9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Land Acquisition and Compensation 2. Court Fee and Enhanced Compensation 3. Application of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 4. Payment of Solatium and Interest under Amended Provisions Detailed Analysis: 1. Land Acquisition and Compensation: The land belonging to the petitioner-society was acquired for establishing a military cantonment at Bhatinda. Notifications under Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued and published on October 9 and 10, 1974, respectively. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at rates between Rs. 4,500/- and Rs. 16,000/- per acre, dividing the land into three belts (A, B, and C). The Additional District Judge, Bhatinda, upheld the belting and increased the compensation, ranging between Rs. 5,625/- and Rs. 20,000/- per acre. The High Court further revised the compensation, dividing the land into two belts and awarding Rs. 15 per square yard (Rs. 72,600/- per acre) for the first belt and a flat rate of Rs. 25,000/- per acre for the remaining area, adding solatium at 15% and interest at 6% per annum. 2. Court Fee and Enhanced Compensation: The petitioners filed an appeal (R.F.A. No. 274 of 1981) against the decision of the Additional District Judge, claiming an enhancement of Rs. 4,00,000/- over the awarded compensation. They paid a court fee of Rs. 6,248/- and restricted their claim due to their inability to pay a higher court fee. After almost six years, they filed an application to make good the deficiency in court fee and sought additional compensation with enhanced solatium and interest as per the 1984 amendment. The Full Bench of the High Court dismissed the application, emphasizing that allowing such practices would encourage not paying the court fee initially and then invoking jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code to pay the deficit court fee and receive enhanced compensation. 3. Application of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: The petitioners argued based on the newly added Section 28A, inserted by Amending Act 68 of 1984, effective from April 13, 1982. This provision allows persons interested in the acquired land who were not parties to the reference to request the Collector to redetermine the compensation within three months from the court's award. However, the court clarified that Section 28A applies only to claimants who failed to seek a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The petitioners, having sought and secured a reference under Section 18 and filed an appeal in the High Court, could not invoke Section 28A. This interpretation aligns with the judgment in Mewa Ram (deceased) by his Lrs. and Ors. v. State of Haryana. 4. Payment of Solatium and Interest under Amended Provisions: The petitioners sought solatium and interest at the higher rate allowed by the amended provisions of the Act. However, the court referenced the recent judgment in Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh (dead) by Lrs. etc., which precluded the submission since the matter had concluded long before April 13, 1982. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petition, noting that the petitioners were satisfied with the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- and did not seek to pay the deficit court fee soon after the judgment in 1981 but waited almost six years. The Full Bench's decision to discourage such practices was upheld. The court also highlighted that although the petitioners belong to the Scheduled Caste and their land was expropriated for a public purpose, entertaining their claim would open floodgates for similar applications. Nonetheless, the court suggested that the government could consider paying the balance amount ex-gratia to the economically deprived petitioners.
|
