http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI BULANDSHAHR ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GANGA SAHAI & ORS. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       23/07/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (7)   120        1996 SCALE  (5)579

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                  THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 1996 Present:           Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.Ramaswamy           Hon’ble Mr.Justice G.B,Pattanaik O.P.Rana, Sr.Adv, Pradeep Misre, Adv. with him for the appellant. R.C.Verma and A.K.Srivastava, Advs. for the State. A. Grover, Sr.Adv. Pramod Dayal. M/s. Asha Jain Madan, Mrs.Rani chhabra, Advs. with  him for the Respondent.                          O R D E R The following Order of the Court was delivered: Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Bulandshahr etc. V. Ganga Sahai & Ors. etc.                             With                 CIVIL APPEAL NO 9841 OF 1996            (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14160/87)                          O R D E R      Substitution allowed.      Leave granted.      We have  heard counsel  for the  parties.  Notification under Section  4(1) of  the Land  Acquisition Act,  1894 was published on May 25, 1976 acquiring the land in question for the purpose  of establishing  the agricultural  market yard. The award  under Section 11 was made by the Collector on May 10, 1977.  On reference the Additional District Judge by his award and  decree dated  September  15,  1979  enhanced  the compensation to  Rs.10/- per  sq. yd.  with solatium at  15% and interest  at 6%.  On appeal, the High Court enhanced the compensation to  Rs.15/- per  sq. yd.  The High  Court  also enhanced solatium and interest under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 as well as the additional amount under Section 23(1-A). Thus these appeals by special leave.      It is  not necessary  to dilate  upon all the facts but the point  that another  Division  Bench  had  followed  the earlier order  and awarded  common market  value to all tile

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

lands. Though  Shri O.P.  Rana, learned  senior counsel,  is right that  in the  first case  the Division  Bench had  not given cogent reason For enhancement of the market value from Rs.10/- to  Rs.15/sq. yd.,  we find that the reference Court had given  various reasons for confining to the market value at Rs.10/-  per sq.  yd. Though  the basis  under  with  the market value  was determined by the High Court was not after proper appreciation  of evidence,  the principle involved in determining the compensation cannot be faulted Though we are not satisfied  with t  e reasoning of the Division Bench, we are not  inclined to  interfere with  the enhancement of the compensation to  Rs: 15/- per sq. yd. However, the claimants are not  entitled to  the enhanced solatium and interest and also the  additional amount  since the  reference Court  had made the award and decree on September 15, 1979 that is much earlier to  the introduction  of the  Amendment Act 68/1984. Therefore, the  enhancement of  30% solatium, interest at 9% for one  year from  the date  of taking  possession and  15% thereafter till  date of  deposit  and  also  of  additional amount under  Section 23(1-A) stands set aside. Instead, the claimants will  be entitled  to solatium at 15% and interest at 6%  on enhanced  compensation from  the  date  of  taking possession till  date of deposit as ordered by this Court in the interim order.      The appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs.