- (1.) THESE appeals by special leave are by the beneficiary of acquisition (ONGC), aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded to the respondents.
(2.) AN extent of 13 Hectares 78 Are and 97 sq. m. in Ijapura village, District Mehsana, Gujarat, was acquired for one of ONGC installations, namely "influent pit-Santhal I', under preliminary notification dated 15. 9. 1992 issued under section 4 (1) of the Land acquisition Act, 1894 ('act' for short) followed by final notification dated 31/3/1993 under section 6 of the Act. The Special Land acquisition Officer, ONGC, passed an Award dated 16. 11. 1994 determining the market price as Rs. 2. 10 per sq. m. The respondents -land owners, sought reference to civil court claiming Rs. 30 per sq. m. Before the Reference Court, the respondents did not place any evidence by way of contemporaneous sale transactions in the neighbourhood. But they placed reliance on some awards passed by the said Court in other acquisition cases, in particular, the following two awards: (i) Ex. 15 - relating to acquisition of lands for ONGC, in the neighbouring Santhal village under preliminary notification dated 6. 1. 1987, wherein compensation at the rate of Rs. 10 per sq. m was awarded. (ii) Ex. 16 - relating to acquisition of lands at Chalasana village at a distance of 4 Kms. from Ijapura village under preliminary notification dated 31/7/1986, wherein compensation at the rate of rs. 10 per sq. m was awarded. The Land Acquisition Officer did not choose to adduce any evidence nor produce the sale deeds referred to in his award in support of the market value arrived at by him at Rs. 2. 10 per sq. m. The Reference Court allowed the claim in part by Judgment and Award dated 7/10/1999. It determined the market value of the acquired lands at Rs. 17. 10 per sq. m based on the said two awards -Ex. 15 relating to the neighbouring Santhal village and Ex. 16 relating to Chalsana village. It found that under the said awards Rs. 10 per sq. m. has been awarded for acquisitions in the year 1986 and 1987. As the acquisition in the cases on hand was on 15/9/1992, it increased the value cumulatively at the rate of 10% per annum and arrived at a value of Rs. 19. 10 per sq. m by treating the gap between the relied-on-acquisitions and the present acquisition as six and half years. Thereafter, it reduced Rs. 2/- per sq. m. therefrom for the distance factor (distance between Ijapura and the other two villages)to arrive at the market value as Rs. 17. 10 per sq. m. The Reference court also awarded additional compensation under section 23 (1a)and solatium under section 23 (2) of the Act. It awarded interest under section 28 of the Act at 9% PA for a period of one year from the date of taking possession and 15% per annum thereafter, on the actual compensation amount, and not on the additional amount under section 23 (1a) or the solatium under section 23 (2) of the Act.
(3.) THE appellant challenged the said award of the Reference Court before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeals holding that the determination of the market value by the Reference Court did not call for interference. The appellant urged the following two contentions in support of the appeals against the said judgment: (i) Ex. 15 and Ex. 16 did not relate to the Ijapura village, but related to other villages, namely neighbouring Santhal and far away chalsana (at a distance of 4 kms ). The market value of lands in those villages cannot furnish the basis for determining the market value in regard to the acquired lands situated at Ijapura. (ii) Even if Ex. 15 and 16 could validly be the basis for determining the market value of lands at Ijapura, the Reference Court and High Court committed three errors in calculating the increase: (a)in applying an annual increase at a high rate of 10% per annum; (b) in calculating the annual increase cumulatively instead of at a flat rate; and (c) in calculating the increase for a period of six and half years instead of for five years. The appellant submitted that even if Ex. 15 was to be the basis, having regard to the date of relied-on acquisition under Ex. 15 (6/1/1987) and date of present acquisition of the Ijapura lands (15/9/1992), the increase ought to have been calculated for only five years; that the percentage of increase should not have been more than a flat rate of 5% per annum; that therefore, the increase ought to have been only rs. 2. 50 for 5 years and the market value of Santhal lands in 1992 would have been Rs. 12. 50 per sq. m. and not Rs. 19. 10; and that if rs. 2/- was deducted for the distance factor, as was done by the reference Court, the market price would be only Rs. 10. 50 per sq. m. and not Rs. 17. 10 per sq. m. Whether reliance on Ex. 15 and 16 erroneous? ;