1980 (12) TMI 195 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved: Enhanced compensation rate, deduction of purchase price, solatium calculation, new tenure land compensation.

Issue 1: Enhanced Compensation Rate

The claimants sought compensation at the rate of Rs. 30,000 per acre, equivalent to Rs. 750 per guntha, while the trial court granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000 per acre, equal to Rs. 500 per guntha. The lands under acquisition were S. Nos. 88 and 89 of village Kasak, Broach district, acquired for constructing houses for flood-affected people. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at varying rates per square meter for different survey numbers.

Issue 2: Deduction of Purchase Price

The claimant, a deemed purchaser under Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, had paid the purchase price fixed by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal. The trial judge deducted these amounts from the additional compensation granted, which was contested by the claimant. The court held that the trial judge was not justified in deducting the amounts of Rs. 2200 and Rs. 1290 from the additional compensation since the purchase prices had already been paid, and the landlords were not demanding these amounts again.

Issue 3: Solatium Calculation

The claimant argued that while one-third premium price could be deducted from the market value of the lands, it should not be deducted from the solatium amount. The court referred to a previous judgment (Deputy Collector of Rajpipla v. Balubhai Muljibhai Machhi) which stated that solatium, being a solace for compulsory acquisition, should be awarded entirely to the claimant. However, the court found that solatium is part of the compensation and should be included in the total compensation from which one-third premium can be deducted. The court overruled the previous judgment, stating that solatium forms part of the compensation and should be considered in the deduction process.

Issue 4: New Tenure Land Compensation

The court discussed the compensation for new tenure lands, which are subject to restrictions under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act. It was established that only two-thirds of the market value should be paid to the claimant, with one-third being deducted as premium payable to the government. This principle was upheld by previous Division Bench judgments, and the court reiterated that the deduction should be made from the total compensation, including solatium.

Conclusion:

The court held that the trial judge was not justified in deducting the purchase prices from the additional compensation and that the solatium should be included in the total compensation from which one-third premium is deducted. The judgment clarified that solatium is part of the compensation and should be considered in the deduction process for new tenure lands. The court ordered accordingly, ensuring the correct application of compensation principles for the claimants.