Mohd. Mustak vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer, & Ors.

] This appeal is preferred by the original claimant, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 09.01.2006 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.111 of 2002 by the 4th Adhoc Additional   District   Judge,   Amravati,   as   his   claim   for enhanced amount of compensation towards construction of the well, filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be rejected.

] Facts of the appeal can be stated as follows: The   respondent   has   acquired   the   land admeasuring   0.44   R.   out   of   Gat   1630,   situated   at   village Shirala, Tq. and District­Amravati for the purpose of Amravati to Narkhed railway line. Vide Award dated 06.01.2001, the Land   Acquisition   Officer   granted   the   compensation   of Rs.69,000/­ per hectare. Though the well constructed by the appellant   was   situated   in   the   acquired   land,   no   separate compensation was granted for the said well. Hence, being dissatisfied   with   the   Award,   appellant   approached   the Reference Court, contending inter­alia that he has constructed the said well, which was 14 feet in diameter and 50 feet in depth. It was constructed in bricks and mortar, by obtaining loan of Rs.7,200/­ from Dena Bank. The market value of the said well was Rs.1,50,000/­. However in the Reference before the trial Court, he claimed the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/­ towards the said well.

] This   reference   came   to   be   resisted   by   the respondents herein denying the very existence of the well in the land acquired by the respondents and hence, there was no question of giving any compensation for the said well.

] In   support   of   his   case,   the   appellant   examined himself   at   Exh.20   and   also   examined   the   Architect   and Engineer Rameshchandra J. Karwa at Exh.27 to prove the valuation of the well. Further he also produced on record various documentary evidence.

] On   appreciation   of   the   evidence   led   by   the appellant, Reference Court was pleased to hold that the well was very much in existence in field Gat No. 1630 belonging to the appellant. However, the appellant has not produced on record any evidence to show that the said well was a part and parcel of the acquired land. The report of Joint measurement taken   by   the   Land   Acquisition   Officer   was   not   produced before   the   Reference   Court   and   whatever   evidence   was produced before the Reference Court was, though proving the existence and construction of well, as it was not proved that the well was part and parcel of the acquired land, the learned Reference Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant.

] This   judgment   of   the   Reference   Court   is challenged   in   this   appeal   by   learned   Advocate   for   the appellant by submitting that more than sufficient evidence was   produced   on   record   to   show   that   the   well   was constructed and it was very much in existence. In addition to that,   positive   assertion   was   made   by   the   appellant   in   his evidence   before   the   Court   that   the   well   was   in   the   land acquired by the respondents. It is submitted that the appellant may have failed to produce the report of Joint measurement in   the   Reference   Court,   however,   in   this   appeal,   it   is submitted that the report of joint measurement is filed on record which clearly reveals that the well was in existence in the area admeasuring 0.44 hectare which was acquired from the land bearing Gat No. 1630 belonging to appellant. Hence, it   is   urged   that   if   this   piece   of   evidence   is   taken   into consideration   in   the   appeal,   then   the   appellant   becomes entitled for  compensation towards the value of the well.

] However,   as   rightly   submitted   by   AGP,   the original report of Joint measurement is not produced but only copy of some portion of the Report is produced. Hence, this report   cannot   be   taken   into   consideration   for  proving   the existence of the well in the acquired land. In view thereof, the finding   arrived   at   by   the   Reference   Court   on   this   aspect cannot be disturbed. As a matter of fact, this was only the issue raised for consideration before the Reference Court and before   this   Court   also.   Hence,   the   appeal   needs   to   be dismissed.

] However, at this stage, learned Advocate for the appellant has advanced the submission that the Award under which the land of the appellant was acquired by the Land Acquisition   Officer,   under  the   same   Award   lands   of   some other occupants of the said village were also acquired. The name of one of the occupants whose land was acquired under the same Award is Dinesh Panjabrao Patil. His name is also appearing in the Award. The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded him in the compensation at the rate of Rs.69,000/­ per hectare. It was the same rate which was awarded to the appellant also by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is submitted that Dinesh Panjabrao Patil has filed Reference before the Court for enhancement of the amount of compensation and by the judgment and Award dated 09.01.2006, the Reference Court has enhanced the amount of compensation for his land to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/­ per hectare. The respondents herein had challenged the said judgment and award of the Reference Court by filing First Appeal No. 785 of 2008 before this Court and in that appeal, by the judgment and order dated   5.9.2012,   this   Court   has   confirmed   the   said compensation amount and dismissed the appeal preferred by the respondents. It is, therefore, submitted that appellant also becomes entitled to get the same amount of compensation, as his land is situated in the same village and is acquired under the same Award.

]  To substantiate this submission, learned Advocate for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of Hon''ble Apex   Court   in   the   case   of  Ambya   Kalya   Mhatre (dead)through LRs. And other Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2012(1) Mh.L.J. 9 and Ajay Pal and others Vs. State of Haryana and another  reported in  2014(9) Scale 449. It is urged that even in the absence of any reference or amendment   made   in   the   Reference   petition   claiming enhancement   of   amount   of   compensation,   this   court   can award   such   enhanced   amount   of   compensation,   if   it   is awarded to other claimants whose lands were acquired from the same village and under the same award.

] According   to   Learned   counsel   for   respondent No.3, the appellant has, in Reference petition, not claimed any enhanced amount of compensation on the count that the Land Acquisition Officer has not valued his property.  Hence, this   Court   should   not   grant   such   enhanced   amount   of compensation, in the absence of any evidence or pleadings to that effect.

]  Therefore,   the   necessary   question   raised   for consideration in the appeal is whether in the absence of any pleading or amendment being carried out in the petition and in   the   absence   of   any   evidence,   enhanced   amount   of compensation at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/­ per hectare can be awarded   to   the   appellant   as   the   similar   amount   of compensation   was   awarded   to   the   claimants   whose   lands were acquired under the same Award?

] Hon''ble Supreme Court in the above said decision of Ambya Kalya Mhatre (supra) being faced with the similar issue was pleased to hold as follows:­ "16......   A   landowner,   particularly   a   rural agriculturist, when he loses the land may not know the exact value of his land as on the date of the notification under section 4(1) of the Act. When he seeks   reference   he   may   be   dissatisfied   with   the quantum of compensation but may not really know the actual market value. Many a time there may not be comparable sales, and even the Courts face difficulty in assessing the compensation. There is no reason why a landowner who has lost his land, should not get the real market value of the land and should be restricted by technicalities to some provisional amount he had indicated while seeking the reference. As noticed above, the Act does not require him to specify the quantum and all that he is required to say is that he is not satisfied with the compensation   awarded   and   specify   generally   the grounds   of   objection   to   the   award.   Under   the scheme of the Act, it is for the Court to determine the market value. The compensation depends upon the market value established by evidence and does not depend upon what the landowner thinks is the value of his land. If he has an exaggerated notion of the value of the land, he is not going to get such amount,   but   is   going   to   get   the   actual   market value.   Similarly   if   the   landowner   is   under   an erroneous low opinion about the market value of his land and out of ignorance claims lesser amount, that   can   not   be   held   against   him   to   award   an amount   which   is   lesser   than   the   market   value. When the Act does not require the land owner to specify   the   amount   of   compensation,   but   he voluntarily   mentions   some   amounts,   and subsequently, if the market value is found to be more   than   what   was   claimed,   the   landowner should get the actual market value. We fail to see why the landowner should get an amount less than the market value, as compensation. Consequently, it follows that if the landowner seeks amendment of his claim, he should be permitted to amend the claim as and when he comes to know about the true market value. When the Act is silent in regard to these matters, to impose any condition to the detriment of an innocent and ignorant landowner who has lost his land, would be wholly unjust".

] In para No.17 of its judgment Hon''ble Supreme Court   was   further   pleased   to   observe   that   the   Collector making   the   offer   of   compensation   on   behalf   of   state   is expected to be fair and reasonable. He is required to offer compensation   based   on   the   market   value.   Unfortunately, Collectors invariably offer an amount far less than the real market value, by erring on the safer side, thereby driving the landowner first to seek a reference and prove the market value before the reference Court and then approach the High Court and many a time the Apex Court, if he does not get adequate compensation. It was therefore  held that, "it would be adding insult to injury, if the landowner   should be tied down   to   a   lesser   value   claimed   by   him   in   the   reference application,   even   though   he   was   not   required   by   law   to mention   the   amount   of   compensation   when   seeking reference. The Act contemplates the landowner getting the market value as compensation and no technicalities should come in the way of the landowner getting such market value as compensation".

] In   para­18,   the   Hon''ble   Supreme   Court   was further pleased to hold that "from the fact that the landowner had   sought   increase   only   in   regard   to   the   land   in   the application for reference, will not come in the way of the landowner   seeking   increase   even   in   regard   to   trees   or structures, before the Reference Court".

] The legal position as cristalysed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the authority is thus to the effect that the landowner   should   get   actual   market   value   of   the   land acquired  and  no  technicalities  should  come  in  his  way  in getting the actual market value.

] In subsequent decision of  Imrat Lal and others Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and others, 2014(9) Scale 446, it was further held that, even if the landowners may not have been able to seek intervention of this Court for grant of enhanced   compensation   due   to   illiteracy,   poverty   and ignorance,   they   should   not   be   deprived   of   the   benefit   of enhanced   compensation   which   is   awarded   to   other landowners from the same village whose lands are acquired under the same Award. Accordingly, the Hon''ble Supreme Court was pleased to issue direction that those who have not filed  special leave  petition  should  also  be  given  enhanced compensation.

] Thus, it may be seen that trend of the decisions of the   Hon''ble   Supreme   Court  is   to   extend   benefits   of   the provisions of this beneficial piece of legislation to those land owners also who have not approached the Court, so that they are not deprived of correct market value.

]  In such situation whether the appellant has in this case claimed such amount of compensation in respect of the correct   valuation   of   land   or   not,   it   does   not   make   any difference.  Here, in the case the fact remains that appellant was not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded to him and hence, he has filed reference. His grievance was that he had not got the correct and true market value of his land. He might have sought the enhanced compensation on the count that there was well in existence in the acquired land. Assuming that he has failed to prove so, the fact remains that he was not satisfied with the amount of compensation granted to him, as it was not the true and correct market value of the acquired land and if it is so, then it becomes the duty of this court to ensure that he gets such true and correct market value of the land.

]  What can be the true and correct market value of the acquired land of appellant is now set at rest, in view of the decision of Reference Court in respect of the reference made by other land owners whose lands were acquired for the same purpose and under the same Award. In those references, the true and correct market value of the acquired land was considered and it was enhanced to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/­ per hectare. When the respondent No.3 has challenged the said valuation by preferring various appeals, those appeals came be dismissed. A copy of the said judgment in F.A. No. 785 of 2008, which was filed by respondent No.3 against the landowner Dinesh Panjabrao Patil is produced on record. It shows   that   Dinesh   Panjabrao   Patil   was   awarded   the compensation at the rate of Rs.69,000/­ by the LAO. It was increased to Rs.1,00,000/­ per hectare by the reference Court and said order was confirmed by this Court in its judgment dated 05.09.2012.

]  It   is   pertinent   to   note   that   the   compensation awarded to the present appellant by the LAO is at the rate of Rs.69,000/­   per   hectare.   Now   if   the   enhanced   amount   of compensation   at   the   rate   of   Rs.1,00,000/­   per   hectare awarded to the land of Dinesh Patil, by Reference Court is held by this Court as true and correct value of the acquired land, it follows that the appellant should also get the same amount   of   compensation   at   the   rate   of   Rs.1,00,000/­   per hectare, it being true and correct market value. To this limited extent, the appeal needs to be allowed.

] Accordingly   the   appeal   is   allowed.   The compensation amount awarded to the appellant by the LAO is enhanced from Rs.69,000/­ per hectare to Rs.1,00,000/­ per hectare, along with all the statutory benefits and interest over the enhanced amount.