AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Indore Development Authority (in short "IDA") has filed the present first appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act being aggrieved by the award dated 06.02.1999, passed by the 6th ADJ, Indore in Land Acquisition No.81/1993 .
Brief Facts .....
The Indore Development Authority send a requisition to the State Government for acquisition of the land for providing residential plots for the lower income group under the Scheme No.71.The Government of Madhya Pradesh issued a notification dated 12.01.1979 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act ( in short 'LA Act') for acquisition of the land bearing Survey No.518 belonging to Late Prabhakar Adsule ( since dead now represented thought Legal Heirs ) ( herein after referred as 'Land Owner')and Survey No.525 (total area 46.31 hectares) belonging to Her Highness Usha Raje Trust through Devi Ahilya Bai Holkar Education Trust. After completing the procedure prescribed under the Acquisition Act the Land Acquisition Officer has passed the award dated 25.06.1982 awarding the compensation @ Rs.45,000/- per hectare for the land along with others benefits admissible under LA Act.
Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, 'land owner' sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The reference was referred to the District Judge, Indore which was registered as Land Acquisition Case No.81/1993. According to the 'land owner' , he purchased the land bearing Survey No.518 (area 3,44,920 sq.ft.) vide registered sale deed dated 30.03.1972 from Devi Ahilya Bai Holkar Education Trust. Thereafter, he prepared a scheme for development of residential colony in the name of Vardan Nagar and submitted an application before the Town and Country Planning Department, Bhopal. He has also deposited diversion charges before the Sub- Divisional Officer for using the land for residential purpose. Thereafter, as per the scheme he carved out 185 plots and out of which he has sold 128 plots to different persons by registered sale deeds and at present 57 plots of total area 1,08,095 hectares are remaining therefore, he is entitled for compensation @ Rs.30/- per sq.ft. (for 1,08,095 he is entitled for Rs.32,42,550/-) along with solatium @ 13% and interest @ 15%. The IDA has objected the reference by submitting that at the issuance of notification under Section 4 the market value of the land of Scheme No.71 was not more than Rs.5,500/- per acre.
Late Prabhakar Adsule examined himself and got exhibited the report on diversion (Exhibit P/1), Deposit receipt of diversion charges in the Treasury (Exhibit P/2), Certified copy of the sale deed (Exhibit P/3), agreement with Vardan Nagar Housing Society dated 02.08.1967 for sale of 57 plots (Exhibit P/4), Advertisement dated 28.11.1980 published by the IDA (Exhibit P/5), Resolution passed by the Vardan Nagar Housing Society (Exhibit P/6).
Learned Additional District Judge after appreciating the evidence which came on record came to the conclusion that the 'land owner' is entitled for the compensation @ Rs.5/- per sq.ft. in place of Rs.45,000/- per hectare. During the pendency of this appeal the sole 'land owner' has expired issueless. The three sons of his brother filed an application for substitution of their names as legal representative. Vide order dated 19.02.2019 this Court has directed the District Judge to conduct an enquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 of the CPC. Learned District Judge has gave a report that all the three sons of Madhukar Adsule (brother of Prabhakar Adsule) are liable to be impleaded as legal representative.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, Indore Development Authority has preferred the first appeal.
Rival Submissions.....
Mrs. Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant submits that Land Acquisition Officer has rightly awarded, the compensation @ Rs.45,000/- per hectare i.e. Rs.18,000/- per acre on the basis of prevailing market value of the property. The 'land owner' has failed to produce any document in respect of development of the land for residential purpose. He has not filed any sanctioned map, development permission and order of diversion and without any basis and material the reference Court has awarded the compensation @ Rs.5/- per sq.ft. which is on higher side.
Shri A.S. Garg, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the legal representative no.1 - Prakash submits that Late Prabhakar Adsule executed a Will in his favour, therefore, he is entitled to get entire amount of compensation. He further submits that learned reference Court has rightly awarded the compensation @ Rs.5/- per sq.ft because the entire area was developed by the IDA for residential purpose. Shri Prabhakar Adsule had executed agreement with the Vardan Nagar Housing Society for sale of remaining 58 plots. The IDA itself issued an advertisement for sale of 58 plots on much higher rates within an year.
Shri A.S.Kutumble, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of other legal heirs submits that inter-se dispute between the legal heirs is not liable to be decided in this appeal. The 'land owner' -A is required to get probate of the Will from the competent Court, therefore, all the parties be relegated to the civil Court to establish their right to get the share in the amount of compensation. So far as the issue of enhancement of compensation is concerned, Shri A.S.Kutumbe, learned senior counsel has supported the argument advanced by Shri A.S. Garg, learned senior counsel.
Discussion and conclusion.......
The Apex Court in case of Suresh Kumar Bansal Vs. Krishna Bansal & Another, reported in 2010(2) MPLJ 304[SC] has held that it is now well settled that the determination of question as to who is the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff or defendant under Order 22 Rule 5 of the CPC is only for the purpose of bringing legal representative on record for conducting pending legal proceedings and does not operate as res-judicata and the inter-se between the rival legal representative has to be independently tried and decided in a probate proceeding, therefore, so far as inter-se dispute between the legal heirs of 'land owner' (a)(b)(c) are concerned, they are free to get it adjudicated before the civil Court in accordance with law.
That Land Acquisition Officer assessed the compensation @ Rs.4,500/- per hectare on the basis of one award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in which the 'land owner' was given compensation for acquisition of his land for scheme no. 74(c) of Indore Development Authority. Before the reference Court the 'land owner' produced copy of the report submitted by the Superintendent, Land Record dated 05.12.1975 in a diversion case .As per the report, in a land bearing Survey No.518, 187 plots have been demarcated and 5000 running feet road has been constructed and work of underground pipeline is going on. Hence there was enough evidence that at time of acquisition the land of survey no. 518 was sufficiently developed. Vide Exhibit P/2 the 'land owner' also deposited the diversion fee also . On 25.10.1980 the IDA issued an advertisement for sale of the plots of different sizes @ Rs.8.5/- to Rs.12/- in scheme No.71 for which land survey no. 518 was acquired . This advertisement was issued within two years from the date of issuance of notification under Section 4, therefore, IDA itself has decided to sale the land after development @ Rs.6.5/- to Rs.10/- per sq.ft. The 'land owner' had an agreement with the other colonizers for sale of these 57 remaining plots. The Land Acquisition Officer in its award has also observed that some sale deeds have been produced in respect of sale of the land in the year 1979 and he has also collected information from the Sub-Registrar in which certain people have purchased the land treating the land as non-agricultural purpose.
After its development the IDA has sold the land for residential purpose from Rs.6.5/- to Rs.10/- per sq.ft with 10-15% premium on selected plots as per location.
The IDA has acquired the entire land of Survey No.518 (46.31 hectares) and thereafter developed it for residential purpose. In case of K.S. Shivadevamma and Ors. Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer and Another, reported in 1996(2) SCC 62, & Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Nookala Rajamallu & Others, reported in (2003) 12 SCC 334 the apex Court has held that the extent of deduction depends upon the development need in each cases and under the Building Rules 50% of the land is required to be left out, this Court has laid a general rule that for laying road and other amenities 33-1/3% is to be deducted. In this case there is sufficient evidence to that effect that 'land owner' had already undertaken some development work in the said land, therefore, the deduction @ 53% can be taken. The 'land owner' himself had an agreement with Vardan Nagar Housing Society for the sale of 57 plots @ Rs2.25/- per sq.ft for remaining 58 plots @ Rs.2.25 per sq.ft vide agreement dated 02.08.1967 and the IDA has issued an advertisement in the year 1980 in sale of said plots in Rs.6/-Rs.10/- per sq.ft. Therefore, learned reference court has rightly assessed the compensation for the land @ Rs.5/- per sq.ft.
Hence, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgement hence present appeal is accordingly dismissed.