High Court
Facts
FA-444-10+1.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO. 444 OF 2010WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4545 OF 20241. Sharad Shankarappa Halkude Age: 42 years, Occu.: Agri.2. Jaiprakash Shankarappa Halkude Age: 45 years, Occu.: Agri.3. Mallikarjunappa Shankarappa Halkude Age: 51 years, Occu.: Agri. All R/o Renapur, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur..APPELLANTSVERSUS1. State of Maharashtra Through Dist. Collector, Latur2. Tahsildar/Executive Magistrate, Renapur, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur3. Sub-Divisional Officer Land Acquisition Officer, Latur..RESPONDENTSWITHFIRST APPEAL NO. 863 OF 20151. State of Maharashtra Through Dist. Collector, Latur2. Tahsildar/Executive Magistrate, Renapur, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur3. Sub-Divisional Officer Land Acquisition Officer, Latur..APPELLANTSVERSUS1 / 20 FA-444-10+1.odt1. Sharad Shankarappa Halkude Age: 42 years, Occu.: Agri.2. Jaiprakash Shankarappa Halkude Age: 45 years, Occu.: Agri.3. Mallikarjunappa Shankarappa Halkude Age: 51 years, Occu.: Agri. All R/o Renapur, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur..RESPONDENTS....Mr. S.S. Halkude, Advocate for appellants in FA/444/2010 and forrespondents in FA/863/2015Mrs. V.S. Chaudhary, A.G.P. for respondents in FA/444/2010 and forappellants in FA/863/2015....CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT AND NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.RESERVED ON : 09th MAY, 2024PRONOUNCED ON : 20th JUNE, 2024JUDGMENT ( PER : R.G. AVACHAT, J. ) :1.Both these appeals are decided by this common judgment sincethe challenge therein is to one and the same judgment and award dated 31stAugust, 2009 passed by the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Latur inLand Acquisition Reference (L.A.R.) No. 90 of 2000. The first appeal (444 of2010) has been preferred by the original claimants (land owners), whoseagricultural lands came to be acquired for public purpose. The LandAcquisition Officer (‘L.A.O.’) offered compensation considering the acquiredlands to be the agricultural lands, whereas the reference Court has grantedcompensation on square foot basis. The rate awarded by reference Court is2 / 20 FA-444-10+1.odtRs.60/- per sq.ft., with a rider of deduction of 20% thereof towardsdevelopment charges.2.The appellants had made a demand of Rs.100/- per sq. ft. Havingbeen dissatisfied with the award, first appeal (444 of 2010) has beenpreferred seeking enhancement to that extent. The respondent – State andits authorities have preferred the other appeal (863 of 2015) taking exceptionto the grant of compensation on square foot basis. In short, the State’s appealis for reduction of amount of compensation awarded by the reference Court.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their status inFirst Appeal No. 444 of 2010.FACTS :-3.The appellants are siblings. They owned agricultural lands,bearing Gut Nos. 1090, 1091 and 1092 situated at Renapur. The landsadmeasure 6H 35R, 3H 97R and 6H 75R respectively. The landsadmeasuring 80R, 25R and 82R from the respective lands i.e. total 1H 87Rcame to be acquired for construction of administrative building and Tahsiloffice at Renapur.4.Before the reference Court, three sale instances were relied on(Exh.25 to 27). The last sale instance pertains to sale-deed dated 11th3 / 20
Legal Reasoning
FA-444-10+1.odtnotification. The respondent – State did not raise any objection in regard togrant of interest from the date of publication of notification. In our view, theinterest ought to have been awarded from the date of taking over possessionof the acquired land to the date of payment of actual compensation. Here, ithas been granted from publication of notification. Since no objection hasbeen raised in that regard, we are not inclined to upset the award on theground of granting interest for the period in excess of the period for whichthe appellants were entitled to. Needless to mention, for raising claim ofinterest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Act, no permission of this Court wasobtained, moreso, when no ground in that regard has been taken in theappeal memo and oral submissions as well (Order 41, Rule 2 of C.P.C.).25.For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere withthe impugned award. Both the appeals, therefore, fail. Same standdismissed. Civil application stands disposed of accordingly. The bankguaranty submitted by the appellant while receiving the amount ofcompensation pursuant to the order of this Court, stands discharged.( NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. )( R.G. AVACHAT, J. ) SSD20 / 20
Arguments
FA-444-10+1.odtJanuary, 1996. Perusal thereof indicates land admeasuring 600 sq. ft. fromthe land adjoining the land acquired of the appellants came to be purchasedfor Rs.48,000/-. Other two sale instances would be relied on whileappreciating the evidence. The appellants have also relied on the judgmentpassed by the reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference (L.A.R.) No. 411of 1999 granting compensation @ Rs.46/- per sq. ft.5.Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that Renapurtown was a big revenue circle. The town has been developed in all respect.Most of the lands at and around the lands acquired have already been usedfor non-agricultural purpose. On two sides of the lands acquired, there arepublic roads. One of the two roads is a State highway. On the other twosides, there are government offices such as Zilla Parishad School andAgriculture Produce Market Committee. According to learned counsel, assuch, the land has potentiality of non-agriculture use. The purpose for whichthe lands were acquired also needed to be taken into consideration.According to him, on the date of publication of notification under Section 4 ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘the Act’), the market price of the land wasnot less than Rs.100/- per sq. ft. He would further submit that the land wasacquired for construction of administrative building and Tahsil office. Theentire land acquired would necessarily be put to the purpose for which it hasbeen acquired. Learned counsel mean to say that in such case and more4 / 20 FA-444-10+1.odtparticularly it being not a small piece of plot, there ought not to have beendeduction made by the reference Court towards land development charges.Learned counsel relied on the following authorities :-IAdministrator Genl. Of West Bengal Vs. Collector,VaranasiAIR 1988 SC 943IIRaval Maneklal Motiram Vs. State of Gujrat AIR 1991 GUJARAT 13IIIBhagwathula Samanna & Ors. Vs. Special Tahsildar& Land Acquisition Officer(1991) 4 SCC 506IVA.S. Krishna & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Land AcquisitionOfficer (Deputy Collector) Hyderabad(1992) 1 SCC 141VRam Piari and Anr. Vs. Land Acquisition Collector,Solan and Ors.(1996) 8 SCC 338VISpecial Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare) Vs.Abdul RegumanAIR 1996 MADRAS 1986.After the matter was reserved for judgment, learned counsel forthe appellants placed on record written notes of argument, wherein hepropose to raise following points :-(i)This is the most valuable parcel of land in the locality.(ii)There was no other land available on the main road (StateHighway, now it is National Highway)(iii)This parcel of land was surrounded by govt. offices, publicbuildings and commercial building i.e. Agricultural ProduceMarket Committee, Zilla Parishad High School, GovernmentCivil Hospital(iv)Government wanted to have such parcel of land in thedeveloped area where one building can be constructed for allTaluka offices including Tahsil.(v)This parcel of land was the only land in the adjacent topreviously existing public and government buildings.5 / 20 FA-444-10+1.odt7.He would further submit that when there was no evidence orallegation about the sale-deed to be not bonafide or otherwise, the referenceCourt ought not to have refused to rely on the sale-deed dated 11th January,1996. According to him, the sale-deed has also been considered in L.A.R. No.411 of 1999 for determining the compensation. An additional point has alsobeen raised on the ground of interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Actrelying on the following authorities :-IState of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457IIState of Maharashtra Vs. Laxman Bhau Dambre (died)through L.Rs. Shewantabai Laxman Dambre & Ors.2020 (6) Mh.L.J. 4828.Learned A.G.P. would, on the other hand, submit that on the dateon which the lands were acquired, those were the agricultural lands. Ourattention has been drawn to the 7/12 extracts of the lands acquired.According to him, the purpose for which the lands put to acquisition is not afact to be considered for grant of compensation. According to him, the L.A.O.has rightly granted compensation on the basis of the lands being agriculturallands. According to learned A.G.P., the reference Court erred in grantingcompensation on square foot basis. In the memo of appeal it has beenaverred that the deduction towards development charges should have beenmore than 30% since 30% of the lands acquired would be required to be usedfor construction of internal roads and maintenance of open space. He wouldfurther submit that the reference Court committed error in granting6 / 20 FA-444-10+1.odtcompensation of Rs.60/- per sq.ft. when the appellants themselves haverelied on judgment in L.A.R. No. 411 of 1999, wherein the compensation hasbeen awarded @ Rs.46/- per sq. ft. with certain deductions. Learned A.G.P.meant to say that the appellants in fact wanted to be granted compensationequal to that of the one granted in L.A.R. No. 411 of 1999. He, therefore,urged for dismissal of appeal of the appellants and allowing of State’s appeal.9.Considered the submissions advanced. Perused the evidence onrecord. Following points arise for determination :-(I)Whether the compensation awarded by reference Court isjust, reasonable and proper one?(II)Whether the compensation awarded by reference Court isrequired to be enhanced? If yes, to what extent?(III)What order?REASONS :-10.The appellants are the brothers. They were owners of theagricultural lands bearing Gut Nos. 1090, 1091 and 1092 situated atRenapur. The lands admeasure 6H 35R, 3H 97R and 6H 75R respectively.The lands admeasuring 86R, 25R and 82R from the respective lands came tobe acquired for public purpose i.e. for construction of administrative buildingand Tahsil office at Renapur. Before the reference Court, the respondent –State did not adduce any evidence. Some of the observations made bylearned reference Court are speaking and convincing one. We, therefore,7 / 20 FA-444-10+1.odtpurpose to reproduce the same. Relevant parts of paragraph nos.12 and 13of the impugned judgment read thus :-“12.….. The purpose for which the lands are acquired bythe Government is relevant. The lands are not acquired by theGovernment for the agriculture purpose. The lands are acquiredfor N.A. use i.e. for the construction of the administrative buildingand Tahasil office by the Government. When the lands areacquired for N. A. purpose the market value also can bedetermined on the basis of this square feet. Admittedly to the bothside of the acquired Gat number there are the construction of thebuilding namely the agriculture produce market committeeRenapur and Zilla Parishad School and high school. The LearnedAdvocate for the State has disputed that, the acquired lands areadjacent to the road. For this purpose the award is relevant. Theadmitted fact in favour of the claimant can be taken from theaward. In this award the claimant has written that to the Southernside of the acquired land there is Government road (Renapur toLatur). In reference petition the claimants have shown Latur toUdgir State high way to the Southern side of the road andRenapur-Samsapur Government road connecting to Latur-Ambajogai State high way on the North side. Thus the claimantshave shown the roads on both sides of the acquired land. For thispurpose it requires to be seen the map of the village Renapur videExh. 31. After perusal of this map it is seen that, the G. No. 1090,1091 and 1092 are adjacent to each other and from one side ofthese three Gat numbers there is Samsapur to Renapur road andat another side there is Latur Renapur to Udgir road. This goes toshow that, the contention of the Learned A.G.P. that, the acquiredland is not adjacent to road is falsified and on the contrary it isproved that, Latur- Udgir state high way passes from one side andone Government road passes from the another side of theacquainted land and the acquired land is a big piece of the landacquired by the Government for administrative building andTahasil office. Therefore, it can be said that, the boundaries givenby the claimants in their reference are totally correct. Unless anduntil map is perused will not be clear. One fails to understand as8 / 20 FA-444-10+1.odtto why L.A.O. failed to show Samsapur to Renapur road from theone side of the acquired land.13.The contention of the claimant that, the acquired landis situated within the developed area of the Renapur taluka fromthe southern side and there is existence of agriculture marketproduce on one side and Zilla Parishad High School on anotherside are not denied by the respondents at the time of crossexamination of the claimant. The existence of the Governmenthospital, Veterinary Health Center, Government quarters exactlyopposite to the acquired land and adjacent to the Renapur andUdgir road has also not been denied by the respondents. Thedistance in between Latur-Ambajogai State high way and theacquired land is of 1 k.m. has also not been disputed by therespondents. The existence of the various facilities at Renapur i.e.nationalized bank, Colleges, Zilla Parishad school for boys andgirls, I.T.I. colleges, private schools and colleges, M.S.E.B. divisionoffice, Government godowns, Co-operative oil mills, private sawmill, big S.T. stand, Gram Panchayat building, Tahasil office,Panchayat Samiti and other Government taluka offices are notdenied by the respondents. All the lands on the both sides of theRenapur-Pimpalfata have already been occupied by the variouscommercial, Government and private establishments has also notbeen disputed by the respondents. Therefore, the acquired land ishaving N. . potential. The existence of the S.T.D./telephoneΑexchange office, water supply system, consolidation office, andother Government offices are also there and they are not denied.Two weekly bazarss of animal and also not denied by therespondents in the proximity of the acquired land on Renapur toPimpalfata road. The existence of the Renukadevi temple which ahistorical temple and tourist center has also not been disputed bythe respondents. The respondents have also not disputed thatthere is development of the Renapur Pimpalfata and Renapur toUdgir road only. Under such situation it can be said that theacquired land is situated in the developed area of the Renapur.The Exh. 19 i.e. letter of the Tahasildar Office goes to show that,the N. A. application of the claimants is also pending since longbefore the Tahasil office. Nothing has been brought on record onbehalf of the respondents at the time of the cross examination of9 / 20 FA-444-10+1.odtthe claimants. Existence of all the facilities at Renapur and itsdeveloped situation has been proved by the claimants.”11.Section 23 of the Act speaks about the matters to be considered indetermining compensation. The very first clause thereof speaks of the marketvalue of the land at the date of publication of notification under Section 4,sub-Section 1, whereas Section 24 speaks regarding matters to be neglectedin determining the compensation. Clause 5 thereof speaks of any increase tothe value of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it will beput when acquired. We are very much conscious of the authorities of theApex Court and this Court as well pronouncing that if the land acquired hasN.A. potential, the amount of compensation may be granted considering thesame. Admittedly, the L.A.O. granted compensation considering the acquiredland to be agricultural lands. The reference Court granted compensation onsquare foot basis for good reasons. We are in the agreement with the reasonsgiven by the reference Court in awarding compensation on the basis of rateper square foot. The evidence on record undoubtedly indicates village/townRenapur was developing. On the two sides of the acquired landS there werepublic roads, while on the other two sides official buildings have alreadycome up.12.We have to go by the evidence on record. While adducing theevidence, the appellants have placed on record certain sale instances. Thefirst sale instance (Exh.25) is dated 11th January, 1996. It pertains to the sale10 / 20 FA-444-10+1.odtof a small piece of land admeasuring 30 ft. x 20 ft. i.e. it was a plot of landadmeasuring 600 sq. ft. sold for Rs.48,000/-. We have perused the said saledeed. We do not find any reference thereof as regards execution of anagreement of sale long before the sale deed was executed. The said landforms part of the land adjoining the lands acquired. The recitals of the saledeed indicate that the vendor has admitted to have received entire saleconsideration before execution of the sale-deed. The sale-deed isconspicuously silent when did he receive the entire amount of consideration.It is just surprising that the purchaser paid the vendor entire considerationamount in cash but did not receive possession of the plot sold under the saledeed on the date on which the entire consideration amount was paid. It hasbeen mentioned in the sale-deed that possession of the plot was handed overto the purchaser on the date on which the sale deed was executed. In ourview, since the sale-deed was executed only few days after the publication ofnotification under Section 4 of the Act, the reference Court was justified innot relying on the same. It also pertains to a very small piece of land, evennot converted into N.A.13.We have perused the judgment in case of Raval Maneklal Motiram(supra), wherein it has been observed thus :-“(E) Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894), S.23 – Compensation –Market value – Determination – Sale instance of land only twomiles away from land in question – Sales registered near to date ofnotification in question either immediately before date of11 / 20 FA-444-10+1.odtpublication or immediately thereafter – No evidence showing thatvillagers knew well before a period of 2-3 years of publication ofnotification in question that their lands were to be acquired innear future – Sale instances cannot be discarded.”14.It needs no mention that every observation made in the judgmenthas to be taken to have been made in the facts and circumstances of the case.In the case relied on, there was no evidence showing that the villagers knewvery well before the publication of notification in question that lands to beacquired in near future, and therefore, sale instances relied on were notdiscarded.15.We have also perused the judgment in case of Bhagwathula(supra). The observations made therein are as follows :-“In awarding compensation in acquisition proceedings, the Courthas necessarily to determine the market value of the land as onthe date of the relevant notification. It is useful to consider thevalue paid for similar land at the material time under genuinetransactions. The market value envisages the price which a willingpurchaser may pay under bona fide transfer to a willing seller. Theland value can differ depending upon the extent and nature of theland sold. While comparing the price shown in the transactions allvariables have to be taken into consideration. The transaction inregard to smaller property cannot, therefore, be taken as a realbasis for fixing the compensation for larger tracts of property. Butthe proposition that large area of land cannot possibly fetch aprice at the same rate at which small plots are sold is not absoluteproposition and in given circumstances it would be permissible totake into account the price fetched by the small plots of land. Afully developed small plot in an important locality may fetch ahigher value than a larger area in an undeveloped condition andsituated in a remote locality. If the larger tract of land because of12 / 20 FA-444-10+1.odtadvantageous position is capable of being used for the purpose forwhich the smaller plots are used and is also situated in adeveloped area with little or no requirement of furtherdevelopment, the principle of deduction of the value for purposeof comparison is not warranted.In fixing the market value of a large property on the basis of a saletransaction for smaller property, generally a deduction is giventaking into consideration the expenses required for developmentof the larger tract to make smaller plots within that area in orderto compare with the small plots dealt with under the saletransaction. However, in applying this principle of deduction it isnecessary to consider all relevant facts. It is not the extent of thearea covered under the acquisition which is the only relevantfactor. If smaller area within the large tract is already developedand situated in an advantageous position suitable for buildingpurposes and have all amenities such as roads, drainage,electricity, communications etc., then the principle of deductionsimply for the reason that it is part of the large tract acquired, maynot be justified.”16.We have also perused the judgments referred to in appeal memowherein all those cases certain percentage of deduction towards developmentcharges have been held to be permissible.17.In case of Bhagwathula (supra), the Apex Court observed thus :-“11.The principle of deduction in the land value covered bythe comparable sale is thus adopted in order to arrive at themarket value of the acquired land. In applying the principle it isnecessary to consider all relevant facts. It is not the extent of thearea covered under the acquisition, the only relevant factor. Evenin the vast area there may be land which is fully developed havingall amenities and situated in an advantageous position. If smallerarea within the large tract is already developed and suitable forbuilding purposes and have in its vicinity roads, drainage,13 / 20 FA-444-10+1.odtelectricity, communications etc. then the principle of deductionsimply for the reason that it is part of the large tract acquired, maynot be justified.12.The national highway runs very near to the proposedPort-trust colony. The lands acquired already for the SouthEastern Railway Staff Quarters lie to the southern side of the landunder acquisition. The town planning trust road runs on thenorthern side of the land under acquisition. The colony is in thefast developing part of the municipal town. The plot of Ac. 1.68cents in Survey No. 2/2A acquired for the formation of thediversion road is adjacent to built-in-area. The land involved inthese cases is of even level and fit for construction without thenecessity for levelling or reclamation. The High Court has itselfconcluded on the evidence that the lands covered by theacquisition are located by the side of the National Highway andthe southern railway staff quarters with the town planning trustroad on the north. The neighbouring areas are already developedones and houses have been constructed, and the land haspotential value for being used as building sites. Having found thatthe land is to be valued only as building sites and stated theadvantageous position in which the land in question lies thoughforming part of the larger area, the High Court should not haveapplied the principles of deduction. It is not in every case thatsuch deduction is to be allowed. Where the acquired land is in themidst of already developed land with amenities of roads,electricity etc., the deduction in the value of the comparable landis not warranted. 18.Similarly, in case of Special Tahasildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare) Vs.Abdul Reguman, AIR 1996 Madras 198, it has been observed thus :-“(B) Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894), Section 23 – Compensation– Fixation – Acquisition of land for purpose of building free houses– Land in question situated in fully developed area not requiringany further improvements or development and quite suitable forbuilding purpose – Deduction of 20% for pathway fromcompensation amount – Not proper.”14 / 20 FA-444-10+1.odt19.The observations therein were based on the judgment of ApexCourt in case of Bhagwathula’s case (supra) referred to above. The burdenwas on the appellants to prove that the lands acquired were fully developedwith all amenities like roads, drainage, electricity, communication, etc. Asagainst this, one of the appellants, who examined himself on oath (Exh.18)has specifically admitted thus, “maximum 20% deduction for internal roadand open space will have to be allowed. The market value of the land is notless than Rs.100/- per sq. ft. excluding the cost of development of amenitiesto be provided and excluding the cost of land to be deducted”. The sameindicates the land was not fully developed for being used as it is forconstruction purpose. Admittedly, on the date on which it was acquired, itwas an agricultural land. True, the appellants did place on record before thereference Court three sale instances and the judgment of reference Court inL.A.R. No. 411 of 1999. The reference Court has rightly appreciated the saidevidence. The sale instances pertain to the land, Gut Nos. 1082, 1068 and1069 (Exh.26 to 28), have rightly been discarded by the trial Court observingthe rates granted therein were although Rs.28/-, 20/- and 17/- per sq. ft.,those lands were located at interior area. The trial court has rightly observedthe claimants to have come with clean hands. The trial court has, howeverdiscarded the sale instance dated 11th January, 1996 pertaining to land, GutNo. 1089 (Exh.25), land adjacent to the land acquired, since it was post15 / 20 FA-444-10+1.odtpublication of the preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Act. Certaindates are very much relevant, and therefore, need to be reproduced below :-Publication of notification under Section 404th January, 1996Publication of notification under Section 613th June, 1996Award passed31st October, 1998Possession taken by government of the land acquired 06th March, 1996As already observed above, market value of the land to beacquired has to be determinecircumd on the market rate prevailing on thedate of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act.20.Learned A.G.P. has relied on the judgment of Apex Court in caseof State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Digamber Bhimashankar Tandale & Ors.,1996 SCC (2) 583, wherein it has been observed that it is settled law thatdetermination of compensation on square foot basis is illegal, when the landacquired was an agricultural land. Whereas, there are other authorities reliedon by learned counsel for the appellants to suggest that if the land is situatedin urban area which is under-developed, potency of the land acquired needsto be considered. Learned A.G.P. has also relied on another judgment of theApex Court, Ranvir Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3467,wherein it has been observed that market price of small piece of land cannotbe the basis for determining market value of large stretch of land.21.In almost all the judgments relied on it has been observed thateach case has to be decided on the facts and circumstance and evidence16 / 20 FA-444-10+1.odtobtaining therein. The sale instance (Exh.25) relied on by the appellantspertains to sale-deed dated 11th January, 1996 i.e. just seven days after thepublication of preliminary notification. Same pertains to a very small piece ofland admeasuring 600 sq. ft. Perusal of the sale-deed indicates that even itwas a plot not converted into non-agricultural assessment. It has alreadybeen observed above that it is surprising that the purchaser paid the vendorentire consideration amount before execution of sale-deed without receivingpossession. There are no recitals to indicate as to when the agreement to saleis executed (if any) and the entire sale consideration was paid. It is also notknown as to why the purchaser, after having paid the entire considerationamount, did not receive possession of the plot purchased under the sale deed.The recitals in the sale-deed indicate the possession of plot was delivered onthe date on which the sale-deed was executed. For all these reasons we arein complete agreement with the trial Court. It rightly discarded the saleinstance, although Apex Court in case of Raval Maneklal Motiram (supra) hasobserved that the sale-deed in proximate to the date of publication ofnotification or executed little later may be considered provided the villagerswere not in know that notification was going to be published and the landswere proposed to the acquired.22.The appellants have also relied on the judgment in L.A.R. No. 411of 1999 (Exh.40) wherein compensation was granted @ Rs.46/- per sq. ft.with a rider of deduction of 25% towards development charges. It indicates17 / 20 FA-444-10+1.odtthe appellants were agreeable for deduction towards development charges.The land in relation to the subject matter of reference i.e. L.A.R. No. 411 of1999 was somewhat away from the land of the appellants herein. The saidland was situated at village Renapur itself. The observations in the judgmentof the said reference indicate that the surrounding land which was the subjectmatter of the said reference has already been developed and the said landwas similarly placed with the land of the appellants herein. Still thereference Court has granted compensation @ Rs.46/- per sq. ft. and 25%thereon towards development charges. It was a reference decided on 24thOctober, 2008. The notification under Section 4 of the Act pertains to theland, reference of which was dated 04th January, 1996 itself. After havingconsidered all the facts and circumstances of the case, the reference Courtgranted the appellants compensation @ Rs.60/- per sq. ft. minus 20% thereoftowards development charges. The same indicates that the reference Courtafter having considered all the pros and cons and each and everycircumstance relied on, granted the appellants higher compensation than thesale instances and the rate granted in L.A.R. No. 411 of 1999. It is reiteratedthat the reference Court has rightly discarded the sale instance (Exh.25). Weare in complete agreement with the reasons given by the trial Court andquantum of compensation awarded to the appellants herein. We do no findany reason to make interference therewith.18 / 20 FA-444-10+1.odtINTEREST :-23.We have closely perused the memo of appeal. No ground hasbeen raised for grant of interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Act. Nosuch claim has been made before the reference Court as well (Order XLI, Rule2 of C.P.C.). No submission in that regard was advanced before us duringoral submissions. It is only when we perused written submissions, we cameacross a prayer for grant of such interest. For better appreciation, theoperative part of the impugned judgment needs to be reproduced below :-“1.The land acquisition reference bearing No.90/2000 is herebypartly allowed with proportionate costs.2.The respondents No.1 to 3 are hereby directed to pay thedifference amount of the compensation to claimants in L.A.R.No.90/2000 at the rate of Rs.60/- per sq.ft. after deductingmarket value for development of land to the extent of 20%.3.The claimants are entitled to receive 30% solatium on themarket price, 12% increase from the date of notification u/s.4i.e. 4/1/1996 to the date of award i.e. 31/10/98.4.The respondents No.1 to 3 are hereby directed to pay toclaimants, the interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 4/1/1996for first year and thereafter, at the rate of 15% p.a. till therealization of the entire amount.5.Calculation sheet will be treated as a part and parcel of thisjudgment and continuation of this order.6.The claimants in this reference shall pay deficit Court fees, ifany.”24.Admittedly, possession of the land was taken over post publicationof notification under Section 4 of the Act, but before the award was passed.The reference Court granted interest from the date of publication of19 / 20