Ashok Bhushan, J. - (1.) THESE two appeals have been filed against a common judgment and order dated 7.12.1988 passed by the District Judge, Rampur in Reference No. 21 of 1987, Jasvir Singh v. Land Acquisition Officer and Reference No. 27 of 1987 deciding reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by which compensation awarded to the appellant was increased from Rs. 12,000/ - to 17,000/ - per acre. The brief facts giving rise to these two appeals need to be noted. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 18.8.1981 was issued for acquisition of Plot No. 240. Area 1.80 acres belonging to the appellant in first appeal No. 880 of 1993 and area 4.51 acres of appellants in appeal No. 401 of 1998 was sought to be acquired for the purpose of construction of railway line from Rampur to Haldwani. Simultaneous declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued which was published on 14.11.1981. Notice under Section 9 was issued asking the land holders to appear on 25.8.1996. On 19.9.1986, the possession of the land was taken by the Collector since urgency clause under Section 17(1) was invoked while issuing notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The award was issued on 22.9.1986 under Section 11 of the Act. Special Land Acquisition Officer fixed the valuation of the land as Rs. 12000/ - per acre. With regard to valuation of trees and other assets, it was mentioned in the award that the necessary report regarding valuation of the trees etc. are awaited and the compensation for the aforesaid shall be determined separately. The appellants received the compensation as awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. However, a request for making reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was made. On the application submitted by the appellants, reference No. 21 of 1987 Jasvir Singh v. Land Acquisition Officer and reference No. 27 of 1987 Kuljeet Singh and Lakhvir Singh v. Land Acquisition Officer, were registered before the District Judge, Rampur. In both the above references, following issues were framed: Issues of Reference No. 21 of 1987: (1) Whether the market value of the land of the claimant, which has been acquired, is Rs. 50,000/ - per acre, as alleged by the claimant? (2) To what amount, if any, is the claimant entitled? Issues of Reference No. 27 of 1987: (1) Whether the market value of the acquired land of the claimant is Rs. 50,000/ - per acre, as alleged by the claimant? (2) To what amount, if any, are the claimants entitled? The claimants led both documentary and oral evidence. In reference No. 21 of 1987 photocopy of the sale -deed dated 22.6.1981 executed by Smt. Harjeet Kaur, photocopy of map and photocopy of Khasra were filed. In reference No. 27 of 1987, the claimants had filed sale -deed dated 22.6.1981, executed by Smt. Harjeet Kaur in favour of a trust for Rs. 35000/ - in respect of 10 Bighas of land. In reference No. 21, award of Land Acquisition Officer Nainital, who had awarded compensation to one Sugreev Ram at the rate of 30,000/ - per acre was also relied. Oral statement was made by Kuljeet Singh in reference No. 27 of 1987. Jasveer Singh appeared as P.W -2 in reference No. 27 of 1987. Sugreev Lal appeared as P.W. -3. Suresh Singh also appeared as P.W. -4. An Advocate Commissioner namely; Akhilesh Kumar Khara submitted his report on 17.7.1987. No evidence in rebuttal was filed on behalf of Land Acquisition Officer/State. Learned District Judge vide its judgment and order dated 7.12.1988 determined the compensation of land at the rate of Rs. 12000/ - per acre. The award of Land Acquisition Officer Nainital was held to be not relevant. In so far as sale -deed dated 22.6.1981, it was observed that neither vendor nor vendee had been examined to prove as to whether the sale -deed was by a willing seller in favour of willing purchaser. Before the Land Acquisition Officer as well as reference Court, the appellant had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 50,000/ - per acre. Against the judgment of learned District Judge dated 7.12.1988, first appeal No. 98 of 1988 was filed by appellant Jasvir which was subsequently allotted a regular No. 880 of 1993, the appellant Kuljeet Singh and others filed another appeal being appeal No. 122 of 1989 which has been allotted regular No. 401 of 1998, challenging the award of learned District Judge. Both the first appeals came for hearing before the learned Single Judge of this Court, who vide its judgment and order dated 29.1.2004 disposed of both the appeals modifying the judgment and order of learned District Judge dated 7.12.1988 by enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs. 17000/ - per acre to Rs. 30,000/ - per acre. The appellant being dissatisfied by the judgment and order of this Court dated 29.1.2004 filed Civil appeal No. 5714 -5715 of 2005 which appeals were disposed of by the Apex Court on 12.9.2005. The judgment of the High Court was set aside by the Apex Court and following order was passed: Leave granted. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that apart from the fact that he is aggrieved by compensation as has been awarded by the High Court, the High Court has failed to award interest under Sec. 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is further submitted that other statutory benefits like solatium have not been awarded to the appellants. Secondly, it is submitted that there is no basis for arriving at the figure of Rs. 30,000/ - per acre. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents is unable to dispute any of these averments made on behalf of the appellants. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the High Court for decision afresh on merits and in accordance with law. Since the matter is quite old, the High Court will take steps to dispose of the matter expeditiously. The appeals are disposed of.
(2.) AFTER the remand by the Apex Court, these two appeals have been heard. It is also relevant to note that after the aforesaid remand by the Apex Court on 12.9.2005, a writ petition No. 77449 of 2005 was filed by Jasvir Singh and others v. State of U.P., challenging the entire land acquisition proceedings which writ petition has also been heard along with these two appeals and which writ petition is being disposed of by the order of the date separately. Sri Vishnu Sahai, learned Counsel for the appellant in support of these two appeals have submitted that compensation determined by the learned District Judge by the impugned judgment is wholly inadequate. He submits that even the evidence which was on record before the learned District Judge had not been looked into while fixing compensation at the rate of Rs. 17000/ - per acre. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in fact the award dated 22.9.1986 is not an award within the meaning of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He submits that the award was given by Land Acquisition Officer only with regard to land and with regard to compensation for trees and other assets award mentions that the valuation report is awaited and the same shall be separately declared. He submits that infect the entire land acquisition proceedings were invalid and the appellants are entitled for compensation at the present market rate. He further submits that in pursuance of the order passed in writ petition No. 77449 of 2005, the parties proceeded for outside settlement regarding compensation. He submits that under the said direction, the District Magistrate and Divisional Commissioner have sent a report to the State Government with regard to compensation which was required to be paid to the appellant on the basis of market rate as was existing at the time of submission of report i.e. in the year 2008 -09. He submits that the State Government did not agree for outside settlement and expressed its willingness to enter into settlement at the rate of Rs. 30,000/ - per acre only. He submits that those correspondences and reports have been brought on record by means of an application dated 29.11.2010 may be taken on record under Order 41 rule 27 of the C.P.C. He further submits that the compensation for the trees has not yet been awarded.
(3.) SRI Ram Krishna, learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State submits that the appellants have received the compensation for some trees also. Referring to the counter -affidavit filed by the appellant in appeal No. 880 of 1993, he submits that the compensation for 28 trees of guava to the tune of Rs. 20,720/ - + 12% additional amount and solatium has been pa as per rules. Sri Ram Krishna submits that the report of the Divisional Commissioner and the District Magistrate recommending the payment of compensation at the rate of 2008 -09 has rightly not been accepted by the State Government and the State Government has shown its willingness at the rate of Rs. 30,000/ - per acre. He further submits that the aforesaid order of the out of Court settlement was passed in writ petition No. 77449 of 2005 and is not relevant for deciding the present appeal. Sri Ram Krishna submits that the scope of the present appeals are only the order of the District Judge dated 7.12.1988 by which both the references have been decided.;