- (1.) PRAKASH Krishna, J. This appeal is directed against the award of civil Court dated 30th of January, 1993 passed in Reference Case No. 216 of 1986. The State of U. P. acquired certain piece of land for the purposes of establishing Panchha Thermal Power Station at Jhansi Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 22-4-1978. It was followed by the notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 29-4-1978. Certain plots of claimant respondents were also acquired by the aforesaid Land Acquisition Notifications. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per acre by the award-dated 1-12-1978. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid award, an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was filed for making the reference to the civil Court. The District Magistrate referred to the civil Court. The Court below on the basis of the material on record enhanced the compensation and awarded it at the rate of Rs 10, 000 per acre. It also enhanced solatium from 15 per cent to 30 per cent. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment of the Reference Court the present appeal is at the instance of the State of U. p
(2.) HEARD Shri Bhagwati Prasad Singh alongwith Shri Shishir Chandra Khare, the learned standing Counsel for the appellant and Shri S. S. Chauhan, the learned Counsel for the contesting respondent No. 1. The learned Counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal raised the following three points. Firstly, he submitted that the reference before the Court below was time barred. Secondly, the compensation awarded by the Court below on the basis of the compensation awarded to Bhagwati cannot be taken as basis for enhancement of the compensation in the present case. Thirdly, that the Reference Court erred in law in enhancing the solatium from 15 per cent to 30 per cent and invoking the amended law. In reply, the learned Counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the Court below.
(3.) SO far as the question of limitation is concerned, the learned Counsel for the appellant after going through the written statement filed on behalf of the State of U. P. before the Reference Court admitted the position that no such plea was raised therein. Under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, period of limitation for making a reference application has been provided for to refer the matter to the Civil Court. The learned Counsel for the appellant on the basis of Section 18 (2) Proviso (b) made the submission that at any rate 6 months time from the date of Collector's award is the maximum period for making application for reference. Elaborating the argument it was submitted by the appellant that in the present case, admittedly, the date of award is 1st of December, 1978. The Reference Application was made on 7th of August, 1979. He submitted that taking 6 months time from the date of award, obviously the reference application was barred by time. I have given careful consideration to the said submission but unable to agree with him. The Supreme Court in the case of Raja Harishchandra v. State of U. P. , AIR 1961 SC 1500, has interpreted the word "the date of award". It has been held that the date of award does not mean the day on which the award is made. It means the day on which the award has been communicated to the person affected by the award. In the present case, there is no material on record to show as to when the award was communicated to the claimant respondents. The learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously placed reliance upon a document being Prapatra 8 Anusoochi-E on page No. 10 of the Paper Book. The said document is in the nature of a service report, submitted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. It is really unfortunate that the said document does not contain any date. The learned Counsel for the appellant in spite of repeated queries made by the Court could not point out the date on which the award was communicated to the claimant respondents. In this view of the matter the said document cannot be relied upon. Moreover the Court below on the basis of the material on record has preferred to believe the statement of the claimant respondent that he came to know of the award on 23-7-1979. The said finding of the Court below could not be demonstrated to be perverse or illegal. In this view of the matter reckoning the period of 6 months from that date i. e. 23-7- 1979 but it is obvious that the reference application was filed within time. The second point raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant relates to the determination of the quantum of compensation. The Court below has discussed the matter under issues No. 1 and 2 and has held that the land of the claimant respondents was irrigated and fertile land. The said land is situate on National Highway namely Jhansi Lucknow Road. The irrigation facility by way of well is also admitted to the parties. Before the Reference Court the judgment and order of other claimants were produced as exemplar/guideline for fixation of the compensation. In the case of Bhagwati the Reference Court had granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000 per acre. Similarly, the judgment and order of other tenure-holders namely Kalka Prasad, Avtar Singh etc. were produced. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that against the aforesaid judgment and order appeal was filed which was dismissed as barred by time and the said order was confirmed by the Apex Court. His argument is that this Court had no occasion to examine the legality and validity of the compensation awarded in the case of Bhagwati etc. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre has been granted to other tenure-holders whose lands are adjoining to the present claimant respondent No. 1, there is no justification for not granting the compensation at the same rate to the present claimant respondent No. 1. The Court below has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kripa Rangoi v. Deputy Collector, (1982) 2 SCC 374. It has been held in the said case that while determining the compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, the compensation awarded to the nearby plots and acquired under the same notification should be awarded to the other tenure- holders. It is not the case of appellant that the land of the claimant respondent No. 1 was in any way inferior in quality than the land of Bhagwati. Moreover, from the reading of the judgment of the Court below it appears that on the contrary the land of the claimant respondent No. 1 is better situated as it is abutting the National Highway. In this view of the matter the finding of the Court below that the compensation should be awarded at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre is perfectly justified in law. It is based on relevant consideration and material on record. The learned Counsel for the appellant was not able to point out any perversity or factual error therein.;