U P AWAS & VIKAS PARISHAD Vs. GANESHI DUTT JOSHI (SINCE DECEASED)
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
U P Awas And Vikas Parishad
Ganeshi Dutt Joshi (Since Deceased)
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)HEARD Shri K.S. Mehta, counsel for the appellant.
(2.)BY the present first appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellant has prayed for setting aside the
judgment and decree dated 10 -10 -1998 in LAR Case No. 48/1988 passed by
the District Judge, Almora.
(3.)BRIEFLY stated, three land acquisition references being no. 47/1988, 48/1988 and 49/ 1989 have been made under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which have been decided together by the District
Judge, Almora on 10 -10 -1988. In the light of the order of the District
Judge, Almora with regard to reference no. 47/1988, first appeal has been
arisen being appeal no. 809/2001 wherein the Division Bench of this High
Court has passed the order to the following effect :
"Under the above amended provision, solatium was sought to be paid got enhanced from 15% to 30%. In Union of India and another vs. Raghubir Singh and others reported in (1989) 2 S.C.C. 754, the Apex Court has held that the amended provision does not apply to the awards, made by the Collector prior to April 30, 1982.ADivision Bench of this Court has followed the same principle in First Appeal No. 754 of 2001; U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow Vs. Harnam Singh and others*, decided on 22 -11 -2005. In the above circumstances, and in view of the above position of law, the reference court has erred in law by enhancing the solatium from 15% to 30% in the matter, in which the Special Land Acquisition Officer had already made its award in 1980 i.e. prior to 3 -04 -1982, where after, the benefit was available to the claimants of the amended Section 23(2) of aforesaid Act. 7. Therefore, this appeal deserves to be allowed to the extent that the solatium payable to the claimants shall be at the rate of 15% and not at the rate of enhanced 30%. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of and allowed."
Counsel for the appellant has confined his argument to the extent of solatium part only.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.