B. L. Yadav, J. - (1.) THE present appeal by the State of U. P. is directed against the judgment and order dated 3-7-1978 passed by the District Judge, Mirzapur in a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short the Act) for determination of the amount of compensation due to the respondents in respect of certain plots of land in an area of 14 bighas & 14 dhurs situate in Village Dumduma, Pargana Haveli, Tahsil Chunar, District Mirzapur. THE land was acquired by the U. P. Cement Corporation Ltd., Churk, Mirzapur for the construction of Railway Siding and other Allied Works for the grinding and packing plant, for blast furnace of slag cement at Chunar.
(2.) THE facts are few and simple. Notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Act were published in the U. P. Gazette (Extra-Ordinary) on 22-11-1976 and 23-11-1976 respectively. THE possession was taken by the Collector on 11-1-1977. THE District Land Acquisition Officer, Mirzapur awarded a sum of Rs. 17,686.72 as compensation for the land, a sum of Rs. 152.46 for the price of the trees and Rs. 10,622.55 for the crops. THE award was challenged by a reference under section 18 of the Act. THE District Judge, Mirzapur decided (the Land Acquisition Case No. 63 of 1977) the reference by the impugned judgment and order. THE compensation was enhanced in reference at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per bigha and a sum of Rs. 1,57,600.00 was determined as the compensation for the land. THE price of trees and crops remained the same as awarded by the District Land Acquisition Officer. A total sum of Rs. 1,68,375.01P was ordered to be paid as compensation of the land including price of trees & crops. Solatium at the rate of 15 per cent op the sum payable as compensation as also on the price of trees & crops was awarded. A total sum of Rs. 1,93,631.26 P. was awarded to the respondents including solatium. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant urged that the compensation must be awarded within the scope of section 23 of the Act. The exemplars have not correctly been relied upon. The solatium could be paid to the respondents in view of section 23 (2) of the Act only on the price of the land and not on the price of trees and the crops. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, urged that the learned District Judge has correctly awarded the compensation.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties the points for our determination are (i) whether in view of Section 23 (1) of the Act the amount of compensation has correctly been fixed at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per bigha, & (ii) whether under section 23 (2) of the Act the solatium could be awarded on the price of trees and crops also apart from the amount of compensation payable in respect of the land. As regards the first point about the amount of compensation to be awarded for the land acquired under the Act, the principles have been indicated under section 23 (1) of the Act. The market value of the land on the date of the publication of the notification under section 4 (1) of the Act should be ascertained in order to award the compensation. The damages sustained by the person for taking into possession of any standing crops & trees etc. have also to be considered. In other words, the compensation had to be assessed according to the market value of the land and the question to be considered was that the person from whom the land was taken was to lose by having it taken from him. In this case notification under section 4 of the Act was made on 22-11-1976 and notification under section 6 of the Act was also made on 23-11-1976. In order to ascertain the market value of the land three sale-deeds have been furnished. First sale-deed is dated 14-6-1974 for an area of 2 Bighas 9 Biswas and 18 dhurs of plot no. 217 for a sum of Rs. 2,500/- and the second sale-deed dated 4-7-1975 was for half of the area of plot no. 51 (area 5 biswas) for Rs. 2,000/-. The third sale-deed was dated 13-12-1976 for an area of 2 biswas of plot no. 139 for Rs. 2,000/-.;