad, J.
1. This appeal by the erst-while owner of the land acquired in Land Acquisition Case No. 50/40 of 1971 against the decision of the Court passed in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter to be referred as the Act.)
2. It appears that a notification under Section 18 of the Act was issued on 20-11-1957 for the acquisition of 38. 49 acre of land situated in village Shahpur Undi, within Dalsiogh Sarai police station of the present district of Samastipur. The Land, which comprises of different plots as per details given in the notice, but is in a compact block having trees thereon. This Land, admittedly, belonged to the appellant. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the value of the land including trees @ Rs. 2,200 per acre. The appellant thereafter sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act and the matter was referred to the 1st Addl. Subordinate Judge of Samastipur, who was appointed as Special Land Acquisition Judge. Eventually, the Special Land Acquisition Judge fixed the value of the land including the trees @ Rs. 3,000 per acre. The appellant, being unsatisfied with the value determined by the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge, has come up in appeal to this Court. According to him the value of the land on the relevant date i. e. on 20 11-1957 should be Rs. 200 to Rs. 250 per katha.
3. The appellant had examined a number of witnesses and bad produced a number of sale deeds in support of his claim for higher valuation. The respondent had also produced three sale deeds. The learned Special Land Acquisition Judge, on a consideration of all aspects of the matter, fixed the value of the land at Rs. 3,000 per acre after striking a balance between the rival claims put forward by the parties. In doing so, it appears that he took into account the value given in the three sale deeds (Exts. J, J/1 and J/2) which were relied upon by the respondent. The learned Judge did not feel inclined to fix the value of the land in accordance with the value given in the sale deeds filed on behalf of the appellant. He also rejected the oral evidence given by the witness examined by the appellant on the question of valuation.
4. So far the oral evidence adduced by the appellant is concerned, it appears that the learned Judge has considered the evidence of all the witnesses examined on the point of valuation and has given good reasons for not acting on their evidence. In my opinion, the reasons given by the learned Judge for not acting on their evidence is quite reasonable and acceptable. Indeed, it would be mere repetition to discuss them here once again.
5. It is, however, necessary to discuss the documents produced by the appellant as such reliance has been placed by his learned Counsel on these documents. These documents are seven sale deeds (Ext. 1 series), certified copy of the decision of the Land Acquisition Judge (Ext. 5) raising the award in land acquisition case No. 60/1956-57. The learned Government Pleader has taken much pains in locating the land covered by these sale deeds in the survey map and has contended that these sale deeds cannot be of any help in determining the market value of the land acquired.
6. Out of these sale deeds, Exts. 1/A, 1/B, 1/C and 1/1 have to be ignored as it was pointed out that they relate to land situate in villages other than Shahpur Undi in which village the land acquired is situate. Not only that, the valuation given in Ext. 1/A can not afford a good guide-line for determining the valuation in the present case as it is adjacent to the road and it is well known that the value of the land abutting the road is higher than the lands which are away from the road. It may be stated here that only a small portion of the acquired land is adjacent to the road and the bulk of it is away from the road. Moreover, only 14 dburs of land has been sold through this sale deed. The experience shows that generally high price is offered for a small parcel of land and such price cannot provide good guide line for fixing the market value of large chunk of land as is the case in the present case. Similar is the position with regard to the sale deed Ext. 1/C.
7. So far Exts. 1/F and 1/G are concerned, it appears that the purcahsers are the owners of the lands lying on the north of the lands sold. It is also well known that the owner of a boundry land has got a fancy for the adjoining land and is very often prepared to pay even a fabulous price for purchasing it. So, it is difficult to place reliance on these two saledeeds also for fixing the market value of the land in question.
8. So far Exts, 1/B and 1/I are concerned, they are dated 7-11-1963 and 14-12-1974 respectively. So, evidently, the first one was executed after six years and the second one after 16 years of the acquisition in question. It is well known that prices of the land has been increasing every year and so the sale deed executed after six years of the relevant date cannot afford a good guide-line for determining the value of the land on the relevant date, specially when there is no evidence on the record to indicate the difference in the rate of the price in these years.
9. It is also not possible to place reliance on Ext. 1/D as it is faraway from the land acquired. Not only that, it has got road on three sides and is also close to the railway station. Naturally a piece of land which has got road on three sides and which is close to the railway station would fetch much more price than the land away from the road and also from the railway station. Nearness of a place from the railway line can have no importance in determining the market value as it is of no consequence at all. But, the nearness from the railway station has its own importance from the commercial as well as other points of view and a land nearer to the railway station would naturally fetch higher price than the land away from it,
10. The valuation fixed by the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge in Ext. 5 also cannot be very useful for our purpose as the land acquired in that case was close to the road and also to the railway station and is far away from the land acquired in the present case.
11. The learned Government Pleader, however, could not give any cogent reason for rejecting the sale deeds Exts. 1/E and 1/H. Ext. 1/E and I/H Ext. I/E was executed on 17-12-1952 and it shows that the price was paid @ Rs. 270 per katha in respect of one katha six dhurs and odd land. Ext. 1/H was executed on 14-6-1954 in respect of one katha and eight dhurs of land and the price paid was @ Rs. 252 per katha. Since, there is nothing to show that the purchaser had any special reason to purchase these lands and to pay higher price for it and there is also no reason to distinguish these lands from the land acquired, and, indeed, they appear to be similarly situated, these sale deeds can be relied upon for determining the value of the acquired land and the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge was not justified in ignoring these two sale deeds.
12. As said above, the learned Judge has placed reliance on the sale deeds (Exts. J, J/1 and J/2) for determining the value of the land in question, and, in my opinion, also these sale deeds can provide good guide-line for determining the value of the land in question as they were executed at about the time when the land in question was acquired. Ext. J was executed on 8-6-1957, Ext. J/1 on 5-4-1957 and Ext. J/2 on 24-10-1956. In fact, plot No. 1143 which has been sold through Ext. J/1 is close to the acquired land. There is also not much to distinguish the land covered by these sale deeds from the land acquired.
13. In such circumstances, the best course would be to determine the value of the land acquired by taking into consideration the sale rate as mentioned in Exts. J, J/1 and J/2 arid also in Exts. 1/E and 1/H. If we take the average of the sale rate of these sale deeds it would come to about Rs. 177 only per katha. After giving margin for personal negotiation and bargain, I think that the proper market value of the land acquired would be Rs. 180 (Rupees one hundred eighty only) per katha which would coma to about Rs. 4.000 per acre. I, accordingly, fix the price of the acquired land at Rs. 4,000 per acre.
14. In the next place it was submitted that the appellant is entitled to 30 per centum solatium as per the amendment made in Section 23 and of interest @ 9% as per amendment made in Section 28 by the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984 (Act 68 of 1984). It appears that by the said amendment “15 per centum” was substituted by “30 per centum” in Subsection (2) of Section 23 of the Parent Act which provides for solatium. Similarly, the interest payable under Section 28 of the Act has been increased to 9% by the Amending Act from 6% provided for in the old Act
15. It was, however, submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the appellant cannot derive any benefit from these amendments as the Amending Act came into force on 24-9-1984 as the acquisition in question was made long before.
On behalf of the appellant however, it was submitted that the appellant would be entitled to the benefits of these two amendments in view of transitional provisions as contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. This sub-section is as follows:
(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 later the 30th day of April, 1982 (the date of introduction of the L. and Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, in the House of the People) and before the commencement of this Act.
16. The learned Government Pleader, however, contended that the appellant could get the solatium and interest according to the amended rates by virtue of this sub-section only if this Court would have disposed of this appeal prior to the date of the commencement of this Act i. e.,24-9-1984. It would, however, not be necessary for me to discuss his submissions in detail as the highest Court of the land had the occasion to consider the circumstances in which the benefits of the enhanced rate of solatium and interest could be given to the owner of the land acquired by virtue of this sub-section in Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. Union Territory of Chandigarh Civil Appeal No. 1619-23 of 1985 disposed of on 14-8-1985. The following observations of the Supreme Court in the said decision indicate that the appellants of the appeals which are pending before the High Courts or the Supreme Court even after the date of the commencement of the Amending Act would been titled to the enhanced solatium and interest:
Thus the amended provisions of Section 23 Sub-section 2 and Section 28 would apply in determination of the amount of compensation where proceedings are either pending at the date of commencement of the amending Act or are filed subsequent to the date, whether before the Collector or before the Court or before the High Court or the Supreme Court.’
The object of Parliament clearly was that the amended provisions of Section 23 Sub-section (2) and Section 28 should be applicable in determination of compensation where proceedings before the Collector or the Court or the High Court or the Supreme Court were pending on 30th April, 1982 or were commenced after that date, even if such proceedings had finally terminated before the enactment of the Amending Act and no proceedings were pending before the Collector or the Court or the High Court or the Supreme Court at the date of enactment of the Amending Act. If the proceedings had not finally concluded before the enactment of the Amending Act and were pending on that date or were started subsequently, whether before the Collector or the court or the High Court or the Supreme Court, the amended provisions of Section 23 Sub-section (2) and Section 28 would apply on their own terms in determining compensation. But by virtue of Section 30 Sub-section (2), the amended provisions of Section 23 Sub-section (2) and Section 28 were made applicable also where the proceedings were pending on 30th April, 1982 or were commenced after that date even though they might have finally come to an end before the enactment of the Amending Act. Of course, if the proceedings had finally terminated on or before 30th April, 1982, the amended provisions of Section 23 Sub-section (2) Section 28 could not possibly be intended to apply to the determination made in such proceedings. This was clearly the intendment of Parliament in enacting Section 30 Sub-section (2).
* * * * *
It would not be a correct interpretation of Section 30 Sub-section (2) to say that the provisions of the amended Section 23 Sub-section (2) and Section 28 would be applicable in relation to an order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court only if the order is passed in appeal against an award made by the Collector or Court between 30th April, 1982 and the commencement of the Amending Act. Even if an award is made by the Collector or Court on or before 30th April, 1982 and an appeal against such award is pending before the High Court or the Supreme Court on 30th April, 1982 or is filed subsequent to that date, the provisions of the amended Section 23 Sub-section (2) and Section 28 would be applicable in relation to an order passed in such appeal by the High Court or the Supreme Court.’
* * * * *
Moreover, the present appeal was pending at the date of commencement of the Amending Act and, therefore, in any view of the matter, this Court is bound to give effect to the provisions of the amended Section 23 Sub-section (2) and Section 28 in determining the amount of Compensation.
17. Since this appeal was pending before this Court on the date of the commencement of the Amending Act, the provisions of the amended Section 23(2) and Section 28 would be available to the appellant also and he will get the advantage of these two amendments in this appeal in view of the mandate of law as interpreted by the highest Court of the land.
18. In the result, the judgment and decree (award) of the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge are set-aside modified and the appeal is allowed to the extent that the value of the land acquired is fixed @ Rs. 4,000 (rupees four thousand) per acre. Besides, the appellant should get solatium calculated & 30% on the amount of enhanced compensation under the amended Section 23(2) as also interest & 9% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date on which the possession of the land was taken up to the date of the payment of enhanced compensation. In the circumstances of the case the parties will bear their own costs.