AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard.
The present appeal has been filed against the judgment/award dated 27/10/2018 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Fourth Additional District Judge, Raipur in Land Acquisition Case No.30/2012.
Brief facts of the case are that an award was passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1894) in an acquisition proceeding bearing Land Acquisition Case No.32-A/82 Year 2005-2006, whereby at village Tulsi the lands were acquired and an award was passed on 19/03/2007. The appellant being aggrieved by such grant of award made an application under Section 18 of Act, 1894 for reference. The reference was received by the Court of District Judge, which was registered as Land Acquisition Case No.30/2012 and was decided on 27/10/2018. The appellant having not satisfied with the finding has filed this appeal.
For construction of Jora-Saddu-Dhaneli Road (Bypass No.3), the Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Division No.1, Raipur by letter dated 04/07/2006 gave a proposal for acquisition of land situated at village Tulsi, P.H. No.111, R.I. Circle Raipur, Tehsil Raipur for total area of 13.951 hectare. The proposal having been received, emergency provision was invoked under Section 17 and land acquisition proceedings were commenced. The notification under Section 4 (1) and 17 (1) of the Act, 1894 was published on 16/11/2006 which was published in two daily newspapers and further Gazette notification was published on 10/11/2006. Despite the notification, no objection was received from the land owners. Eventually the notification under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 was issued on 28/11/2006. The said notification too was published in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality on 07/01/2007 & 12/01/2007 and notification for acquisition was eventually published on 12/01/2007.
In order to evaluate the cost of the land, the necessary information was received from the Patwari and as per Section 23 of the Act, 1894 on the date of publication of notice under Section 4 (1) of the Act, 1894, the valuation of the land was arrived at. As per the State, on the basis of the guidelines of 2006-07 which was existing with the Sub-Registrar, Raipur, per hectare land was valued at Rs.10,00,000/- and for entire land of 13.951 hectare the compensation amount was worked out to Rs.1,39,51,000/- and apart from that from the date of award till compensation is granted, the period was worked out to be four months and Rs.5,58,040/- was awarded. Further as per Section 23 (2) of Act, 1894 30% of the additional amount of the market value for compulsory acquisition was awarded. Further, the interest was awarded @ 9% of Rs.1,04,633/- thereby total compensation amount of Rs.1,87,98,973/-was computed.
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that while computing the compensation amount, the State ignored its own valuation in respect of land bearing Khasra No.1292 which was adjacent to the land of which the value was worked out to Rs.60 Lakhs per acre. It is stated ignoring the same, less compensation amount is awarded. He would further submit that the documents Ex. P/3, P/4 & P/5 would show that the land of one Rajrishi Bhatia was also acquired and while giving the land in exchange of Khasra No.1292 valuation of such land was computed which would also be applicable to the case of the appellant since it was an adjacent land. He would further submit that there cannot be a different scale to grant compensation and accordingly equal yardstick should be applicable for computing the amount of compensation. He placed his reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v M/s Nemichand Damodardas and Anr. (Civil Appeal No.3478 of 2022) and would submit that under the circumstances, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the order of the reference Court is required to be modified to the above extent.
Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the appellant has placed reliance on certain order-sheets of a different land revenue case and there is no basis under what circumstances it was observed that the value of land bearing Khasra No.1292 at Rs. 60 Lakhs per acre. She would further submit that in absence of any documentary evidence, the value cannot be fixed on surmises and the value which has been computed by the State is on the basis of average sale and purchase of last three years would be more relevant instead of arriving at an inflated cost of the land. She would further submit that the appellant also failed to place on record the respective sale deed and specifically failed to prove the map i.e. situation of the land as to under what circumstances it should have been valued at a higher rate. Therefore, the judgment passed by the learned referral Court is well merited which do not call for any interference.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. With respect to the acquisition proceeding, the facts are not in dispute. Three lands of the appellant were acquired and the compensation was valued which is more particularly described as under:-
Khasra No. 1296 area 0.251 Hectare:-
Sr.
No.
Amount paid
Amount
01
Rate of compensation amount per hectare under Section 23
Rs. 10]00]000@&
02
Compensation in respect of the land of the applicant area 0.251 hectare on account of computing in sq. meter.
Rs. 2]51]000@&
03
Interest @ 12%p.a. for four months in terms of Section 23 (1-A)
Rs. 10]040@&
04
Solatium amount at the rate of 30% of the compensation amount under Section 23 (2)
Rs.75]300@&
05
Interest @ 9% p.a. for one month from the date of advance possession till passing of award in terms of Section 34
Rs.1]882@&
06
Total compensation amount
Rs.3]38]222@&
Khasra No. 1298 area 0.105 Hectare:-
Sr.
No.
Amount paid
Amount
01
Rate of compensation amount per hectare under Section 23
Rs. 10]00]000@&
02
Compensation in respect of the land of the applicant area 0.105 hectare on account of computing in sq. meter.
Rs. 1]05]000@&
03
Interest @ 12%p.a. for four months in terms of Section 23 (1-A)
Rs. 4]200@&
04
Solatium amount at the rate of 30% of the compensation amount under Section 23 (2)
Rs. 31]500@&
05
Interest @ 9% p.a. for one month from the date of advance possession till passing of award in terms of Section 34
Rs. 787@&
06
Total compensation amount
Rs. 1]41]487@&
Khasra No. 1294 area 0.061 Hectare:-
Sr.
No.
Amount paid
Amount
01
Rate of compensation amount per hectare under Section 23
Rs. 10]00]000@&
02
Compensation in respect of the land of the applicant area 0.061 hectare on account of computing in sq. meter.
Rs. 61]000@&
03
Interest @ 12%p.a. for four months in terms of Section 23 (1-A)
Rs. 2440@&
04
Solatium amount at the rate of 30% of the compensation amount under Section 23 (2)
Rs. 18]300@&
05
Interest @ 9% p.a. for one month from the date of advance possession till passing of award in terms of Section 34
Rs. 458@&
06
Total compensation amount
Rs. 82]198@&
For three lands, the total compensation of Rs.5,61,907.00 was awarded which the appellant has received.
The statement of the witnesses only shows that the acquired land was situated at village Tulsi and according to the award the valuation of the land as per market value was computed to Rs.10,00,000/- per hectare. The perusal of the award would show that the value of the land was arrived at on the basis of the guidelines which was primarily based on three years average purchase and sale in respect of the area. Though the appellant has referred to the other adjacent lands which are sold for 14-15 lakhs but except the oral bald statement no documentary evidence or copy of the sale deed was produced before the Court. Therefore, apart from oral statements, when the documentary evidence was available it could have been produced. Having not produced the same, adverse inference would be required to be drawn as against such oral statement by the appellant.
Another contention of the appellant is that a land of Rajrishi Bhatia bearing Khasra No.1328 was acquired and instead of compensation he claimed for exchange of land and in exchange he was given a land bearing Khasra No.1292'. The reference is made to the revenue proceedings of such exchange of land by the revenue authority, wherein on the basis of the certain memo, during adjudication process the land bearing Khasra No.1292 which was demanded in exchange was said to be of Rs.60 Lakhs. No documentary or any admissible plausible evidence is on record to substantiate the same. It further records that according to the guidelines of 2008 & 2009 when the subject land situates inside the road, the value would be Rs.15 Lakhs per hectare. So these are contradictory facts are on record. There is nothing on record to appreciate the fact on what basis such land bearing Khasra No.1292 was said to be of value of Rs.60 Lakhs per hectare. The final adjudication finding of such revenue case would show that finally it was not accepted that price of land would be 60 Lakhs.
The revenue map Ex.P/11 is produced. From perusal of the same the doubt is not clear about the situation of subject land. According to appellant Khasra No.1292 was granted to the said Rajrishi Bhatia. It will also be important to note that Khasra No.1325, 1326, 1328 & 1329 total admeasuring 0.0905 Hectare which was of Rajrishi Bhatia was allowed to be exchanged. From the perusal of the revenue map it is also not clear that where those lands are situated, therefore, it would be completely a guess work to draw the presumption that those lands were adjacent to the land of the appellant which was acquired by the respondent/State. In order to arrive at a price of the land when in a revenue proceeding when it is claimed on the basis of enquiry proceeding the value of adjacent land was of Rs.60 Lakhs per hectare, whereas in the guidelines it is stated that Rs.15 Lakhs per hectare, the same cannot be a determining factor. Further more while final exchange of land for Rajrishi Bhatia was ordered, therein the value of the land in the land acquisition proceeding is much less. The appellant only tried to claim a higher compensation on the basis of same contemplated price projected in an exchange of land proceedings. Therefore, the submission of the appellant that the land bearing Khasra No.1292 to which the land of the appellant was adjacent was valued at Rs.60 Lakhs per hectare are also be equally made applicable to the land of the appellant is misconceived.
The perusal of Ex. P/5 wherein in the concluding part of exchange of land proceeding, the cost of the land of even Rajrishi Bhatia was valued at Rs.13,57,500/-. The exchange of land was allowed and part of Khasra No.1292 of 0.827 Hectare as per the Rehabilitation Policy, 2007 was given at valuation stated above. Therefore, the submission of the appellant that the land bearing Khasra No.1292 was valued at Rs.60 Lakhs per hectare is negated by the own document filed by the appellant and no benefit can be extended to the appellant.
In view of such discussion, we are of the view that no interference is called for in the order dated 27/10/2018 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Reference Court.
In view of this, the appeal is dismissed. A decree be drawn accordingly.