LAHIRI, C.J. - (1.)We propose to dispose of the appeals by a common Judgement as they stem from a common Award and involve common questions of law and facts.
(2.)These appeals have been preferred by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, against the award made by the District Judge-cum-Arbitrator, Gauhati, appointed under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 for short "the Act", in Misc. (Arb.) Cases Nos. 95 - 123 of 1971.
(3.)The Relevant Facts Are As Follows : Lands owned by the Respondents were requisitioned on 30-6-1963 and possession was taken over on 11-9-1963. In exercise of the power conferred under S.7 of "the Act'' the Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, by his order No. RQ. 1684/70 dt. 23-2-1970 acquired the land. There is no dispute that the acquired lands were in a common field situated at Borjhar in Mouza Dakhin Rani within the Greater Gauhati Master Plan Area. Without making any endeavour to determine the compensation by agreement with the land owners, the competent authority paid ad hoc compensation for compulsory acquisition of the land @ Rs. 3000/- per bighas for Basti land (homestead land) and @ Rs. 2000/- - 2500/- per bigha for arbable lands. Similarly, the Collector paid ad hoc compensation for Jirats, trees etc. in lump sum. The Collector also paid recurring compensation at the rate of Rs. 70/- per bigha for the first year of requisition and @ Rs. 45/- per bigha for the subsequent years of requisition, which was the recurring payment of a sum equal to the rent which would have been payable for the use and occupation of the lands if it had been taken on lease for that period. The claimants-respondents were dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation paid and asked for reference. As no agreement could be reached, the Government appointed the District Judge, Gauhati as Arbitrator to determine compensation under the provisions of "the Act". As many as six issues were framed by the Arbitrator. The first issue is whether the payment of compensation made by the Collector was the price which the requisitioned properties would have fetched in the open market, if they had remained in the same condition as they were at the time of requisitioning and been sold on the date of acquisition, vide S.8(3)(a) of "the Act". The second issue is whether compensation paid far Jirat was fair and adequate. The third issue was whether the claimants Respondents were entitled to 15% solatium on the total amount of compensation. The fourth issue is whether the amount of compensation paid by the Collector as recurring payment for the period of requisitioning was equal to the rent which would have been payable for the use and occupation of the properties if it had been taken on lease. The fifth issue is whether the claimants were entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum on the amount of compensation. The sixth issue is as to what relief, if any, the claimants were entitled.
;