Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) vs Hari Bala Das And Ors

Heard Mr. A. De, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), N.F. Railway as well as Mr. R. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the referring claimant-respondents.

This appeal by the appellant arises from the judgment and award dated 17.08.2016 delivered in Misc.(LA) No.73 of 2013 by the Land Acquisition Judge (Court No.2), Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur.

The objection as raised is based on determination of the market value of the acquired land by the Land Acquisition Judge, hereinafter referred to as the L. A. Judge. The basic facts are not in dispute that by the notification dated 16.12.2009 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, L.A. Act, in short, the referring claimants' land pertaining to Khatian No.147, Plot No.483/P, measuring 0.06 acre of Mouja-Rajdhar Nagar under Udaipur sub-division was acquired for construction of Agartala-Sabroom Railway line by the appropriate Government through the Land Acquisition Collector, Gomati, Udaipur. On due notice and having considered the claim of the referring claimants, the Land Acquisition Collector determined the award on various components. The Land Acquisition Collector determined the value of the land at Rs.8,00,000/- per kani. The land losers were not satisfied with the said rate of the acquired land. On 26.04.2010, they had exercised their option by filing an application under Section 18 of the L.A. Act for determination of the market rate by the L.A. Judge. Accordingly, the reference was made by the appropriate Government to the L.A. Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur with the relevant record and particularly the assessment sheet.

It appears from the record that the L.A. Collector having considered five sale deeds bearing No.1-2008, 1-2009, 1-1664, 1-1747 and 1-1189 reflecting contemporary transaction land therein. The maximum transaction value as recorded is Rs.6,40,000/- for chara class of land. But the deeds, later on relied by the referring claimants being sale deeds No.1-577 dated 28.03.2009, 1-578 dated 28.03.2009 and 1-717 dated 09.04.2009, were not produced by the referring claimants to the L.A. Collector and for obvious reason, those were not considered. In his assessment sheet, L.A. Collector has reflected that:

"The landowners claimed land value of that area @ Rs.50,00,000/- to Rs.90,00,000/- per kani. But they could not produce any evidence in support of their claim."

The L.A. Collector considering the revenue schedule of the sheet-wise value and also those deeds had given rates for the acquired land starting from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.11,00,000/- for various categories and according to their location. The land acquired from the referring claimants-respondent was favoured with a rate of Rs.8,00,000/- and accordingly, compensation under Section 23 of the L.A. Act was determined on aggregating values of those components. As stated earlier, that was not accepted by the referring claimants and they preferred the reference under Section 18 of the L. A. Act being Misc.(LA) No.73 of 2019.

By the judgment dated 17.08.2016, the L.A. Judge enhanced the rate from Rs.8,00,000/- to Rs.11,20,000/- per kani and discarded the claim of enhancement of the compensation for the loss and damage for destruction of the residential house and other valuable attachment with the acquired land. The L.A. Judge has observed that so far the damage for the destruction of valuable trees are concerned in terms of the decision of the apex court in State of Haryana vs. Gurcharan Singh reported in 1995 supp.(2) SCC 637 no compensation can be awarded.

Be that as it may, it may be noted here that the referring claimants have not filed any appeal from the said judgment dated 17.08.2016. But the requiring department has contended that reliance on Exbt.1 series cannot be grossly acceptable inasmuch as it cannot be denied the lands demised in those three sale deeds are not at an obscure distance, but in close proximity of the acquired land. In this regard, this court has collated the plot numbers with the settlement map as brought on the record, but Mr. De, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that acceptance of the rate by 30% deduction is not reasonable considering the location and nature of the land.

In contrast, Mr. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that there is no infirmity in the finding returned by the L.A. Judge inasmuch as following the principles of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.) vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 2016 SC 2717 the highest exemplar deed has been accepted by the L.A. Judge and he has given sufficient reason for such acceptance. The L.A. Judge while accepting the highest sale exemplar, has extracted a passage from Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (supra), which reads as follows:

"15) It is clear that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied, that it is a bona fide transaction has to be considered and accepted. When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. In our view, it seems to be only fair that where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, the transaction representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. It is not desirable to take an average of various sale deeds placed before the authority/court for fixing fair compensation.

Mr. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has further submitted that the L.A. Collector or the requiring department did not produce any sale deed in the proceeding under Section 18 of the L.A. Act and as such, acceptance of the deed No.1-577 [part of Exbt.1 series] by the L.A. Judge cannot be faulted with. However, Mr. Datta, learned counsel has drawn notice of this court to the para 11 of the impugned judgment. The L.A. Judge has stated that the compensation as assessed by the L.A. Collector cannot be termed as just and reasonable in all respects. In view of the several apex court decisions decision viz. Administrator General, West Bengal Vs. Collector, Varanashi reported in (1988)2 SCC 150, Subh Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in (2010)1 SCC 444 and Kasturi Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2003) SCC 354, the L.A. Judge has streamlined the proposition of law that considering the factors related to development of the acquired land, deduction from 20% to 75% can be made at the time of making the final assessment of the land value. After observing that the L. A. Judge has observed that there cannot be any difficulty in accepting the rate of the said sale deed. Thus, after deduction 30% from the transaction value as the development cost, the land value has been finally determined at Rs.11,20,000/- per kani. However, why 30% has been deducted, there is no reason inasmuch as the land described in the exemplar deed has been stated to be the land in the proximity. What is significant and what appears to be very relevant, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties is that just 3-4 years prior to the acquisition, a small amount of land measuring one ganda in each of the three sale deeds were sold. The amount of land that has been acquired is of higher quantum than the land transacted in the exemplar deeds and this lends the valid reason for deduction inasmuch as market behaviour clearly establishes that when a bigger amount of land is purchased, the land value comes down.

Having considered all the aspects of the matter, this court is of the view that from the value of the exemplar deed, there should be deduction of 40% be reasonable and no further interference in the judgment is required. Thus, the land value would come to Rs.9,60,000/-per kani. With that, the additional compensation under Section 23(1A) of the L.A. Act, solatium @ 30% under Section 23 (2) of the L. A. Act and interest in terms of Section 34 of the L.A. Act be paid to the referring claimants. The said amount along with the other compensation as assessed by the L.A. Collector shall be paid within a period of three months from the day of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment without fail.

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

Send down the records forthwith.