AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This case is related to Village Kheda, Tehsil and District Dhar. The land in question has been acquired for Special Economic Zone (SEZ).
The issue regarding grant of compensation to the land-owners of Villages â€" Kheda, Tehsil and District Dhar for acquisition of land by the District
Trade & Industry Centre, Pithampur, District Dhar for public purpose, namely for establishment of “Special Economic Zone†in District Dhar
has been decided on 14. 05.2015 by this Court in First Appeal No.444/2009 Shakuntala Bai w/o Nandkishore v. The State of MP, by which appeal of
the landowners has been allowed in part. Against the aforesaid order, a bunch of special leave petitions is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Both the learned counsel for the parties have submitted that against order dated 14.05.2015, a bunch of SLPs is pending before the Hon'ble Apex
Court and the order passed therein will be final and binding to all the parties and landowners are entitled for compensation accordingly.
Relevant part of order dated 14.05.2015 passed by this Court in First Appeal No.444/2009 Shakuntala Bai w/o Nandkishore v. The State of MP,
(supra) reads, as under: -
“34. As per memorandum of First Appeal No.444/2009 (page 81 of the paper - book), the land owners have claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.17,02,381/- per
hectare for unirrigated land and Rs.25,53,572 per hectare for irrigated land. In the present case, the landowners examined Kanaklata and produced sale deed Exhibit P/2
to P/7. She has proved the sale deed executed between 24.1.1995 to 29.12.2000. The areas in the aforesaid sale deeds are only 23,000 sq ft. to 1,000 sq ft. The area in
Exhibit P/7 is only 0.009 and half hectares. Exhibit P/6 is the sale deed of 17.12.1999, according to which the market value per hectare of land at village Kheda and
Bardari is Rs.13,09,524 lacs per hectare. Relying on the decision of Sitabai & Ors. (Supra) and in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan, District Badaun
V/s. Bipin Kumar & Anr. , reported as 2004 (2) SCC 283, we enhanced the price at the rate of 15% per year since the sale deed related to the period approximately 3
years earlier, it would again work out to a figure not less than (Rs.587142/-). Thus, total amount comes to Rs.1896666/- per hectare for unirrigated land and
Rs.2844999/- per hectare for irrigated land ie., @ one and half time of unirrigated land.
In the present bunch of appeals, the land is acquired for 'Special Economic Zone' and thus, no much development is required. Thus, it is a case of less deduction.
In our opinion a deduction of 25% from the market value on account of development charges and other possible expenditure would be justifiable and called for in the
facts and circumstances of the present case. After deducting @ 25% the market value comes to Rs.14,22,499.5 (Rs.18,96,667 - Rs.4,74,166.5 = Rs.14,22,499.5) per
hectare for unirrigated land and after deducting 25%, the market value comes to Rs.21,33,749.25/-(Rs.28,44,999 - Rs.7,11,249.75 = Rs.21,33,749.25/-) per hectare for
irrigated land.
For the above mentioned reasons, all the appeals filed by the State are hereby dismissed. The appeals filed by the claimants/landowners are partly allowed. The
impugned award passed by the learned reference court in all these appeals is modified to the extent that per hectare market value of the acquired land is assessed to
Rs.14,22,499.5 per hectare for unirrigated land and Rs.21,33,749.25/- per hectare for irrigated land. In other words, the landowners whose land was acquired in these
proceedings are entitled to claim compensation at the rate of Rs.14,22,499.5 per hectare for unirrigated land and Rs.21,33,749.25/- per hectare for irrigated land. In
addition the landowners are also entitled to solatium and other statutory benefits under the Act, which shall be worked out on the basis of rate determined by this
court along with interest at the rate awarded by the reference Court.
The learned Senior counsel for the appellants submitted that originally they valued their appeals as per column No.4 of para 1, which is part of the order, but they
in spite of number of opportunities granted by the Registry as well as by this Court failed to make the payment of deficit court fees. It is also stated that their
application filed under Section 149 of CPC was allowed but as stay was granted by this Court against the impugned award in favour of the State of MP subject to
depositing the 30% of the amount and the aforesaid amount of 30% has not been deposited by the State in number of cases and, therefore, the landowners have not
paid the ad valorem court fees and to save their appeal they reduced the valuation of the appeal and paid the Court fees as per amended valuation. He submits that
the market value of the lands is much more than the amount assessed by the reference court but as the landowners were not in a position to pay the amount of court
fees, they restricted their claim to Rs.5,00,000/- only. He submitted that similar question has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of in the case of
Chandrashekar & Ors. vs. Addl. Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported as AIR 2009 SC 3012 and held that they should not deprive for their rightful claim of
compensation on the technical ground of want of requisite court fees and an opportunity should have been afforded to them for payment of the deficit court fee. Para
13, 14 and 16 are relevant which reads as under:-
“13. From the observations as quoted herein earlier, we conclude that the decision of the Constitution Bench in Buta Singh (supra) has not reversed the decision
in Bhag Singh (supra) and the law laid down in Scheduled Caste Coop. (supra) is materially different from the law established by this court in Bhag Singh (supra)
since both the decisions dealt with different matters and moreover the Scheduled Caste Coop. (supra) decision has in fact recognized the validity of the law laid down
in Bhag Singh (supra). Therefore, we are of the opinion that following the judgment of Bhag Singh (supra) in the present case shall not be in conflict with the opinion
of the Constitution Bench decision in the case of Buta Singh (supra). Thus, in our opinion, it is settled that the High Court should not have deprived the appellants of
their rightful claim on the technical ground of want of requisite Court Fees and an opportunity should have been afforded to them for payment of the deficit Court
Fee. This position is also supported by the decision of this court in a recent case viz. Bhimasha v. Special Land Acquisition Officer [(2008) 10 SCC 797] wherein it has
been held that the High Court should have, after taking note of the facts of the case and the market value determined by it, awarded the higher compensation subject
to the payment of the balance court fee.
Since we have come to the conclusion that the High Court was not justified in denying the appellants compensation @ Rs.32.10/- pr Sq. Ft. after having recorded
its finding that the value of the required land would be not less than @ Rs.32.10/- pr Sq. Ft. on a mere technical ground that the Court Fee paid by the appellants
would entitle them to compensation of only Rs.23/- per Sq. Ft., we now proceed to consider the other submissions of the appellants. The learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that since the High Court had awarded compensation @ Rs.100.50/- per Sq. Ft. in MFA No. 2366/2003 (LAC) C/W MFA CR.OB. No. 52/2004
[Asst. Commissioner & the LAO, Bijapur v Tukaram S/o. Shivaram Zinjade, arising out of LAC No. 180/1998], the appellants should also be awarded compensation at
the same rate affording an opportunity to them to pay the deficit court fee. In this regard our attention was drawn to the decision of this Court in Pal Singh v. UT of
Chandigarh [AIR 1993 SC 225].
Thus, for a judgment relating to value of land to be admitted in evidence either as an instance or as one from which the market value of the acquired land could be
inferred or deduced, must have been a previous judgment of that same court and this requirement is fulfilled in the present case. However, the requirement was that it
must have been proved by the person relying upon such judgment by adducing evidence and that due regard being given to all other attendant facts and
circumstances it could furnish the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land, is in our opinion the more important test for admission of such
previous decision of the High Court for determination of the market value of the land acquired in the present case. On a perusal of the materials submitted before us
by the appellants, we must conclude that the appellants had failed to satisfactorily furnish the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land according
to the decision of the same High Court in Assistant Commissioner & the LAO (supra) at Rs.100.50/-. Per sq. ft. Thus, we conclude that this plea of the appellants is
not acceptable in the present case.â€
In reply, the learned Government Advocate has submitted that the submissions made by the learned Senior counsel about their in-capacity/disinclination to pay
the court fee is doubtful having regard to the fact that the landowners have received a substantial amount by way of compensation under the award made by the
Collector and 30% of the amount as awarded by the reference Court.
She further submitted that in some of the cases there was delay in depositing the amount. The appellants voluntarily restricted their claim and reduced the amount
of compensation and, therefore, appellants appeal be restricted as per their amended claim.
In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chandrashekar & Ors. vs. Addl. Special Land Acquisition Officer (supra), we allow the prayer of the
landowners, who have reduced the valuation of their appeal by holding that they are entitled to claim the rate as fixed in paragraph 36 of this judgment subject to
payment of ad valorem Court - fees.
It is made clear that the enhanced compensation which is now been directed to pay to the appellants-claimants/landowners who are appellants in these bunch of
appeals and the same shall be paid if the appellants â€" landowners shall deposit the requisite court fees on the aforesaid enhanced amount within 4 months from the
date of supply of copy of this order to this Court. It is also made clear that they are entitled for enhanced amount of compensation only after payment of deficit court
fees to the High Court. If the deficit court fees is paid within specified time as fixed by this Court, the Registry will issue necessary certificate to them and then only
they will be entitled for the enhanced amount of compensation.
In the result, all the appeals filed by the landowners are allowed in part to the extent as indicated herein above with cost.â€
The learned counsels for both the parties have submitted that against order dated 14.05.2015 a bunch of SLPs is pending before the Hon'ble Apex
Court and the order passed therein will be final and binding to all the parties and the landowners will be entitled for compensation accordingly.
With the aforesaid directions, First Appeal No.2048/2019 is disposed of on the same terms of order dated 14.05.2015 passed by a Division Bench of
this Court in First Appeal No.444/2009 Shakuntala Bai w/o Nandkishore v. The State of MP, subject to the final decision in the aforesaid pending
special leave petitions and the landowners will be entitled for compensation as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Parties to bear their own costs.