Prakash Krishna - (1.) -This is claimant's appeal. It arises out of acquisition of claimant's land under Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam. The Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur, issued two notifications under Sections 357 and 363 of Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959, for acquisition of the land in village Gujaini, district Kanpur. The aforesaid notifications were issued in April 1962 and October, 1963, respectively. The land of the appellant comprises in khata No. 103, having an area of 21 bigha 6 biswa, is spread over in Plot Nos. 436, 737, 741, 742, 746, 747, 771, 772, 775, 777 and 1178. The Special Land Acquisition Officer issued notices after 17 years on 30.9.1980 under Sections 9 (1) and 9 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act. The appellant claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 60 per sq. yard. The Presiding Officer, Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur Tribunal, enhanced the valuation of the land from Rs. 714.29 per bigha to Rs. 2,000 per bigha for uneven land and Rs. 3,000 for even land. It also granted solatium at the rate of 15% and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of dispossession till the deposit of the amount. The order of the Presiding Officer, Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal is dated 29.9.1984. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order and decree the present appeal has been filed.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised following three submissions : (i) The compensation awarded by the Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal is inadequate. (ii) The solatium has been granted at the rate of 15%, it should has been granted at the rate of 30% in view of amendment by Act No. 68 of 1984 in Section 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. (iii) The interest has been awarded at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of dispossession to the date of payment. It should have been granted at the rate of 9% for the first year from the date of dispossession and 15% for the subsequent period till the date of actual payment in view of amendment in Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record ; I do not find any substance in the first argument of learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant could not point out any error in the order of the Tribunal. This point was subsequently not seriously pressed by the counsel for the appellant. He tried to place reliance upon the judgment of this Court, given in First Appeal No. 540 of 1985 decided on 19.11.1997. It was submitted by him that this Court in the aforesaid judgment has further enhanced the compensation by Rs. 5,000 per bigha. The land was acquired under the same notification and Sri Vishambhar Singh, appellant, of that case was father of the present appellant. I have gone through the aforesaid judgment. From a close reading of the aforesaid judgment it is not possible to connect the same with the present acquisition proceeding. Further it has been observed that price of the land is fixed at Rs. 5,000 per bigha at the time of notification and since there was inordinate delay so the damages was awarded by the court below under Section 48A of the Act should also be enhanced to Rs. 5,000 only. In absence of relevant material to connect the plot of the aforesaid judgment with the disputed plots, it is not possible for me to place reliance on the aforesaid judgment. Thereafter counsel for the appellant did not press this point any further.
(3.) THE second and third questions, as mentioned above, are no longer res integra. It is concluded by authoritative pronouncement of Supreme Court in Union of India v. Raghubhir Singh, 1989 (2) AWC 833 (SC) : AIR 1989 SC 1933. It has been held therein that the benefit of enhanced solatium is to be given under amended provision, to an appeal against which award of the Collector or of the Court rendered between 30.4.1982 and 24.9.1984. 30th April, 1982, is the date of introduction of the Bill and 24.9.1984 is the date of its passing. This is a Constitution Bench judgment of Supreme Court, which has been consistently followed subsequently. THE latest judgment of Supreme Court is Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Anoop Singh and another, 2003 (2) AWC 884 (SC) : AIR 2003 SC 1004. In view of these authoritative pronouncements I find sufficient force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant. It is held that the appellant is entitled to solatium at 30% and not at 15%, as awarded by the Tribunal. Similarly, the appellant is entitled to receive interest at the rate of 9% for first year from the date of taking possession and at the rate of 15% for the subsequent period till the date of actual payment in the Court. THE order of the Tribunal dated 29.9.1984 is modified to that extent. Matter was pending before the reference court (Tribunal) on 24.9.1984, the date with effect from the Amendment Act was enforced. Indisputably, State of U. P. acquired the land under U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959. The amendment enhancing solatium and rate of interest were made by the Parliament in the Land Acquisition Act. Now a question arises as to whether the amendment made in the Land Acquisition Act by the Parliament can be read in the provision of U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959. Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash v. State of U. P. and others, AIR 1974 SC 1202, has considered the provisions of U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959, along with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. It has come to the conclusion that whenever land is compulsorily acquired for the Mahapalika-be it for a purpose of the Scheme under Chapter XIV or for any other purpose under Section 130-the acquiring authority is the Government. There is no material difference between the provisions of the Adhiniyam which were challenged therein and which were in question before Supreme Court in Nagpur Improvement Trust's case, AIR 1973 SC 689. Supreme Court has applied the ratio of Nagpur Improvement Trust's case and has held that the landowner is entitled to solatium, etc., in accordance with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, notwithstanding the fact that land was acquired under U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam. Supreme Court has further considered this aspect in great detail with reference to the provisions of U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam in U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Jainul Islam, AIR 1998 SC 1028. The aforesaid judgment has been followed by Supreme Court in Savitri Cairey v. U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, 2003 ALJ 1865. It has been held that U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad provided for acquisition of land in terms of the Land Acquisition Act. By reason of legal fiction created under the Adhiniyam the Parishad is deemed to be the local authority. The State Government has made the acquisition. It has been held that the claimants are also entitled to additional compensation under Section 23 (1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, as amended in 1984. The purpose of acquisition of land both under Parliamentary Act and the State Act is the same. The order of acquisition is to be passed only by the State Government. So long as the acquiring authority and public purposes wherefor lands are acquired are the same ; in view of the fact that provision have been made for payment of compensation in terms of provision of Land Acquisition Act, although acquisition is made under the State Act, but higher amount of compensation is payable under the Parliamentary Act, such higher amount of compensation will be payable. It was held : "It is equally immaterial whether it is one Acquisition Act or another Acquisition Act under which the land is acquired. If the existence of two Acts could enable the State to give one owner different treatment from another equally situated the owner who is discriminated against, can claim the protection of Article 14." ;