2010 CLC 1408 (PLP)

MUZAFFAR ALI, J.

This civil Ist Appeal assails the judgment/decree dated 20-4-2009 passed by the learned Referee Court/Land Acquisition, whereby the learned Court has accepted the petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) referred by the appellant No.1, hence this appeal against the impugned judgment/decree. The record of the case unveils the facts as wider that, the appellants proceeded to acquire lands for construction/widening the road and for this purpose, the appellants acquired land under the award and 5 (Five) shops owned by the respondents and award No.DK-1(1)/89-11-111-7/89/21 dated 7th October 1989, was passed by fixing the compensation of Rs.50,000 per kanal for land and Rs.21,887 per shop. The respondents received the compensation amount under protest and filed the objection petition under section 18 of the Act, the same was referred to the Referee Court by the appellant No.1 (Collector Land Acquisition). The Referee Court went through the procedure and framed issues to prove and rebut and finally enhanced the compensation rates as prayed for and also granted rent of shops Rs.500 per month per shop for 11 months and also granted 10% simple interest on the enhanced compensation. The appellants felt aggrieved by the impugned judgment, hence this appeal before us. We heard the learned Assistant Advocate-General for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. The learned Assistant Advocate General tried to persuade our judicial mind towards the granting of enhanced compensation by the Referee Court urging that, the learned Referee Court has erred in law by enhancing the compensation as in his opinion the Referee Court has misconceived the record of the case, while the Collector has taken into consideration all the guidelines provided by the Act and by the superior judiciary. The learned Assistant Advocate-General however, failed to persuade us, for the appellants, as per their past practice have failed to establish their defence in the case in hand too and record of the case speaks otherwise. The appellants have not submitted any documentary record which might strengthen the plea taken by the learned Assistant Advocate-General. The appellants have adduced their representatives along with a Patwari, who have rather admitted the version of the respondents. On the other hand the respondents have not only proved that, the land acquired was situated in the commercial area and having future potentials too, but have also proved through submitting a contemporary award of the same locality made by the appellants, fixing the rates of Rs.150000 per kanal, hence the objections raised by the learned A.A.G having devoid of substance. The learned AAG again objected on the finding of the learned referee Court as that, the learned Court has granted 10% of simple interest on the enhanced amount and has also granted rent of Rs. 500 each shop acquired for 11 months. The objection on the findings is of worth consideration. The learned referee Court has fixed the simple interest 10% on the enhanced amount in violation and being ignorant of section 28 of the Act and has exercised a sweet distraction of his own, while section 28 of the Act provides 8% of compound interest on the enhanced amount calculating from the date of taking possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess amount into court. The objection of the learned A.A.-G. on awarding of the rent is also plausible in law for the reason that since the special law has provided penal clauses under sections 28 and 34 of the Act through which compound interest at the rate of 8% is granted for delay in payment of compensation after taking the possession of the land and no rent etc. have been recognized by any provision of the Act for acquired land or shops, building, however, damages have been recognized by the Act for the collecral damages caused to the adjacent lands which do not acquired, hence the learned Judge has again exercised his sweet discretion on the point in violation of special law as no party be subjected to double jeopardized in law. For what has been discussed above, we accept the appeal partially to the extend that, (a) the remedy granted by the learned referee Court in respect of the rent prayed for under para 3 (c) of the petition under section 18 of the Act 1894, is set aside. (b). The 10% of simple interest on excess amount is modified and altered the same into 8% of compound interest on the enhanced amount, from the date of taking possession of acquired land by the appellants to the date of depositing the same before the Court. The decree passed in respect of enhanced rate and 15% of compulsory charge is maintained. No order as to cost. File. H.B.T./58/Glt. Order accordingly.