AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present land acquisition appeal has been filed by the Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), NF Railway challenging the judgment and award dated 08.06.2018 passed by learned Land Acquisition Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur in Misc.(LA) 22/2016 awarding compensation for the acquired land @ Rs.26,87,580/- per kani. The land in question was acquired vide notification dated 22.09.2010 under Section 4 of the LA Act and declaration dated 26.10.2010 under Section 6 of the LA Act. The acquired land was measuring 0.04 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.26,87,580/- 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(a), Exbt. 1(b), Exbt.1(c) and Exbt.1(d)] comprises small pieces of land and classes of land are classified as 'Viti', 'Bastu', 'Tilla' class of land but the land in question of the instant appeal is a 'Chara' Class of land. As a corollary, the valuation of the 'Viti'/ 'Bastu'/ 'Tilla' class of land cannot be compared with 'Chara' class of land. More so, the appellant requires to spend substantial amount for development of 'Chara' 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.26,87,580/- 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 huge 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(a) was executed on 18.02.2005 and the for a 'Viti' (Tilla) class of land measuring 18'-00" ( eighteen fits) from east to west and 9'-00" (nine feets) from north to south which means the land consists of small piece of land. Exbt.1(b) was executed on 22.12.2004 wherefrom it transpires that the said land also measures 2 Kranta, 5 dhurs i.e. a small piece of land which is classified as 'Viti (Tilla)' class of land. Exbt.1(c) also is a small piece of land being classified as 'Viti(Tilla)' class of land. Exbt.1(d) is a 'Chara(Tilla)' class of land and the same is also a small piece of land measuring 405 squire ft. The sale deed under Exbt.1(c) was transacted on 09.02.2011 i.e. after the date of notification.
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 'Viti (Tilla)' class of land and only Exbt.1(d) classified as 'Chara (Tilla)' class of land which measures 405 Sq.ft. only. Another important feature, which is transpired in the sale deed under Exbt.1(d), that the said land is situated just adjacent to the road and naturally it would fetch higher market price.
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. In my opinion, the nature and character of the acquired land belonging to the claimant respondent cannot be compared with the lands under the sale deeds [Exbt.1(a), 1(b), 1(c) and 1(d)], but, the learned LA Judge relying upon these sale deeds has determined the valuation of the acquired land. I reiterate that the acquired land is absolutely a 'Chara' class of land. More so, the claimant respondent has produced a map [Exbt.2], but, from this map it is not clear that how the acquired land was similar to those of the lands under Exbt.1(a), 1(b), 1(c) and Exbt.1(d). Plot Nos. 1080 of the first two sale deeds Exbt.1(a) and Exbt.1(b) are nearer to the acquired plot of land but Plot No.1314/3031(portion) and 1169 are not found in the map. The LA Collector while assessing the valuation of the acquired land had determined the market price @ Rs.3,50,000/- per kani on the basis of valuation chart prepared by the Government and other sale deeds. The LA Collector in their counter statement has stated, which would be revealed from Para 6 of the judgment, that "at the time of hearing before him land owners claimed the value of the land @ Rs.4,00,000/- per kani but they could not produce any supporting document in this regard." The learned LA Judge has relied upon the lands of first two sale deeds i.e. 1-340 and 1-2968 which are nearer to the acquired plot. The lands of the said sale deeds were transacted @ Rs.42,66,000/- per kani. In my opinion, while comparing the said two sale deeds, Exbt.1(a) and 1(b), the learned LA Judge did not take into notice that class of lands under the said two sale exemplars are different from the class of the acquired land. The said plots of land under Exbt.1(a) and Exbt.1(b) are 'Viti' class of land and the acquired land is 'Chara' class of land. More so, the lands under the said two sale deeds comprise small pieces of land whereas the acquired land consists larger area than the lands of the said two sale instances. Further, as I said earlier, to develop 'Chara' class of land the requiring department has to incur more expenses and for that purpose a reasonable deduction has to be made. The learned LA Judge has assessed the market price at Para 12 of the judgment in the following manner:-
"12. Considering all the circumstances, deduction of 40% (10% for difference between class of land acquired and land under sale exemplars/20% for larger area of acquired land than the area under exemplar/10% for potentiality) will be just and proper.
Thus valuation of 0.04 acres of land in plot no.709/p is fixed at (Rs.42,66,000.00-40%)=Rs.25,59,600.00 per kani.
Again 05% is added on the ground that sale exemplar was executed in 2004 whereas land was acquired in 2010 and so in the intervening period land acquired must have gained some addition in valuation.
Thus again valuation of 0.04 acres of land in plot no.709/p is fixed at (Rs.25,59,600.00 + 10%)= Rs.26,87,580.00 (Twenty Six lacks Eighty Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty) per kani."
I am not inclined to accept the way, the learned LA Judge has determined the market price of the acquired land at Rs.42,66,000/- per kani. However, I am inclined to deduct 50% straightway, which would be required to develop the acquired land. Accordingly, the valuation comes to Rs. 21,33,000/- (Rupees twenty one lakhs thirty three thousand) per kani.
Accordingly, the claimant-respondent No.1 shall be entitled to get compensation @ Rs.21,33,000/- per kani. Needless to say, this award shall include all the statutory benefits including interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. The LA Collector is directed to re-calculate the compensation on the basis of this judgment and award and make payment accordingly to the claimant-respondent No.1 within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.
In the above terms, the appeal stands partly allowed. Send back the LCRs.