State Of Chhattisgarh vs Daljeet Singh Pahuja

Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J

This Appeal has been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Act of 1894’) against the order dated 23.12.2016 passed by the District Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha) in M.J.C (C) No.06/2016 whereby, the reference preferred under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 for enhancement of the amount of compensation has been allowed.

It is admitted facts that in Case No.1A-82/2010-11 of village Kawardha, the lands of total 44 agriculturists of total 44 khasras admeasuring 6.148 hectares were acquired and against the said land, total compensation to the tune of Rs.2,22,55,034/- was determined and paid to them. Similarly, in Case No.2A-82/2010-11 of village Chhirha, the lands of total 40 agriculturists of total 42 khasras admeasuring 2.434 hectares were acquired and against the said land, total compensation of Rs.54,12,489/- was determined and paid to them. Likewise, in Case No.3A/82/2010-11 of village Ghotiya, the land of only 1 agriculturist of Khasra No.01 admeasuring 0.047 hectares was acquired and against the said land, total compensation to the tune of Rs.77,682/- was determined and paid to them.

It is also admitted that Respondents No.4 to 8 had not disputed and challenged the quantum of compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer during the proceedings, therefore, in paragraph-17 of the impugned award, it was observed that for them, no further consideration is required and accordingly, the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer attains finality in respect of these claimants.

Brief facts of the case are that for the purpose of construction of by-pass road from Rajnandgaon road to Raipur road, the private lands of the agriculturists of villages Chhirha, Kawardha and Gothiya were required therefore, three separate land acquisition proceedings, by registering the cases for respective lands, were initiated by the Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Kawardha on the request of the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Kawardha and after following due process of law, three separate awards have been passed on 31.12.2011 in Revenue Case Nos.2 A-82/22010-11, 1 A-82/2010-11 and 3 A-82/2010-11.

Aggrieved by the said award, applications/objections were made by the claimants/villagers of Kawardha and Chhirha and a reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 was made to the District Judge, Kabirdham on 10.02.2012. The said reference was dismissed by the Collector vide its order dated 10.07.2012 holding that the Petitioners have obtained compensation without protest and therefore, the application cannot be referred to the competent Court for enhancement of compensation. The said order was challenged in Civil Revision No.86/2014 by the Respondents in which, the Revision was allowed vide order dated 14.07.2016 by holding that making reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 would itself show that the Petitioners have obtained compensation under protest and therefore, by the said order, the Collector, Kabirdham was directed to make a reference to the competent Court within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of that order. Thereafter, the Collector, Kabirdham had made reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 dated 16.08.2016 before the District Judge. The Claimants/Respondents have contested the claim on the ground that compensation determined is meager and contrary to the prevailing guidelines issued for the year 2010-11.

The Appellants/State have duly contested the claim while denying the grounds raised by the Respondents. After hearing the parties, by the impugned award, the learned reference Court has enhanced the amount awarded and directed for additional amount of compensation with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of possession over the acquired land till payment deposited in the Court. Hence this Appeal was made.

Learned Dy. A.G Smt Siddiqui submits that the impugned award is absolutely perverse, unjust and illegal and the Respondents are not entitled for additional amount of compensation as per the guidelines issued for the year 2010-11 with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of possession over the acquired land till the date of deposition of such amount in the Court. She further submits that the award has been passed without there being any documentary evidence and material on record with regard to the location of the land in question. The award has been passed merely on the oral arguments and not on the basis of any evidence. She further submits that the District Judge has misinterpreted the guidelines and has directed for calculation of compensation on the basis of square meter in place of hectare whereas in the guidelines, the compensation was to be determined on hectare basis. She placed reliance in the matter of Rajmani vs. Collector, Raipur reported in (1996) 5 SCC 701 and submits that the case may be remitted back for framing of the issues and thereafter a fresh award may be passed.

Learned Counsel for the Respondents have supported the award impugned and submits that as the acquired land of the Respondents is below 500 sq.mts, therefore, recalculation made by the District Judge in the impugned award by applying per square meter method is according to the guidelines issued for the year 2010-11 and prays for dismissal of the Appeal.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the records carefully.

Now the seminal question which arises for determination of this Appeal is whether the market value of the agricultural land acquired in the present matter is properly determined on the basis of per square meter as per the guidelines 2010-11 and accordingly the District Judge has made just and proper award of enhancement or the said valuation is erroneous and calls interference?

It is not disputed that the acquired agriculture land of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and 9 to 15 is situated at Village Chhiriha and the land of Respondent No.3 is situated at Village Kawardha and the area of the land which was acquired from them was below 500 square meters. The authority had made the valuation on the basis of the average sale value and applying the rate on the basis of a hectare, though in the rule it was specifically mentioned that in the rural areas, when the agriculture land was sold below 500 square meters, then the market rate would be calculated on the basis of per square meter.

In Lal Chand v. Union of India and another reported in (2009) 15 SCC 769, the Supreme Court has observed significance of valuation in determination of market rate, where the guidelines for market values are determined by Expert Committees constituted under the State stamp law, in paragraph Nos.41 to 44, which are as under :

“41. It should however be noted that as contrasted from the assessment of market value contained in non-statutory basic valuation registers, the position may be different, where the guideline market values are determined by Expert Committees constituted under the State stamp law, by following the detailed procedure laid down under the relevant Rules, and are published in the State Gazette. Such State Stamp Acts and the Rules thereunder, provide for scientific and methodical assessment of market value in different areas by Expert Committees.

These statutes provide that such Expert Committees will be constituted with officers from the Department of Revenue, Public Works, Survey & Settlement, Local Authority and an expert in the field of valuation of properties, with the Sub-Registrar of the sub-registration district as the Member-Secretary. They also provide for different methods of valuation for lands, plots, houses and other buildings. They require determination of the market value of agricultural lands by classifying them with reference to soil, rate of revenue assessment, value of lands in the vicinity and locality, nature of crop yield for a specified number of years, and situation (with reference to roads, markets, etc.).

The rates assessed by the Committee are required to be published inviting objections/suggestions from the members of the public. After considering such objections/suggestions, the final rates are published in the gazette. Such published rates are revised and updated periodically. When the guideline market values, that is, minimum rates for registration of properties, are so evaluated and determined by the Expert Committees as per statutory procedure, there is no reason why such rates should not be a relevant piece of evidence for determination of market value.

One of the recognised methods for determination of market value is with reference to the opinion of experts. The estimation of market value by such statutorily constituted Expert Committees, as expert evidence can therefore form the basis for determining the market value in land acquisition cases, as a relevant piece of evidence. It will be however open to either party to place evidence to dislodge the presumption that may flow from such guideline market value. We, however, hasten to add that the guideline market value can be a relevant piece of evidence only if they are assessed by statutorily appointed Expert Committees, in accordance with the prescribed assessment procedure (either streetwise, or roadwise, or areawise, or villagewise) and finalised after inviting objections and published in the gazette. Be that as it may.”

In the State of Chhattisgarh, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 75 read with Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and other powers enabling in that behalf, “Chhattisgarh Preparation and Revision of Market-Value Guideline Rules, 2000 ( herein after called as ‘Rule 2000’) came into force from 31.07.2000, and in the said Rule, Rule 6 procedure to prepare Market Value Guideline is mentioned as under :

Procedure to prepare Market Value Guideline :-

“While working out the values of immovable property, the committees shall take into account the established principles of valuations mentioned in Rule 5 of the Indian Stamp Act ( Chhattisgarh Prevention of Under-Valuation of Instruments) Rules,1975 and any other factors which may deem necessary.”

From the foregoing discussion, it is explicit that the rate ascertained by the expert committee in accordance with Rule 2000 unless not rebutted, has to be taken into account for the reason that it is based on expert evidence and therefore, form the basis for determining the market value in land acquisition cases as a relevant piece of evidence. Reverting to the present matter in which the applicable rate as per the relevant rule is mentioned, the same is as under for ready reference:-

In the table also, if the land admeasuring area upto 500 square meters is situated within 20 meters and beyond 20 meters from the road, per square meter rate was mentioned and for the large area, a separate rate on the basis  of per hectare was stipulated. For village Chhirha, beyond 20 meters from the road, the rate of Rs. 831/- per square meter was given. Therfore, the District Judge has properly valued the acquired land from Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 9 to 15 on the basis of Rs.831/-per square meter. For Village Kawardha, the rate would be applied from the nearest Ward and For Respondent No. 3, whose acquired land is situated on the basis of revenue record near to Ward No.20 of Kawardha, accordingly the rate of Rs.1464/- per square meter as per the guideline for the year 2010-11 was properly applied.

In the case of Rajmani vs. Collector, Raipur (supra) relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Appellant/State, it was observed that it is settled law that the statement under Section 19 in terms of the objection under Section 18 of the Act is not treated as a plaint. Upon Service of the notice on the claimant or interested person, he is treated to be a plaintiff and Land Acquisition Collector to be a defendant for the purpose of conducting the prosecution as envisaged under Section 22 of the Act. It is further observed that it is the duty of the claimant and burden is always upon him, who seeks higher compensation to adduce evidence and prove in the Court that the compensation awarded by the Collector was inadequate and that the acquired lands were possessed of higher value for award of the compensation to be just and adequate compensation. The Land Acquisition Officer is to rebut the evidence adduced by the claimant/interested person. In the present matter from the guideline 2010-11 itself, it is clear that the calculation was not made accordingly and inadequate compensation was awarded, therefore, no further evidence is necessary, so the case law referred by the learned counsel for the Appellant has no impact on the facts of the case in hand. In view of the fact that when the guideline was admitted part and on the basis of which, the District Judge has revised the computation after hearing the parties and before the trial court, no such objection was raised about the evidence, which is required in the matter, hence we are of the view that just, fair and equitable compensation calculated by the District Judge is found to be proper.

As the authority has made the wrong calculation on the hectare basis for the determination of the market rate of the land for the aforesaid Respondents, therefore, the District Judge has rightly corrected it. Upon such correction for the enhanced valuation, 12% interest and 30% solatium was also properly added. In terms of Section 28 of the Act of 1894, the District Judge was absolutely perfect in his direction to the Appellant that the additional compensation as determined by the reference Court be paid along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of possession of the acquired land to the date of payment of such excess into Court.

Thus, considering the material available on record, we have not found that the reference Court has recorded any perverse finding or has traveled outside the scope of material brought before it to award arbitrary or inflated amount of compensation to the land holders and as such, there is no legal infirmity in the impugned award insofar as it enhances the amount in favour of the land holders.

Consequently this Appeal lacks merit, accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s).

Let a copy of the Judgment along with the lower Court record be returned to the concerned court for necessary compliance.