(R^^^s v. State of Chhattisgarh, Through, Collector, Raipur

Shri Raia Shaiina. Counlsel for fhe petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta. Dv. Govt. Advocate State/resoondent No. 1. Shri Saajav Patel, Counj lel for respondent No.2. Areuinents heard. CODIDIOII Order relatiou to W.P. No. 1360/2006, 1361/2006, 1362/2006 aad 1363/2006 dictated ia open Court, frped in separate sheets. sisndd and dated. Orieiaal ia W.P. No. 1360/2006 oliotocooies be keot ia other %j 'rit Petitions. Sd/-- SunilKumarSinha Judge '/y '<\ P.T.O. HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTi ;H. BILASPUR W,PJNo,_1360; Deendayai Agrswa! Vs. Stete of Chhattisgai h and another WP,No,1361 Bhajanlal Agi'avi''ai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another W.P.No.1362/2006 Vijay Kumar Agrawal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another W.P. No.1363/2006 Gopal Das Agt'avtal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another Appearance: Shri Raja Sharma, Counsel for the petiiioners in all the petitions. Shri Satish Gupta, Dy, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent No.1 in all the petitions, Shri Sanjay Patel, Counsel for respondent No.2 in all the petitions, ORALORDEF (05.10.2006) SUNILKUMARSINHA.J. (1) Since common questions have been raised for consicteration in all these Writ Petitions, they are being disposed of by this Common Order, y (2) The brief facts leading to filing of these Writ Petitions are that in a Land Acquisition Case bearing No. 151-A/82 year 1989-90 pending before the Land Acquisition Officer, Raipur, a common award dated 5/8/1991 was passed by him and certain arnounts were awarded to the petitioners. Since the petitioners had not accepted the award, passed by the Land' Acquisition OfRcer, they Fiied written applications to the Collector requiring the matters to be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court on certain grounds. On this, the matters were referred by the Coltector to the Distnct Court, on which, 4 MJCs vide Nos. 8/2005 (Deendayal Agrawal vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another), 9/2005 (Gopal Das Agrawat Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another) 10/2005 (Bhajanlat Agrawai vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another) and 7/2005 .(Vijay Kumar Agrawal vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another) were registered and ultimately, all v/ere decided by the Court of X Additional District Judge, Raipur vide separaie awards dated 10/5/2005, 12/5/2005, 12/5/2005 and 10/5/20GS respectivsly. By the aforesaid awards, the learned Additional District Judge enhanced the principle amount of compensation awarded to the pstitioners and he aiso directed for payment of interest as per clause 23 (1-A) and 23(2) of th©Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in their favour. The operative part i.e. clause 2 of the avrards, which is almost common in all the cases, is quoted as under: "OT?taRT 'gSTIcpjlT ^ 3lf^cr?T WECT? t^-Sf^ ^ WCT ^T ^Q^ ?? 31'f^?fl ^ efRP-23 • (1) (3t) ^ tT?cT ^cFff ^ t afnf^RT gR)-4 (l) ^ ^R^\ V^Wi 'fl '^ f^ ^P 12% ?rf^ ?? ^ WTgRT 23 (2) ^ STTpfiT 30% SlRrf^RT ^ ^ Slf^ferr ^ ^i ffRT ^T 1" 6i^ Ty iliKaB ^t»e^ittnii«^iw'<ati^RTiKt^^ .s^ —.-^—. (3) After passing of the aforesaid awarcis, the matters were put to execution before Court execution, petitioners/ctaimants filed their own catcuiations in relation to the respective awards passed in their favour and prayed for payment of the awarded amount to them. The calculations filed by the petitioners in their execution cases were opposed by ihe State. The contention of the petitioners before the Executing Court were that the interest which has been awarded vide clause 2 of the awards u/s 23 (1-A) is the interest from the date of notification under Section 4('i) of the said Act till the date of passing of the awards, which means ihat till the date of awards, ultimately passed by the reference Court uoder Section 18 of the said Act and the petitioners were entitled to get the interest from the date of notification under Section 4(1) till 10/5/2005 and 12/5/2005 i.e. till the date of respective awards, which were passed by the reference Court in their favour. (4) This contention was opposed by ths Sfate and it was contended that no such interest was awarded by (i!& reference Court and the petitioners are wrongly interpreting clause 2 of the awards and they are wrongty claiming interest till the date of passing of the awards by the reference Court because the reference Court has only awarded interest till the date of award passed by the Land Acquisition OfRcer or Collector and not titl the date of awarcfs passed by it in reference cases. (5) By the impugned orders dated 14/12/2005, the Executing Court upheld the objections raised by the State and determined that under the provisions of Section 23 (1-A) the power So award interest was till the date of passing of the award of the Collecior, therefore, the claimants were not entitled to get the interest beyoiid liiat period. Holding so, the T' \^ ssieoipui A|jes|3 gg uoipsg 10 (z) >? (|.) -qns se uoisiAojd oyiosds siui p iusiusoe|d eqi 'pue| &IB p uoissessod Sui^e} ^o ©lepsqi 'oes-qns U9SM}sq ui (v-|.) UOKOOS •J3t|je9 s] jsAei|oiLj/A jo jo}08||oo sq} jo pjeMe si|} y> siep eqi o) pue|qans ^o psdsoj ui ([) uoipes-qns (? uo!}oe9 jspun uoiieoysou &q) ^o uoiieoiiqnd ©ifljo 9)ep 941 0104 pue uo Buioueiuiuoo pousd 041 Jo^ en|BA }8)|jeiu qons uo lunuue jsd (uaojed &A|SMI ^o 9}ej si)} ie p9ie|no|B3 }unouiE ue pjeA'.e eseo AIOAS ui ||eqs }jnoo s^ 'uoipeg SL|I ^o }jed JSJIJBS eij) ui 01 ps.us^j se 'puei 04} ^o sn|BA ts^jBLU ey} 0} uoitjppe ui »eqtsepiAOJd (v-!.)eg uoipsg •pv PIBS eqtp (V-0 £2uoipss i0 suoisiAojd sq» o\ opeu.) eq ACLU aousjapj e 'si^} jo^ 'peujsouoo s] sjeuoiijtsd sqi jo^ issunoo p9u.ieaj jo lueiunBje isjy sq} se jei og (g) suo|ii}ad }UM SMUO spjo3ej eqi pssnjsd OS]B eAeq pue ij)6u9| ye ssi}jed OLI} jo^ [ssunoo psujesi pjeoy SAeq | (g) sssqi ssoddo s)U8puodsej 9u» ,10^ issunoo psujeoi ejiuoo JSd (z) •s)U8ujnBje •PJBMB eouejs^ej sqi p Buissed p eiep su? itis issjsiui pspjBMe set| }jnoo souejs^ej eqi te^t MOL|S p|noM spjeAAe sy} 10 g &sne|o ^o Suipesj uieid B teqi senBje OS|G &H -jope||oo 841 Aq psssed PJBMB p e(ep eq} ||ii issjeiui 941 isB 01 paffitus A|UO eja/A s}UBiu|B|5 sqt )et|} MSIA 94} Buiifei ui peyitsnfiou SB 'ejop.iai)! 'gi, uoitoss japun pnoo eouoje^ej ©4} jjnoo Busna&xg sqi Aq psssed PJGMB |euy 8q» SB ueeiu os|e ||!M (v-|.) gg uoiioss ui ,,PJBMB,, se pssn PJOM sqi »eqi sen6.ie s.isuoiiipd 94} joj issunoo psujee-] (9) •suoaiisd u.i AA 8S941 ui pnoo siqi ejopq siuoo ©Aeq 'sjspjo IsoOZ/Zl./t'l. uo P"OO Buiinosxg sqi Aq pessed sjsuoffjisd sqi essLft tSuieBe si i| •ui&qi ^ peiu soseo uoiinosxa OAipedsej Jisqi ui sjsuoiiiisd si|} Aq suoiiejnsiBO uss.y ^o Bui|y jo^ pepejip tjnoQ Buiinosxg that if the market value of a land is detennined by the Coltector or Land Acquisition OfTicer for the purpose of an award to the claimant, then, it would be incumbent upon the Land Acquisition Officer or Collector to •^ calculate an amount as is specified in this sub-section. When this sub- section specifically says that the amouni shall be calculated for the period commencing from the date of pubiica'tion of the notification under Section 4(1) to the date of award of the Coiiector or the date of taking possession ofthe land, which ever is eaiiier, then, under this mandatory provision, interest beyond the date of award passed by the Collector or beyond taking possession of the land Vifhich ever is earlier, cannot be granted. (10) The provisions of under S. 23 ('l-A) are designed to compensate the owners of land for the rice in prices during the pendency of the land acquisition proceedings. It is a measure to off-set the effects of inflation and the continuous rice in the value of properties, as the legislature has taken care of these happenings which recurringly occur due to the time consumed in disposal of land acquisition cases,by giving a command. The words used by the Legislature in Section 23 (1-A) of the Act like "the award of the Collector" cannot be read in isolation and if they are conjointly read, they would lead to the clear and unambiguous meaning that the interest which has to be awarded io the claimant in addition to the market value of the land would be from the period commencing from the date of notification under Section 4(1) to the date of passing of the award ofthe Collector orthe date oftaking possession ofthe land, which ever is earlier.and not beyond it. Thererore, the first argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted and the same is accordingly turned down. S5; (11) The other argument of leamea counsel for the petitioners that clause 2 of the award of reference Coiist siiows that the reference Court has awarded interest titl the date of passing of the reference award, totally misconceived. The wordings used by the reference Court cfause 2 of the award are ctear and unambiguous. The reference Court has clearly stated that under the piovisioiis of Section 23 (1-A) addition to the market value of the iand, the petitioners shall also be awarded interest form the date of noiification under Section 4(1) till the date of award at the rate of 12 percent per annum, After going through the entire award and also aftsr going tt«ough the other provisions made in the award, this clause is clear and unambiguous, in which, interest is awarded till the date of passing of ttie award by the Collector and it cannot be read that the reference COUI-E has awarded interest till the date of decision of the reference by it, Rather, it v/ould appear that in fact, the interest which has been awarded under Section 23(1-A) is the interest til! the date of award passed by the Coilector and the word used like "award" and not saying as "award by the Coliector" does not mean that it would be interpreted as the "award" passed by the reference Court. (12) For the foregoing reasons, 1 a'o not find any merit in these Writ Petitions. Ati the Writ Petitions are accoi-dingi'y dismissed. (13) The Orders passed by the Executing Court in respective cases are hereby confirmed. (14) No order as to costs, Sdf- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge -^ ^.wf^^Ef-&fi3*^ XI-HC-78 3^';:?rai?pr, wftw'w, HiNwi s»»*ng> t * ^14tJ»*< *.» ^v 3TI^?r q5RR ((^I^S an^rwl^iw (W SV^W shliti RaTWHferw^r

13.10.2006 Shri Rcya Sharmc, counsef for the petitioner. Shri Sushil bubey, ©ovt. the State/ Advocate respondent no.l. Shri Sanjcy Patel, counsel for respondent No.2. It appears that due to \J' typogrophical mistake in iine no.2 <& 4 of Para 10 of order dated 05.10.2006, word *rice" has bee.n typed whereas it shouid be "rise". Accordin9iy, the same correctsd. The word "rice".cowing !ine No.2 iSi 4 of par*a 10 of the order, sha!i be redd as rise" and the typo9r.aphica! errors +o this extent ore corrected to whichthe porti.es have no objection. Sdl- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge