Biswajit Chowdhury vs Land Acquisition Collector And Ors

[1] Heard Mr. B. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents.

[2] This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the LA Act, in short) from the judgment and award dated 08.03.2016 delivered in Misc.(LA) 185 of 2013 by the LA Judge, Court No.2, Gomati District, Udaipur. There is no controversy that by the Notification under No.F.9(04)/REV/ACQ/IX/2009 dated 06.02.2010 issued under Section 4 of the LA Act, 1894 followed by the statutory declaration, a piece of land measuring 0.06 acre, equivalent to 1 kara in terms of local measure, pertaining to Khatian No. 2401, plot No.1415/4278, chara class of land, of Mouja-Rajarbag was acquired from the appellant for purpose of extension of Rajarbag Motorstand road. The LA Collector by considering 8 sale deeds the relevant description of which are provided in a tabular form determining the rate in the following manner.

Sl No.

Sale Deed No.

Date of Registration

Plot No.

Class

Area in Acres

Rate per kani

1

1-2055

31/12/09

153/5272

Bastu

0.06

Rs.34,00,000/-

2

1-1937

07/12/09

1770

Bastu

0.04

Rs.25,00,000/-

3

1-1969

15/12/09

1371/4690

Chara

0.04

Rs.10,00,000/-

4

1-1749

05/11/09

2731/3311

Nal

0.02

Rs.28,40,000/-

5

1-1869

23/11/09

1646

Bastu

0.01

Rs.25,60,000/-

6

1-1894

25/11/09

816/3020

Bastu

0.05

Rs.20,00,000/-

7

1-1521

09/09/09

640

Bastu

0.04

Rs.20,00,000/-

8

1-1532

09/09/09

744/4954

Bastu

0.04

Rs.20,00,000/-

[3] The rate was determined against each of the plots. For the acquired land of the appellant Rs.13,00,000 (thirteen lakhs per kani) was determined and awarded by the LA Collector. For purpose of reference, the entire schedule of rate is reproduced here in below:

Plot No.

Class of Land

Area in acres.

Rate per Kani.

848

Nal

0.31

Rs.28,00,000/- (Rupees twenty eight lacs)

851

Viti (Nal)

0.31

Rs. 30,00,000/- Rupees thirty lacs)

847/3148

Viti (Nal)

0.02

Rs. 30,00,000/- Rupees thirty lacs)

847

Chara (Nal)

0.06

Rs. 30,00,000/- Rupees thirty lacs)

847/3212

Chara (Nal)

0.03

Rs. 30,00,000/- Rupees thirty lacs)

847/3597

Chara (Nal)

0.02

Rs. 30,00,000/- Rupees thirty lacs)

847/5099

Chara (Nal)

0.02

Rs. 30,00,000/- Rupees thirty lacs)

1415/3849

Viti (Nal)

0.11

Rs.33,00,000/- (Rupees thirty three lacs)

847/4602

Chara (Nal)

0.04

Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lacs)

847/4603

Chara (Nal)

0.05

Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lacs)

1415/4278

Chara (Nal)

0.06

Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lacs)

1416

Chara (Nal)

0.04

Rs.34,00,000/- (Rupees thirty four lacs)

829/2868

Viti (Nal)

0.11

Rs.28,00,000/- (Rupees twenty eight lacs)

829/5124

Viti (Nal)

0.04

Rs. 28,00,000/- (Rupees twenty eight lacs)

1416/5360

Chara (Nal)

0.02

Rs.33,00,000/- (Rupees thirty three lacs)

838/P

Viti (Nal)

0.16

Rs.33,00,000/- (Rupees thirty three lacs)

[4] Being aggrieved by the said rate, the appellant pressed a reference under Section 18 of the LA Act for determining the appropriate land value by the LA Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur. The said reference being Misc.(LA) 185 of 2013 has been answered by the impugned judgment dated 08.03.2016. The LA Judge has accepted in the sale deed No.1-2087 (Exbt-1 series) as the exemplar deed and enhanced the rate from Rs.13,00,000 per kani to Rs.56,00,000 per kani on 10.09.2007. No other evidence has been relied by the LA Judge.

[5] Mr. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that while reassessing the land value, the LA Judge has misread the sale deed being 1-2087 dated 10.09.2007 (Exbt-1 series) and thus committed a serious illegality. The rate mentioned in the rate exemplar deed (Exbt-1 series) is Rs.3,70,000/- for piece of land measuring 0.005 acre i.e. 1 kara by the local measure. Ms. Saha, learned counsel has that if the one kara is sold out at Rs.3,70,000/-then Rs.2,96,00,000/- would be the value of one kani of land, but the LA Judge has calculated the compensation on the basis of the Rs.56,00, per kani but such rate is alien having no root at least in the exemplar deed bearing No.1-2087. He has urged this court to enhance the rate of the acquired land to Rs.2,96,00,000/- per kani.

[6] When queried by this court, Mr. Saha, learned counsel has fairly submitted that the appellant who was examined as PW-1 did not lay any further evidence to show that the acquired land was in close proximity of the land as compared with. However, Mr. Saha, learned counsel has submitted that one certified settlement map of Mouja-Rajarbag No.15 sheet No. 1 has been admitted in the evidence at the instance of the appellant, which is part of the Exbt-1 series. Mr. Saha, learned counsel has thereafter contended that from the settlement map, it will be apparent that the acquired land is in the close proximity of the land that has been compared with.

[7] From the other side, Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents has submitted that the sale deed that has been referred in the impugned judgment is not the same sale deed which has been admitted as Exbt-1. The sale deed which has been relied on by the LA Judge carried the land rate at Rs.56,00,000/- per kani whereas the sale (Exbt-1 series) carries the land rate at Rs.2,96,00,000/-. Those are two different sale deeds. Further, Mr. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. has submitted that the appellant has accepted the payment of the award in full without raising any objection. As such, the appeal should summarily be dismissed.

[8] This court really has been pushed to the real quandary. There is no evidence how the proximity has been determined. The referring-claimant did not adduce any evidence to enable the court to locate the position of the land to find out the proximity, vis-a-vis the important factors which are usually applied for determining the land value. This court has keenly scrutinized the evidence of the referring-claimant (Biswajit Choudhury) and also his cross-examination. He did not state about the location of the land. He has only relied the sale deed (Exbt-1 series). There has been no endeavour from the part of the referring-claimant to adduce the vendor or vendee of the land so that the boundary of the land as described in the sale instance can be related to the land that has been acquired.

[9] There is no controversy that the land that has been acquired falls within the Plot No.1415/4278 whereas the land recited in the sale deed no. 1-2087 of 2007 pertains to previous Dag No.894 and present Dag No.1419. It appears from the settlement map that the revised plot no. has not been shown in the settlement map. But the old plot numbers have been used. The purpose of the acquisition has been clearly mentioned. That is for extension of Rajarbag Motorstand. The LA Collector in his assessment sheet has observed as follows:

"(iv) The proposed land is commercial land and is situated adjacent to the existing Rajarbag motor stand."

[10] It appears that the land comprised in the exemplary deed has not been acquired. But according to the LA Collector, this land is a commercial land. From the settlement map, part of Exbt-1 series, it appears that plot No.894 (old), the land which was transacted by the deed No.1-2087 is adjacent to the highway whereas the acquired land is far away and shown down in the map and it is the southern most plot. No plot has been recorded in the said Mouja-Rajarbag No.15 Sheet No.1. It can safely be said on projection that the land must be half a kilometer away from the land as compared and no road is running through in the proximity to the said land. The LA Judge did not consider all these aspects at all and mechanically accepted the sale deed being No.1-2087 as exemplary deed. Even though, there is no challenge against that exception or against the finding. This court, in order to exercise its jurisdiction under Order 41, Rule 33 of the CPC has explored this fact, which is more relevant so far the determination of land value is concerned. It has to be stated that this court is well within its jurisdiction, while determining the land value to look into the factors and the tools those are applied for purpose of such determination.

[11] Mr. Saha, learned counsel is correct in a way but the court has its jurisdiction to look into and find out the proper value in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. This court is constrained to observe that the method that has been followed by the LA Judge is grossly perverse, inasmuch as, even the referring-claimant did not take any initiative to locate the land either by adducing the vendor or the vendee of the sale deed No.1/2087 (Exbt-1series) as the witness nor he has introduced any other method to locate the land of the exemplar deed for comparing with the land that has been acquired. Even no reason has been assigned by the LA Judge why he has accepted the sale deed as the exemplar deed. The law in this regard is well settled. While determining the land value on the basis of the exemplar deed, it is the duty of the court to find out the adequate evidence in respect of the location vis-a-vis the acquired land and the land to be compared with. Their position in respect of the other important facilities, size of the land and the status of the land to proceed for determination of the land value are to be considered. None of these factors have been inquired into or considered.

[12] Mr. Saha, learned counsel has further submitted that on the basis of the said exemplar deed acquired under the same notification, a sum of Rs.100,00,000/- (one crore) has been given as the land value for the land. However, since such judgment and award that has not been placed in the record following the process, this court will not take any notice thereof. This court has considered the exemplar deed and the size of the land vis-a-vis the possession of the land that emanates from the settlement map and is of the view that the appropriate rate having considered the notional deduction for development would be raised to Rs.90,00,000/- per kani. Having observed thus, the respondents are directed to calculate the compensation in terms of Section 23 of the LA Act, meaning that apart the land value, the solatium at 30 % under Section 23(2) of the LA Act and additional compensation at 12% under Section 23(1) (a) of the LA Act be added as the components of the compensation. After such addition, interest shall be paid strictly in terms of the Section 34 of the LA Act. The respondents are directed to pay the remainder of the compensation within a period of 3 months from the date when a copy of this judgment & order shall be produced before the

LA Collector.

In terms of the above, this appeal stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.

Send down the LCRs forthwith.