1983 (3) TMI 306 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Reasonableness and adequacy of compensation assessed by the Deputy Commissioner for land acquisition.
2. Fairness and adequacy of compensation for trees, jirats, and crops.
3. Entitlement to 15% additional compensation as solatium for compulsory acquisition.
4. Fairness and adequacy of annual compensation during the requisition period.
5. Other reliefs and entitlements for the claimants.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Reasonableness and Adequacy of Compensation for Land Acquisition:
The Arbitrator awarded compensation for land acquisition at Rs. 10,000 per bigha. The Deputy Commissioner had previously awarded compensation at varying rates based on land classification, which the Arbitrator found arbitrary. The Arbitrator relied on sale deeds and evidence presented by the claimants, noting that the market value of similar lands in 1970 was significantly higher. The acquired land was in a developing area with numerous public and private institutions, increasing its market value. The Arbitrator's decision was based on the area's development and the presence of institutions, which contributed to the land's increased value. However, the judgment noted that the Arbitrator made errors in referencing previous awards and should have awarded Rs. 12,000 per bigha, aligning with the Naren Kalita case.

2. Fairness and Adequacy of Compensation for Trees, Jirats, and Crops:
The judgment did not provide specific details about the compensation for trees, jirats, and crops. However, it can be inferred that the Arbitrator's award was considered fair and adequate based on the overall assessment of the land's value and the evidence presented by the claimants.

3. Entitlement to 15% Additional Compensation as Solatium:
The claimants were awarded a 15% additional compensation as solatium for the compulsory acquisition of their lands. The judgment upheld this award, noting that the claimants' modest claim to fix the market value at Rs. 15,000 per bigha justified the solatium.

4. Fairness and Adequacy of Annual Compensation During the Requisition Period:
The Arbitrator awarded annual recurring compensation at Rs. 200 per bigha for the requisitioned period. However, the judgment noted that the Arbitrator made a mistake, referencing the Naren Kalita case, where the award was Rs. 300 per bigha per annum. Despite this error, the judgment upheld the award of Rs. 200 per bigha due to the absence of a cross-appeal by the claimants.

5. Other Reliefs and Entitlements for the Claimants:
The judgment addressed the issue of interest on the compensation amount. It was held that the Arbitrator could award interest from the date of the award until the final payment, aligning with the Naren Kalita case. If the compensation had already been paid, no recovery of interest would be made from the respondents to avoid injustice. The judgment also confirmed that the claimants were entitled to receive the amounts from the Arbitrator if not already paid.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed with costs of Rs. 100 per appeal against the appellant, with minor modifications to the award of interest. The compensation for land acquisition was upheld at Rs. 10,000 per bigha, and the annual recurring compensation for the requisitioned period was upheld at Rs. 200 per bigha per annum. The claimants were entitled to interest at 6% per annum from the date of the Arbitrator's award until the final payment, provided the compensation had not already been paid.