JUDGMENT
S. Jagadeesan, J.
1. These appeals are arising out of the award of the learned Subordinate Judge, Palani dated 23.2.2001 in LAOP. Nos. 6 & 7 of 1996. An extent of 102.51.0 hectares of the land in Balasamudram village and an extent of 63.83.5 hectares of the land in Pudachu village at Palani Taluk were acquired for the construction of Palar-Porunthalaru Dam.
2. Originally, Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition was issued on 19.1.1972. The possession of the land admittedly was taken by the appellants on 1.3.1972. Subsequent to the taking of possession, the appellants allowed the Notification under Section 4(1) issued on 19.1.1972 to lapse. Once again, Notification under Section 4(1) was issued under the Land Acquisition Act afresh on 11.9.1990. The award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 10.2.1993 determining the compensation at the rate of Rs.6881/=. Not satisfied with the said compensation, the respondents sought for a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Subordinate Judge determined the compensation of the land at Rs.15,000/= per acre. Aggrieved by the same, these appeals have been filed by the State.
3. The cross appeals are also filed by the respondents claiming an enhanced compensation in respect of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.40,000/= per acre. The data land relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer is Ex.A3 dated 10.2.1993 in respect of the Survey No. 424.15 of an extent of 3.58 acres and also in Survey No. 425/1B of an extent of 0.78 acres. The learned Subordinate Judge relied upon Exs. A8 and A9 dated 23.5.1989 and 25.11.1989, which works out to Rs.15,000/= and Rs.30,000/= respectively per acre and the learned Subordinate Judge arrived at the compensation at Rs.15,000/- per acre.
4. It is the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General the lower court totally rejected the Exs.B4 to B8 on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in MANIPUR TEA COMPANY PVT. LTD., VS. COLLECTOR OF HAILAKANDI . Since the said judgment was overruled and the same being no longer good law in view of the judgment reported in LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER VS. V. NARASAIAH , rejection of Exs.B4 to B8 cannot be sustained. It is further contended that the learned Subordinate Judge relied upon Exs.A8 and A9, which are of small extent dealing with 2.53 acres and 1.17 acres respectively, which cannot form the basis for determining the compensation in respect of a larger extent of the land. Hence, the award of compensation relying upon Ex.A8 cannot be sustained.
5. Yet another ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellants is the additional compensation amount awarded under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act i.e. the additional 12% on the total compensation cannot bear any interest from the date of taking possession. The interest payable on the said amount is from the date of Notification under Section 4(1) and till the date of the award. The learned Additional Advocate General further contended that the 1984 amendment, which provides for the enhanced rate of solatium and interest. Even though the respondents were entitled for solatium as per the amended provisions. So far as the interest is concerned, the rate specified in 1984 Act is applicable only for the period subsequent to coming into force of the Act. Prior to that date, the respondents are entitled only for the interest at 4% and 6% respectively from the date of taking possession and for subsequent period.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that Ex.A3 dated 11.1.1990 reflects the cost of the land at Rs.40,000/= per acre. The said document deals with an extent of 3.1 acres. If the value is determined, on that basis, the claimants are entitled much more compensation. So far as this aspect is concerned, the learned Additional Advocate General contended that the documents Ex.3 being pre 4(1) Notification the same cannot be relied upon.
7. We carefully considered the above contentions of both the counsel. It is true that the Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation at Rs.6881/= per acre relying upon Ex.B4. Ex.B4 deals with 4.36 acres of the land. However, the learned Subordinate Judge took into consideration of the evidence of R.W.1, the Revenue Divisional Officer determined the land value at Rs.15,000/= and the Land Acquisition Officer also determined the value of the land acquired at Rs.15,000/= on the basis of Ex.A8. However, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation at Rs.6881/= without any reason. Consequently, the learned Subordinate Judge placed reliance on Ex.A8 and determined the compensation at Rs.15,000/=. While doing so, the learned Subordinate Judge also took into consideration of the purpose of acquisition, the nature of the land and the extent of the acquisition. Only after considering these factors, the learned Subordinate Judge refused to determine the compensation on the basis of Ex.A9, which works out to Rs.30,000/= per acre. Hence, the learned counsel for the cross objectors vehemently contended that the value of the land either on the basis of Ex.A3 should be valued at Rs.40,000/= per acre or atleast on the basis of Ex.A9 and valued at the rate of Rs.30,000/= per acre. The purpose of acquisition being one for construction of dam, there need not be any deduction. The respondents having been deprived of the land since 1972, they must also be provided for the loss of their income from the land. If all these things are taken into consideration, the land value can be determined on the basis of Ex.A9.
8. So far as the case on hand is concerned, it is obvious that a larger junk of 411 acres has been acquired from the cross objectors for the purpose of construction of the dam. Generally, while determining the market value of the land for the larger area, we can reduce the market rate by 10 to 15 percent. So far as the present case, as already stated, the area is very huge and even if 30% deduction is given from the market rate i.e. Rs.40,000/= vide Ex.B3 that would easily fetch a sum of Rs.28000/=. At this juncture, it is also relevant to note that Ex.A8 is dated 25.3.1989 by which an acre of land in Survey No. 420/3 has been sold at the rate of Rs.15,000/=. Ex.A9 is dated 25.11.1989 whereby a similar extent of one acre has been sold for a sum of Rs.30,000/=. These two documents indicate the escalation of the price by Rs.15,000/= within a period of six months. Notification under Section 4(1) being 11.9.1990, the due increase of the value of the land must be given. If all these factors are to be taken into consideration, we are of the view that it would be reasonable to determine the compensation at the rate of Rs.28,000/= per acre.
9. So far as the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General in respect of the additional amount on the compensation in accordance with Section 23(1-A) is concerned, we are fortified by the judgment of the Supreme Court in SIDDAPPA VESAPPA KURI AND ANOTHER VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANOTHER reported in 2002 (2) L.W. 215, wherein the learned Judges of the Supreme Court held that the additional compensation to be awarded under the said provision would be at 12% per annum on the compensation for the period commencing from the date of Notification under Section 4(1), till the date of the award in the following terms.
” 3. It is, as we see it, clear from Section 21(1A) that the starting point for the purposes 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.”
10. In view of the Apex Court judgment, the award of the learned Subordinate Judge granting the additional sum of 12% per annum on the total compensation from the date of possession till the date of deposit cannot be sustained.
11. So far as the interest of the compensation determined under Section 23 and the solatium is concerned, though the learned Additional Advocate General contended that the interest as per the 1984 amendment can be granted prospectively, we are of the view the same cannot be sustained in view of specific provision of Section 23 of the Act. In fact, the learned Additional Advocate General did not have any dispute with regard to solatium but only with regard to interest he has contended as above. When the Act provides the rate of interest for the period prior to taking possession and subsequent to taking possession, we are of the view that the claimants are entitled for the same as provided under the statute especially when they are deprived of the enjoyment of the land for such a considerable period namely, for more than twenty years prior to the passing of the award. Hence, the said contention is rejected. Consequently, the appeals filed by the State are allowed in part so far as the period of interest in respect of the additional amount of Rs.12%. The cross objection is allowed determining the compensation at the rate of Rs.28,000/= per acre.
12. In all,
(i) the respondents are entitled for a compensation at the rate of Rs.28,000/= per acre.
(ii) Additional amount of 12% per annum on the compensation as contemplated under Section 23(1-A) of the said Act.
(iii) Solatium of 30% on the compensation.
(iv) The interest is at the rate specified in Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act as awarded by the court below, in respect of all the three components as held by the Supreme Court in the case of SUNDAR VS. UNION OF INDIA .
13. The appeals and the cross appeals are partly allowed and disposed of in the above terms. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.
