- (1.) PALOK Basu, J. Against S. L. AO. 's award dated 22-2-1973 the respondent, Malik Sartaj Wali Khan filed Land Ac quisition Reference No. 13 of 1974 before the District Judge, Bareilly which has come to be decided by Vlth Additional District Judge, Bareilly on 30-10-1987.
(2.) THE acquisition related to a total area of the land measuring 77. 80 acres in village Biharman Nagla Pargana Tahsil and District Bareilly. THEre is no dispute with regard to the compensation which was awarded with regard to the building (Kothi) tube-well, timber trees and drains etc. which have been priced at Rs. 72,000/ -. THE main dispute centers round the com pensation payable with regard to open land included in the said acquisition proceedings. THE notification under Sec tion 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in 29-4-1972 followed by the notification under Section 6 on 25-5-1972, whereafter possession of the land was taken under Section 17 doing away with. the formalities of Section 5 (A) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The S. L. A. O. held that total sum of Rs. 1,16,997/- was payable to the respon dents as compensation for the land. Ad ding solatium at the rate of 15% he held that Rs. 5,61,179. 38 p. was payable. The Additional District Judge in his order has enhanced the said amount and has held that total compensation should be paid to the respondent amounting to Rs. 12,24,5007 -. He further held that since Rs. 1,16. 997/- stood already paid to the respondent under the S. L. A. p. 's award, the respondent was, thus, entitled to be paid compensation amounting to Rs. 11,07,5007- only as excess market price of the land measuring 50. 61 acres. On this amount he held that interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of dispossession, i. e. 25-5-1972, was payable to the respondent and further that solatium at the rate of 30% on the amount of compen sation was also to be paid to the respon dent. Feeling aggrieved, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Bareilly, who was a beneficiary of the acquisition proceedings, as the land was earmarked for marketyard to be established for the Samiti, has come up in appeal.
(3.) SRI B. D. Madhyan, learned Coun sel for the appellant, has been heard at extensive length and SRI Murlidhar as sisted by SRI Pankaj Naqvi has also been heard in detail, who sponsored the cause of the respondent, the land owner. Learned Counsel for the parties requested that they may be permitted to file written arguments in order to put their oral arguments black and white, which request was accepted. SRI Madhyan as well as SRI Naqvi has filed their respective written arguments. It may be added that apart from six grounds men tioned in the written arguments typo graphically SRI B. D. Madhyan has added two further grounds by pen and numbered them as 7 and 8. The gist of the arguments advanced is: (1) Whether the District Judge was jus tified in relying upon the sale-deed filed by the respondent indicating the sale of nearby land in August, 1970 by Bareilly House Building Cor poration Ltd. in favour of Avas Vikas Parishad at the rate of Rs. 7/- per sq. yard and in that process was he justified in not placing reliance on the only exemplar relied upon by the S. L. A. O. which was a sale-deed executed in 'february, 1972 relating to adjoining land sold out through that deed? (2) If it is held that reliance could be placed on the aforesaid sale-deed of 1972 in order to make enhanced payment of compensa tion, what amount should have been deducted by the District Judge towards possible develop ment charges. In this connection it was said that the District Judge should not have relied upon the resolution of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti offering Rs, 4,00,000/- lump sum for the entire acquisitioned land to the respondent as agreed price. (3) Grove land principles should not have been applied by the District Judge and it should have been treated only as agricultural land as was held by the S. L. A. O. It was further argued that in this case acquisition authorities should have applied belting process and therefore, the enhancement awarded by the District Judge is unduly excessive. (4) The applicability of the Amending Act No. 68 of 1984 has been wrongly pressed by the respondent in as much as the matter should have been decided on the rates of interest and solatium payable before the Amending Act came into force and further that since the refer ence before the District Judge took 13 long years to decide, no case at all for the enhanced rate of interest was made out.;