JUDGMENT
Prakash Krishna, J.
1. The present appeal arises out of judgment and decree dated 30.4.1992 passed by the VIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in Land Acquisition Reference No. 10 of 1991. The contesting respondents have also filed a cross-objection.
2. The land of the claimants-respondents was acquired for the purposes of construction of a canal by the State Government, although possession had been taken before the land acquisition proceedings. The possession was taken in the year 1980 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was made on 14th December, 1988. The notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 3.4.1989. The land in question is Khasra Plot No. 39 in village Imiliya, Tehsil Sadar, district Azamgarh. The area of acquired land is 532 karis. The Special Land Acquisition Officer gave an award on 7.1.1991 against which a reference application was made in which the claimants-respondents claimed that compensation at the rate of Rs. 6,000 per biswa should be granted to them. The Court below, that is, the reference Court, enhanced the compensation and granted the same at the rate of Rs. 3,500 per biswa by the order under appeal. The State Government has challenged the enhanced amount of compensation by means of the present appeal while the claimants-respondents have filed cross-objection for further enhancement of the compensation.
3. I have heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant and Sri J. A. Azmi Advocate, counsel for the respondents.
4. As many as 6 issues were framed in the Court below. Under issue No. 1 the Court below found that the market value of the land on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act was Rs. 3,500 per biswa. Under issues No. 2 and 3 it was found that the respondents have suffered a loss of Rs. 4,000 on account of the fact that the canal constructed by the appellant has divided the remaining holding of the claimants Into two parts and as such the claimants have suffered damages to the tune of Rs. 4,000. However, in the operative part of the judgment, there is no mention of grant of Rs. 4,000. Under issue No. 4, it was concluded that the actual possession of the land was taken in the year 1980 and as such, the claimants are entitled to interest from that date. Under issue No. 5 it was found that only 432 karis have been acquired and not 532 karis as alleged by the claimants. The Court below partly allowed the claim of the claimants by enhancing the compensation to Rs. 3,500 per biswa. Solatium at the rate of 30%, additional compensation at the rate of 12%, and the interest at the rate of 15% from the date of actual taking of possession, that is, June 1980 to May, 1981 and interest at the rate of 15% for the subsequent period were granted.
5. The learned standing counsel submitted that the Court below has committed an error of law as well as on facts in determining the market value of the land. Statement of Athar Ali (P.W. 1) was recorded on behalf of the claimants. He has stated that the market value of the land in question on the date of recording of evidence was Rs. 25,000 per biswa and the value of the land was increasing every year. There was enhancement of about 5% in the price each year. The land In question is situated at a distance of about 1 kms. from Azamgarh-Ghazipur main road. The quality of the land is very good and two crops were sown every year. In the examination-in-chief, it was stated by him that at the time when the possession was taken, the market value of the land was Rs. 3,500 per biswa. The Court below although on the basis of the exemplar concluded that the market value of the land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act came to Rs. 5,000 per biswa, but awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,500 per biswa on the basis of the statement of P.W. 1. I have gone through the statement of P.W. 1 and am of the opinion that the Court below has not interpreted the statement of P.W. 1 in the right perspective. The entire reading of the Judgment shows very clearly that the possession was taken in the year 1980 and at the time, the market value of the land was Rs. 3,500 per biswa. However, the consistent case of the claimants is that on the relevant date, that is, on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the market value of the land was Rs. 6,000 per biswa. The Court below, on the misconstruction of statement of P.W. 1, has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 3.500 per biswa. I have gone through the statement of D.W. 1, namely, Kamlesh Kumar Srivastava, Amin, working in the office of the Land Acquisition Officer. He has stated that the compensation as awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is sufficient and adequate, but has not stated even a single word about the market value of the land on the date of the relevant notification under Section 4 of the Act. He has further stated that he tried to find out exemplars from the office of the sub-Registrar in respect of the village in question for the last 3 years but without any success. Thus, it is almost a case of no evidence on behalf of the appellant.
6. Now, coming to the documentary evidence, the Court below has placed reliance upon the exemplar, sale deed dated 6.7.1987 of Sohrab (Paper No. 20C). The said sale deed is in respect of only 58 karis for a consideration of Rs. 10,000. The land covered under the said sale deed is very near to the land in question which is apparent from the village map, as observed by the Court below and the quality and utility of the acquired land and the land covered by the aforesaid sale deed are the same. The Court below has placed reliance upon this sale deed as an exemplar. The learned standing counsel could not show any error committed by the Court below in treating the said sale deed as an exempler. On the basis of the said sale deed, the market value of the land in question comes to Rs. 5,000 per biswa as observed by the Court below. During the course of arguments, the learned standing counsel has not disputed or challenged the bona fide transfer by the aforesaid sale deed. The said sale deed is of a nearby plot and enjoins the same potentiality. The concept of compensation under the Act is that it should not be a lottery to the owners whose land had been acquired nor it should be the robbery on the part of the State. Indian farmers generally do not want to part with the land. It is a permanent security just like gold. The Legislature under the theory of public purpose and for the benefit of the. society, makes the acquisition of land. It is often seen that the person, whose land had been acquired, may not be able to get the similar piece of land. The society has to make sacrifice as the individual has made to give a fair price. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that there is trend in rising prices. The District Judge compared the sale deed of 1987 till the date of notification, the price must have gone at galloping speed.
7. It may further be added that the aforesaid sale deed is dated 6.7.1987 and the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 14.12.1988. The sale deed is very near to the date of the notification and has been rightly relied upon by the Court below while computing the market value. In view of above, the claimants-respondents are entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,000 per biswa. There is no force in the appeal filed by the State Government.
8. Now the next question is regarding the grant of additional compensation under Section 23(1A) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Anoop Singh and Ors., JT 2003 (1) SC 458 has relied upon its earlier judgment given by the Constitution Bench in K. S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors., JT 1994 (6) SC 182. It has been held that where the possession of the land was taken over much before the date of issuance of notification, the land-holder would be entitled to an additional amount under Section 23(1A) only for the period from the date of notification to the date of award since awarding additional amount from the date of taking over possession would amount to giving retrospective operation to Section 23(1A) of the Act. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, 2002 (1) AWC 1O6 (SC) : JT 2001 (9) SC 176, that when the possession was taken earlier and the notification under Section 4 of the Act is of subsequent date, the additional compensation shall be payable for the period from the date of notification to the date of award. In view of this the claimants-respondents are entitled for additional compensation from 14.12.1988, that is, the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act up to the date of award, that is, 7.1.1991. The claimants will also be entitled to statutory interest under the said Act.
9. I, accordingly, modify the judgment and decree of the Court below to the extent indicated below :
(1) The claimants are entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,000 per biswa ;
(2) The claimants are entitled to get additional compensation under Section 23(1A) of the Act for the period 14.12.1988 to 7.1.1991.
(3) The claimants are entitled to get interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 14.12.1988 for one year and at the rate of 15% per annum thereafter as provided under the Act on the enhanced compensation till the date of actual payment.
(4) Solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value of the land as determined above. (5) The claimants will also be entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 4,000 by way of damages as found by the Court below under issues No. 2 and 3. 10. The appeal and the cross-objection are disposed of accordingly.