Dy. Chief Engineer (Const. No.1), N.F. Railway vs Eshad Miah And Anr.

The present land acquisition appeal has been filed by the Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), NF Railway challenging the judgment and award dated 10.07.2018 passed by learned Land Acquisition Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur in Misc.(LA) 23 of 2016 awarding compensation for the acquired land @ Rs.7,50,000/- per kani. The land in question was acquired vide notification dated 26.10.2010 under Section 4 of the LA Act and declaration dated 29.11.2010 under Section 6 of the LA Act. The acquired land was 'Nal' class of land measuring 0.8 acres.

2, Being aggrieved of the assessment of valuation of the acquired land, the land owner, the claimant-respondent No.1, herein, sought for reference under Section 18 of the LA Act. During proceeding before the court of learned LA Judge, the referring claimant filed his statement of claim. The appellant as well as the LA Collector also filed their respective counter statement denying the facts as alleged by the referring claimant. After exchange of pleadings, the learned LA Judge framed issues, evidences were recorded. At the closure of recording evidence, learned LA Judge having heard the learned counsels of the parties and on perusal of the exemplar sale deeds and other documents came to a finding that the referring claimant-respondent No.1 was entitled to pay compensation @ Rs.7,50,000/- per kani and accordingly, the LA Collector was directed to pay the said compensation to the land owner, the respondent No.1 herein.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said determination of valuation of the acquired land, the appellant, the NF Railway (Construction) has preferred the instant appeal.

Ms. A. Banik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the sale deeds as considered by the learned LA Judge are not relevant in any manner whatsoever in deciding the market price of the acquired land. According to Ms. Banik, learned counsel, the exemplar sale deeds [Exbt.1, sale deed No.1-128/2010 and Exbt. 2, sale deed No.258/2010] comprises small pieces of land and classes of land are classified as 'Nal', and 'Chara' but the land in question of the instant appeal is a 'Nal' Class of land. Ms. Banik, learned counsel submits that the Exbt.1, sale deed No.1-128/2010 has been executed between two full blooded brothers and according to her, this sale exemplar is a collusive one. More so, the appellant required to spend substantial amount for development of 'Nal' class of land which is much higher than what is required for developing the 'Viti'/'Tilla' and 'Bastu' classes of land. Ms. Banik, learned counsel further submits that the acquired land was of no use at the time of acquisition and it had no importance or potentiality to fetch higher market price as assessed by the learned LA Judge @ Rs.7,50,000/- per kani.

None appears for the LA Collector at the time of hearing. The Claimant-respondent, the land owner, did not appear despite receipt of notice served upon him.

I have perused the judgment of the learned LA Judge and considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. There is no doubt that to determine the market price of a land acquired by the Government, the highest exemplar deed has to be taken into consideration. However, it is equally settled that the land of such exemplar deed must be of the same nature and character which, the learned LA Judge has failed to consider. Moreover, the small piece of land should not always be considered to determine the market price of a larger piece of land. In the instant case, the LA Collector acquired vast quantity of land for the purpose of construction of railway line for the interest of the people of the State. The requiring department, the appellant herein, had to incur substantial expenses to develop different classes of land for laying the railway tracks. On careful scrutiny of the sale deeds as brought on record by the referring claimant, respondent No.1, it transpires that Exbt.1 was executed on 18.01.2010 wherein the valuation of 0.04 acres of 'Nal' class of land under South Chandrapur Mouja was fixed at Rs.25,00,000/- per kani and Exbt.2 wherein the 'Chara' class of land has been fixed at Rs.20,00.000/- per kani.

Thus, it is apparent that all the sale deeds that have been relied upon by the respondent No.1, the referring claimant, were classified as 'Nal' and 'Chara' class of land.

Thereafter, I have perused the evidence of the claimant respondent No.1. Nowhere in his examination-in-chief the claimant respondent has stated that his land is situated in close proximity of the exemplar deeds which he has brought on record. I reiterate that the acquired land is absolutely a 'Nal' class of land. More so, the claimant respondent has produced a map [Exbt.3/1 to 3/3] but from this map it is not clear as to how the acquired land was similar to those of the lands under Exbt.1 and Exbt. 2. The lands of Exbt. 1 and Exbt. 2 are not nearer to the acquired land. The LA Collector while assessing the valuation of the acquired land had determined the market price @ Rs.2,00,000/- per kani on the basis of valuation chart prepared by the Government and other sale deeds. Learned LA Judge has relied upon the lands of sale deeds i.e. 1- 128/2010 & 258/2010 wherein the lands were transacted @ Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs. 20,00,000/- per kani. Learned LA Judge, consequently, on average fixed the market price of the acquired land @ Rs.25,00,000/- per kani. The classes of lands are different than that of exemplar sale deeds-- one is 'Nal' class of land and the other is 'Chara' class of land. Here the acquired land is 'Nal' class of land. The lands under the said two sale deeds comprise small pieces of land, whereas the acquired land is a larger piece of land than the lands of the said two sale instances. In this case, nature of exemplar deed (Exbt.1) is similar with the acquired land, but the land under Exbt.1 is situated far away from the acquired land. Moreover, position and potentiality of the land under Exbt.1 is much higher than the acquired land. Further, as I said earlier, to develop 'Nal' class of land the requiring department had to incur more expenses and for that purpose, a reasonable deduction has to be made. The learned LA Judge while assessing the market price of the acquired land has deducted 70% which appears to be appropriate.

In my opinion, there is nothing to interfere with the award made by the learned LA Judge.

In the above backdrop, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merit. Accordingly, the judgment and award dated 10.07.2018, passed by the learned LA Judge in Misc.(LA) 23 of 2016 stands dismissed.

Send down the L.C.Rs.