AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1894') have been preferred, claiming the following reliefs:
Appeal No.255/2001:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and impugned judgment and decree dated 30.11.2000 passed by the learned
Addl. District Judge No.1, Udaipur in Civil Case No.33/96 may kindly be quashed and set aside.
Any other order favourable to the petitioner may also be passed."
Appeal No.356/2001:
"It is therefore respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed, judgment and decree be modified and further an award of Rs.9,32,937/- be made in favour of the appellant with further solatium at the rate of 30% per annum and interest at the rate of 15% per annum uptil the date of payment.
Costs of proceedings through-out be awarded to the appellant."
Appeal No.53/2002:
"It is, therefore, prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the award and decree may kindly be modified and the compensation may be further enhanced to Rs.10 lacs and appellant be further awarded solatium and interest thereon in accordance with law.
(ii) Any other order which may be considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the appellant.
(iii) Costs of the appeal may also be awarded to the appellant."
Appeal No.62/2002:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment and decree dated 09.11.2000 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No.1, Udaipur may kindly be quashed and set aside.
Any other order favourable to the appellant may also be passed."
The present appeals arise out of the award and decree passed by the learned court below answering the reference with reference to award dated 07.08.1992 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Public Works Department, Circle-I, Udaipur.
The State has preferred the appeals against the enhancement made by the learned court below, while answering the reference and the private persons have preferred the appeals seeking further enhancement of the award, as allowed under the reference.
The State Government proceeded to acquire the land, while issuing the notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894. The land in question was acquired by the land acquisition officer for the purpose of Udaipur - Dabok - Kapasan - Chittorgarh Road. The land acquisition officer passed the award, after due consideration, while determining the market price of the land in dispute.
The land acquisition officer considered the aspect of the land being located in the prime location and the other awards passed in the vicinity, and finally, delivered the award at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per hectare for the irrigated land and Rs.2,25,000/-per hectare for the Ger Mumkin, Beed, Banger, Magri and land capable of one crop only.
The reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 was preferred and the rival claims of the parties were considered. The reference was allowed, after examination of the witnesses and the documents produced as well as the pleadings of the parties, and accordingly, the claimants/landholders got an enhanced compensation in reference. Thus, the reference was allowed to a certain extent only.
In Appeals No.255/2001 and 356/2001, the pleaded facts are that a piece of land bearing Khasra No.4514, 4515 and 5163/4566 having area of 0.1150 hectare situated at Debari was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer for the purpose of Udaipur- Dabok - Kapasan - Chittorgarh Road and an amount of Rs.1,32,150/- was awarded as compensation vide award dated 07.08.1992.
After hearing both the parties and perusing the record, the learned court below passed the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.11.2000 and awarded Rs.22,260/- with 9% annual interest to the claimant.
In Appeals No.53/2002 and 62/2002, the pleaded facts are that a piece of land bearing Khasra No.1633, 1638, 1639 and 1641 measuring 0.1900 hectare in Village Bedwas, District Udaipur was acquired and the Land Acquisition Officer, Public Works Department, Circle-I, Udaipur passed an award on 07.08.1992 for Rs.2,11,571/- towards compensation.
After hearing both the parties as well as perusing the record, the learned court below vide its impugned judgment and decree dated 09.11.2000 awarded a total sum of Rs.78,550/- to the claimants with 9% interest and expenses.
The issues framed by the learned court below are as follows:
Appeals No.255/2001 & 356/2001:
"1. आया भूमि अवाप्ति अधिकारी ने प्रार्थी को धारा 4, 6, 7, 8 व 9 भूमि अवाप्ति अधिनियम के तहत नहीं दिया व न ही साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत करने का मौका दिया है ?
.........प्रार्थी
आया प्रार्थी प्रार्थना पत्र की चरण संख्या 4 के अनुसार पांचों दुकानों की कीमत फरवरी 90 में 13,45,000 रूपये होने से यह राशि प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है?
........प्रार्थी
आया प्रार्थी अवाप्त की जा रही भूमि जिसका क्षेत्रफल 10859 वर्ग फीट है, वाणिज्यिक उपयोग व उपभोग की होने से 150 रू. प्रति वर्गफीट के हिसाब से राशि प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है ?
......प्रार्थी
आया प्रार्थी लोहे के दरवाजों के लिए 9000 रूपये, पेड़ों के लिये 8000 रू., बाउंड्रीवाल के 1,50,000 रू. व नीव भराई हेतु 77,640 रू. प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है ?
......प्रार्थी
4 ए. आया प्रार्थी के प्रार्थना पत्र के चरण संख्या 8 के अनुसार अवाप्त भूमि के रूपये 1,37,100 एक लाख सैंतीस हजार एक सौ रूपया बाउंड्रीवाल मय नीव के रूपये 21060 तथा दरवाजों के रूपये 2340 कुल रूपया 1,60,500 प्रार्थी पाने का अधिकारी है?
......प्रार्थी"
Appeal No.53/2002 & 62/2002:
"1. आया प्रार्थीया प्रार्थना पत्र की चरण संख्या 1 में वर्णित भ्ांमि का मुआवजा नौ लाख रूपया प्रति हेक्टर से प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है ?
....... प्रार्थीया
आया प्रार्थीया मकान की निर्माण लागत स्वरूप मुआवजा 2,56,051 रूपया व इसके चारों ओर बाउण्ड्रीवाल का मुआवजा 44,357 रूपये होना चाहिये ?
....... प्रार्थीया
आया प्रार्थीया 253 पेड़ पौधों का मुआवजा प्राप्त करने का अधिकारिणी है व इन पेड़ों से वार्षिक आय 89,783 रूपये प्रति वर्ष होती है ! अतः इस मद में 8,97,830 रूपया मुआवजा प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है ?
....... प्रार्थीया
अनुतोष !"
Learned counsel for the claimants (appellants) have made their submissions regarding the claim being undervalued. Learned counsel further submitted that the land in question was being put to commercial use, and thus, looking to the urbanization of the area, the compensation ought to be granted as per the commercial rates, rather than agricultural rates.
Learned counsel further submitted that there were certain assets, like doors, trees, boundary wall etc., which also have not been compensated.
Learned counsel also submitted that the surrounding areas had sale at higher rates, and thus, those were the prevailing rates of the land and ought to have been taken into consideration while determining the compensation.
Learned counsel further submitted that the area in question had completely come under dense population and was required to be treated as an urban land with commercial value.
In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Salaha Begaum, Etc. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported in 2013 DNJ (SC) 301, relevant portion of which reads as under:-
"7. A careful reading of the impugned judgment [Salaha Begum v. Land Acquisition Officer, MFA No. 2836 of 2003, decided on 5-8-2005 (KAR)] shows that the Division Bench of the High Court did take notice of the sale deed dated 7-1-1993 but treated the sale consideration for three acres land as Rs 5,10,000 by deducting Rs 1,50,000 towards the value of farmhouse and electric connection. By doing so, the High Court committed serious error because in the case of Shri Ugregowda no such deduction was made and the sale deed dated 7-1-1993 was relied upon for holding that he was entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs 2,20,000 per acre. In our view, once the High Court accepted the sale deed dated 7-1-1993 as the touchstone for determination of the compensation payable for identically situated land, there could be no justification for awarding less compensation to the appellants.
Another error committed by the High Court is that it has not given the benefit of principle of escalation of price to the appellants. This Court has repeatedly held that the exercise undertaken for fixing market value and determination of compensation payable to the landowner should necessarily involve consideration of escalation in land prices - Ranjit Singh v. UT of Chandigarh [(1992) 4 SCC 659] , Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Bipin Kumar [(2004) 2 SCC 283] , Land Acquisition Officer v. Ramanjulu [(2005) 9 SCC 594] , Sardar Jogendra Singh v. State of U.P. [(2008) 17 SCC 133 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 822] and Revenue Divl. Officer-cum-LAO v. Sk. Azam Saheb [(2009) 4 SCC 395 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 182] .
In view of the above discussion, we hold that the appellants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs 2,20,000 per acre with benefit of 10% increase for the time gap of two years between the notification issued for the acquisition of Shri Ugregowda' s land and the notification issued for the acquisition of their land.
In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment [Salaha Begum v. Land Acquisition Officer, MFA No. 2836 of 2003, decided on 5-8-2005 (KAR)] is set aside and it is declared that the appellants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs 2,64,000 per acre. The competent authority is directed to pay to the appellants the enhanced compensation together with other statutory benefits."
Learned counsel also relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bijender & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., reported in (2018) 11 SCC 180, relevant portion of which reads as under:
"41. It is held that in comparable sale, the features are: (1) it must be within a reasonable time of the date of the notification (2) it should be a bona fide transaction (3) it should be a sale of the land acquired or land adjacent to the land acquired, and (4) it should possess similar advantages.
These factors should be established by adducing material evidence by examining the parties to the sale or persons having personal knowledge of the sale transactions. The proof thereof focuses on the fact whether the transactions relied on are genuine and bona fide transactions or not.
It is further held that it is the paramount duty of the courts of facts to subject the evidence to close scrutiny with a view to objectively assess the evidence tendered by the parties on proper considerations thereof in its correct perspective to arrive at a reasonable market value. The attending facts and circumstances in each case always furnish guidance to arrive at the market value of the acquired land. The neighbourhood lands possessed of similar potentialities or same advantageous features/circumstances available in each case are also to be taken into account.
Indeed, it is held that the object of the assessment of the evidence is to enable the courts to arrive at a fair and reasonable market value of the lands and in that process, sometimes the courts are required to trench on the border of the guesswork but mechanical assessment has to be eschewed.
It is also held that judges are required to draw from their experience and the normal human conduct of the parties as to which transaction is bona fide and genuine sale transaction because that is one of the guiding factors in evaluating the evidence.
We are of the considered opinion that the Collector was justified in applying the belting system to the acquired land in question. Since the acquired land was a large chunk of land having its frontage abutting the roadside, the belting system was rightly applied to the acquired land for determination of its fair market rate.
It is more so because we find that the appellants too did not raise any objection before the Collector and before the High Court and nor were they able to point out to us as to why it was not possible to apply the belting system and what was illegal in its application.
It is for all these reasons, we find no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants when he questioned the application of the belting system to the acquired land for determining its fair market value.
This takes us to examine the next question as to whether the highest rate of Rs 4500 per square yard of the land of the nearby area out of 59 sale deeds should be made the basis for determining the market rate of the acquired land. In our opinion, it is not possible to accept this submission of the learned counsel for the appellants though pressed in service vehemently.
It is for the reason that firstly, the area sold in each sale deed is very small as compared to the acquired land. Secondly, the lands which were sold by these sale deeds is in square yards and ranges from 31.06 sq yd to 440 sq yd whereas the acquired area in question is in acres and comprises of more than 300 acres. Thirdly, out of 59 sale deeds, there are as many as 31 sale deeds wherein the area comprises of less than 100 sq yd. Fourthly, except two sale deeds where 60 and 67 sq yd of land was sold for Rs 4500 per square yard, all other sale deeds value ranges between Rs 200 to Rs 2000 per square yard. Fifthly, there can be no comparison between the two lands due to the extent of area which are two extremes and lastly, since no sale deeds were filed by the appellants showing market price of any large chunk of land sold in acres at the relevant time, it is not possible to place reliance on any of these sale deeds for determining the market rate of the acquired land by applying the same rate (Rs 4500 per square yard). It is, in our opinion, neither permissible and nor proper to rely solely upon the rates of small plots and then determine the compensation for a large chunk of acquired land as in this case.
We have applied our mind keeping in view all the relevant factors coupled with the law laid down by this Court. Taking into consideration all the relevant factors emerging from the evidence and the findings of the courts below on the issues such as the location of the acquired land, its surroundings, nature, potentiality, rates of small plots, the purpose of acquisition, development cost needed, non-availability of the sale deeds for large areas sold in acres, etc., we are of the considered opinion that just, fair and proper market value of the acquired land in question on the date of issuance of Section 4 notification is determined at Rs 45,00,000 (forty-five lakhs) per acre in place of Rs 33,00,000 (thirty-three lakhs) per acre for the lands described in detail in Column 2 of the award of the Collector dated 19-8-2010 (Annexure P-3) at p. 32 of the SLP paper book of CA No. 2846 of 2017 and Rs 35,00,000 (thirty-five lakhs) per acre in place of Rs 24,75,000 (twenty-four lakhs seventy-five thousand) per acre for lands described in detail in Column 1 of the said award. . . . . ."
Learned counsel further relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Pran Sukh & Ors., reported in (2010) 11 SCC 175, relevant portion of which reads as under:
"22. In our view, the learned Single Judge did not commit any error by relying upon sale transaction, Ext. P-1 for the purpose of fixing market value of the acquired land. Undisputedly, that sale transaction was between two corporate entities and the entire sale price was paid through bank drafts. It is also not in dispute that the land which was subject-matter of Ext. P-1 is situated at Village Naharpur Kasan and is adjacent to the acquired land. The Corporation and the State Government did not adduce any evidence to prove that the land sold vide Ext. P-1 was overvalued with an oblique motive of helping the landowners to claim higher compensation. Therefore, we do not find any justification to discard or ignore sale deed, Ext. P-1. The refusal of the learned Single Judge to rely upon other sale transactions in which sale price of the land was shown as Rs. 7 lakhs per acre also does not suffer from any legal infirmity because it is well known that transactions involving transfer of properties are usually undervalued with a view to avoid payment of the requisite stamp duty and registration charges.
However, we agree with the learned counsel for the landowners that the High Court should not have imposed cut of 1/4th in one batch of appeals and 20% cut in the other batch of appeals qua the average sale price reflected by Ext. P-1 only on the ground that the area of the land acquired by the State Government was too large as compared to 12 acres of land for which sale deed, Ext. P-1 was executed.
In a matter like the present one, it cannot be ignored that the land was acquired for setting up an industrial model township at Manesar and after developing the land, the Corporation was bound to sell the plots at a much higher price to the existing or prospective industrial entrepreneurs. In this scenario, the learned Single Judges committed an error by applying 1/4th or 20% cut on market value determined for the purpose of payment of compensation to the landowners.
For the reasons stated above, the appeals filed by the Corporation are dismissed and those filed by the landowners are allowed with the direction that the Corporation shall pay market value of the entire acquired land at the rate of Rs. 20 lakhs per acre with all statutory benefits.
Civil Appeals Nos. 6553, 6757, 6831 and 6853 of 2009 as also the civil appeals arising out of SLPs (C) Nos. 16283-84 of 2010 are allowed. The orders passed by the High Court refusing to condone the delay in filing of the first appeals by the appellants under Section 54 of the Act are condoned and the appeals are disposed of on merits by directing that the appellants shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 20 lakhs per acre with other statutory benefits."
Learned counsel for the State however, submitted that enhanced amount payable under the reference, is not liable to be paid as the land acquisition officer had properly computed the compensation.
Learned counsel further submitted the proof, which was adduced before the land acquisition officer, was tampered with by the claimants at the time of reference and they have tried to misuse the process by seeking escalation.
Learned counsel also submitted that the land in question is a declared agricultural land, and thus, until there was a proper lawful conversion, the demand, as raised by the claimants to treat it as a commercial or at a higher rate, could not be accepted.
Learned counsel further submitted that the learned court below has partly allowed issues No.2 and 3 in the case of appellant-Mohanlal, and issues No.1, 2 and 3 in the case of appellant-Pushpa Kothari.
Learned counsel also submitted that the learned court below has computed the solatium and other payments also.
Learned counsel however submitted that the connected case of the similar land in the same acquisition has been decided by this Hon'ble Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Amir Mohammed (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1084/2001 decided on 24.08.2017), which reads as under:
"Learned counsel for the appellant-State submits that the issue raised in the present appeals is squarely covered by judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Rajasthan Vidhya Peeth, Udaipur : S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.792/1999, decided on 28.10.2014 and State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Asha & Anr. : S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.319/2000, decided on 28.10.2014 pertaining to the same acquisition.
In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant-State, the appeal are dismissed in light of judgment in the case of Rajasthan Vidhya Peeth, Udaipur (supra) and Smt. Asha (supra)."
After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case alongwith the precedent law cited at the Bar, this Court finds that the references in the case of appellants-Mohanlal and Pushpa Kothari have been correctly answered by the learned court below. The compensation for the trees and the existing construction has also been granted.
This Court also observes that number of appeals, including the aforequoted Amir Mohammed (supra) preferred in relation to the similar land and in the same acquisition, have been dismissed by this Hon'ble Court, while deciding the respective case.
This Court also finds that the detailed consideration made by the Reference Court does not call for any interference either for reduction in the compensation so enhanced, or for further enhancing the compensation already awarded. Further, the detailed adjudications in the reference includes each and every tree, construction and the cause of escalated versions of the land in question, which are perfectly in accordance with law.
This Court further finds that in the present facts, the judgments cited above do not apply, as a standard procedure has been adopted by the learned court below, and out of the number of claimants, many of the issues at the same rates and in the same parameters stand settled. Unsettling the settled proposition even at the level of the Hon'ble High Court shall not be in the interest of justice.
This Court also finds that the question of fact, nature of evidence, circumstances and probabilities, all indicate that the references have been correctly answered by the learned court below. Hence, no case for interference is made out in the present appeals.
Consequently, the appeals preferred by the claimants as well as the State are simultaneously dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.