Mangal Ram and Others vs State of U.P.

R.K. Mahajan, J.—This order in the above appeal will dispose of all the bunch matters, i.e., First Appeal Nos. 854/92, 869/89, 832/88, 617/86, 80/88, 81 /88. 110/87, 546/93, 373/94, 489/86, 622/93, 545/93, 369/94, 370/94, 372/94, 374/94, 378/94, 478/89, 359/87, 833/88. 901/88, 872/93 and 874/93, as they arise out of same notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and a common question of fact and law is involved. The award is also the same.

The land of different land-owners were acquired which were disposed of by a common award dated 15.3.1982. Big chunk of land runs into 267 bighas 7 biswas 5 biswansis in village Chhipayana Buzurg, District Ghaziabad, was acquired for the purpose of construction of the Car shed of the electric multiple unit of the Indian Railways. The notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act was made on 7.3.1981 and the possession was taken u/s 17 of the Act on 16.4.1981. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has given the award at the rate of Rs. 24,000 per bigha i.e., Rs. 8 per sq. yard of the good quality of land, for the second quality of land, Rs. 15,500 per bigha i.e., Rs. 5 per sq. yard.

Sri Usha Kant Verma, learned District Judge, Ghaziabad on 15.2.1986 has awarded Rs. 12 per sq. yard under various references, being 58 in number, of both the categories of land against the demand of Rs. 19 per sq. yard by the claimants.

Sri Murlidhar, learned counsel for the claimants-Appellants has raised argument against this rate. It may be pointed out that before actual proceedings to decide the references regarding the location of land, which is not controverted during the course of arguments nor in the award. The land is situated in the vicinity of G.T. Road. The M. M. H. College, the Ghaziabad, Railway Station and the Amrit Banaspati Mills are situated within the radius of 1/12 to 2 miles. It is also noticed that Delhi Is at a distance of only 15-20 Kms, as mentioned in the award. It has also come in the award that the land quality was of irrigated nature. It is situated near industrial area of Ghaziabad. The fact remains and there is no denial that the land has a potentiality of being developed for industrial purpose and used for other purposes of special value i.e., construction of railway shed for which it is acquired. These facts are undisputed and while determining the price, they will be taken into consideration.

The learned counsel for the claimant-Appellants has attacked the judgment of the District Judge and has submitted that rate of Rs. 19 per sq. yard should have been fixed after taking into consideration the potentiality of the land. The learned counsel for the claimant-Appellants has also submitted that the exemplars had not been taken into consideration correctly. He has taken me through the three sale-deeds of plots No. 77, 78 and 100. These sale-deeds have been discussed by the District Judge. The first sale-deed dated 19.5.1978 is in respect of 1008 sq. yards of plot No. 77 for Rs. 19,000 giving a rate of Rs. 18.8. per sq. yards. The second sale-deed dated 23.7.1978 registered on 31 8.1978 1 bigha, 2/3 biswansis of plot No. 78 for Rs. 70,600 giving a rate of little over Rs. 15 per sq. yards. The third sale-deed is dated 14.4.1980 in respect of 280 sq. yards of plot No. 100 for Rs. 4,200 giving a rate of Rs. 15.5. per sq. yard. The learned District Judge has also relied upon the sale-deed dated 11.3.1981 in respect of 6 biswas 13 1/3 biswansis of Khasra plot Mo. 105 giving a rate of approximately Rs. 15 per sq. yard but the Special Land Acquisition Officer had rejected this as it was four days later than that the notification dated 7.3.1981. The learned District Judge did not agree with the approach of the Special Land Acquisition Officer.

Sri Murlidhar''s submission Is that the three sale-deeds relied upon the District Judge cannot be made the basis for determination of compensation under the notification dated 7.3.1981 unless a fair margin at the time was made for the necessary escalation between the date of sale-deeds referred and the date of notification. It is further submitted that there was a trend in the rise of prices and the District Judge should have given atleast 10% escalation per year over the market rate on 7.3.1981, the date of notification for exemplar (i) with a rate of 18.8 per sq. yard would come to over Rs. 24 per sq. yard; of exemplar (ii) with a rate of Rs. 15 per sq. yard would come to over Rs. 19 per sq. yard and exemplar (iii)with a rate of Rs. 15.5. per sq. yard to Rs. 16.74 per sq. yard. The argument proceeded that if the average of the three sale-deeds is taken, the claimants will get approximately Rs. 20 per sq. yard and after deducting 20%, as allowed by the District Judge, the claimants would still get Rs. 16 per sq. yard. So this price should have been awarded. It is further submitted that the people generally avoid the paying of stamp duty and they accept the money outside the Sub-Registrar''s Office. So, in brief, his argument is that there is escalation in the rise of prices and the exemplar of every sale mentioned above should have been calculated to Judge the fair-price after giving margin in the area of land in escalation. He only prays for increase of Rs. 3 per sq. yard.

The learned counsel for the State has opposed this submission and submitted that the price determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was correct. While determining the price, the following criteria are to be taken into consideration:

(1) Opinion of expert;

(2) the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the land acquired and possessing similar advantages; and

(3) a number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the land acquired. (See The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Vs. T. Adinarayan Setty, . In this case, the second method is followed.

Besides this, this Court by its practical experience and taking into consideration the realities of life and the purpose for which the land had been acquired and the thrust of Delhi towards Ghaziabad. the Court in exceptional and genuine cases, has a right to determine the fair price. The concept of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act is that it should not be a lottery to the owners whose land had been acquired nor it should be the robbery on the part of the State. Indian farmers generally do not want to part with the land. It is a permanent security just like gold. The Legislature under the theory of public purpose and for the benefit of the society, makes the acquisition of land. It is often seen that the person, whose land had been acquired, may not be able to get ''he similar piece of land. The society has to make sacrifice as the individual has made to give a fair price. Judicial notice can be taken that there is trend in rising prices. The District Judge compared the sale-deed of 1978 till the date of notification, the price must have gone at. galloping speed. The award was made in 1982 just after one year of the notification.

The Legislature has made provisions under the amended Act No. 68 of 1984 to be construed liberally but those provisions cannot be applied into to as the date of award is 15.3.1982. There are liberal beneficial principles which have now been incorporated in the new Act which came into force on 24th September, 1984, enunciated in some judgments earlier. It is to be mentioned that even if the award has been passed before coming the enforcement of the Act by the Collector, the amount is enhanced, which had been enhanced by this Court, benefit can be given enhanced amount of 30% solatium on compensation and 9% and 15 on enhanced amount as per provision of Section 28 of Land Acquisition Act, (see S.J. College Trust and Managing Society v. State of Haryana 1995 (3) SC 74). It is now settled law that even the subsequent sales just after the notification, if they are genuine, can be taken into consideration to see the trend in rising of prices and the subsequent sale shows that there was a trend in rising of prices.

During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the Respondents has not disputed or challenged the bona fide transfer of transactions on which either the Land Acquisition Officer or the District Judge has relied. The transactions are of a neighbourhood and enjoying the same potentiality. In this case, the question of development just like civic amenities, is not involved. The land is acquired for the purpose of car shed and it cannot be compared to that extent. The averaging method, which Sri Murlidhar, learned counsel for the claimant-Appellants has suggested and has relied upon, is not always safe guide if the land involved are of different areas and different size location, etc. In this case the area of exemplars are also not vary, much area and this aspect too also is to be taken into consideration.

The State counsel has argued that the market value could not be determined in per square yard as the land is being acquired in acres of different landlords. I am aware of the proposition of law that the exemplars of the land acquired in feet or square yard or of smaller plot, cannot be compared with a big chunk of area and the price cannot be fixed in square yard or in feet. In this case, the exemplars which have been cited, involved in bighas and square yards. One exemplar i.e., the sale-deed dated 19.5.1978 in respect of 1008 square yards of land of Khasra plot No. 77, the land was sold for Rs. 19,000. The land, acquired is of different land-owners and is not of a single owner. It is true that no willing purchaser would acquire such piece of land. It is also true that no willing seller will sell the land at low price when the area is well developed and has potentiality of industrial area and situated near Delhi and Ghaziabad. It cannot be said that the area has no potential value for Industrial and ahadi purposes. So in these circumstances if the market price is fixed by way of conversion into bigha instead of square yard even then the Appellants are entitled to reasonable margin which has been calculated as 1 bigha is equal to 3025 square yards than what had been calculated by the District Judge.

I am of the view that the District Judge should have given a reasonable compensation taking Into consideration the trend in rising of the prices and escalation in determining fair price and the potentiality of land and then the price should have been fixed. After taking these facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the reasonable market value after reading the evidence on record, which cannot be brushed aside, cannot be less than Rs. 15 per sq. yard and the District Judge has committed error in awarding twelve per square yard. I modify the impugned order of the District Judge to the extent that:

(i) each of the claimants is entitled to the price of his land or share of land calculated at the rate of Rs. 15 per sq. yard;

(ii) each of the claimants are entitled to get interest at the rate of 9% per annum by virtue of Act No. 68 of 1984 for one year on enhanced rate from the date of taking possession and thereafter Rs. 15% per annum from the date of deposit;

(iii) none of the Appellants-claimants is entitled to get the benefit of Section 23(1)(a) of the Land Acquisition Act since the Act is perspective:

(iv) each of the claimants is entitled to get solatium at the rate of Rs. 30 on the market value of the land calculated at the rate of Rs. 15 per sq. yard.

In the result First Appeal No. 79 of 1988, and all the bunch matters, i.e., First Appeal Nos. 854/92, 869/89, 832/88, 617/86, 80/88, 81/88. 110/87, 546/93,373/94. 489/86, 622/93, 545/93, 369/94, 370/94, 372/94, 374/94, 378/94, 478/89, 359/87. 833/88, 901/88, 872/93 and 874/93 are partly allowed and are disposed of accordingly.