J. P. Semwal , J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant under section 381 of Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam against the judgment of U. P. Nagar Mahapalika (Tribunal) (District Judge), Allahabad dated 18-6-1977 awarding compensation at enhanced rates of Rs. 4/- per square yard for plot no. 413 and Rs. 2/-per square yard for plot nos. 401, 403, 430, 431, 432 and 440 along with the solatium at 15% and interest at 6% p. a.
(2.) THE land for Govindpur Housing Scheme was acquired by Nagar Mahapalika, in Allahabad in November 1967 for Housing Colony. THE Notification under section 357 of the aforesaid Act was made on 28th October, '67 4th November '67 and 11th November '67 for acquiring land measuring 97 big has 9 bis was 6 dhoors, including the land of the appellant situated in village Govindpur. THE Notification under section 363 of the said Act was issued on 20-12-69. THE possession of the land was taken on 11th July 1975; THE Special Land Acquisition Officer adopting belt system assessed the compensation at Rs. 9000/- per bigha for the first belt; Rs. 6000/- per bigha for the second belt and Rs. 4500/- per bigha for the third belt. He found that plot no., 413 of the appellant was within the first belt while the rest of the plots were within second and third belts and thus calculated the compensation at Rs. 30932.50 and also awarded 15% solatium and 6% interest. The appellant-claimant not being satisfied from the aforesaid award filed objection which was referred to the Nagar Mahapalika (Tribunal) Allahabad under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Tribunal allowed partly the objections of the appellant-claimant and awarded Rs. 4/- per square yard for plot no. 413 and Rs. 2/-per sq. yd. for other plots and also awarded 15% solatium and 6% interest from 1-8-75 till the date of realisation. Aggrieved by this Judgment, the claimant-appellant has preferred this appeal on two grounds: firstly that the land had potential value of building site and it has been wrongly treated as agricultural land: secondly that solatium and interest should have been awarded from the date of Notifi?cation under section 4.
(3.) I have heard Sri M. A, Qadir, learned counsel for the/appellant and Sri P. K. Misra, learned Standing Counsel at considerable length. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has wrongly adopted the belt system and has wrongly treated the land as agricultural land though the entire acquired land of the appellant has building potential value. It is urged that the Tribunal itself has given finding under Issue no. 2 that the land had potential value as a building site but inspite of the finding, the appellant has not been awarded adequate compensation to which he is entitled. Learned counsel has relied on certain judgments awarding compensation to other owners whose land was acquired under the same scheme and under the same Notification. The appellant has filed certified copies of the judgments which had been admitted as additional evidence. There is one judgment of this court in First Appeal No. 178 of 1976 Rahmat Ulla v. State of U. P. regarding the land under the same scheme and in which this court has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 6/-per sq. yd. by its judgment dated 29-10-1980. The other judgments are of the Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal dated 27-6-77 in Land Acquisition Reference No. 3276, judgment dated 14-11-75 in Land Acquisition Reference No. 19 of 1975, judgment dated 26-9-80 in Land Acquisition Reference No. 14 of 1990; judgment dated 11-11-1980 in Land Acquisition Reference No. 12 of 1980, judgment dated 7-10-1985 in Land Acquisition Reference No. 14 of 1983.;