Teli Panchas, Indore vs Municipal Corporation, Indore

S.B. Sen, J.—The Indore Municipal Corporation acquired 1276.50 Sq. ft. of land belonging to Teli Panchas (hereinafter described as Panchas) situated in area of Indore City called Ganeshganj. As the Corporation and the Panchas could not come to an understanding about the compensation the matter was referred to the Panchayat as contemplated u/s 387 (1) of the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act.

The Corporation offered compensation at Re, 1/- per Sq. ft. whereas Panchas demanded it at the rate of Rs. 10/- Sq. ft. The Panchayat however fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 9/- per Sq. ft. The Corporation filed an appeal to the District Court u/s 387 (4) of the Act and the Addl. District Judge has fixed the compensatiori at the rate of Rs. 2 75 per Sq. ft. The Panchas have now come up in revision.

The first contention is that the District Court while giving a decision had not referred to the award given by the Panchayat u/s 387 ( ) of the Act and has also not given his reasons for holding a different view. The learned Counsel therefore submits that the District Court has therefore erred in jurisdiction so as to call for an interference u/s 115 C.P. Code.

I cannot accept this contention. No doubt S. 387 (4) speaks of an "appeal" but it is not an appeal as contemplated u/s 96 C.P. Code. The appeal u/s 387 (4) is wider than an appeal provided u/s 96 C. P. Code.

Section 387 (4) of the Corporation Act reads as follows:

In any ease where the compensation is claimed in respect of land and the Panchayat has given a decision, either party, if dissatisfied with the decision, may within a month of the date thereof apply to the District Court and the matter shall be determined by the District Court in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (3).

It will be clear from the above section that the District Court has power to determine in appeal the compensation in accordance with provisions of Sub-section (3). Sub-section (3) is also quoted below:

In the event of the Panchayat not giving a decision within one month or such other longer period as may be agreed to by both the parties from the date of the selection of the Sarpanch or of the appointment by the Distric Court of such members as may be necessary to constitute the Panchayat, the matter shall on application by either party be determined by the District Court which shall, in case, in which the compensation is claimed in respect of land, follows as far as may be the procedure provided by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for proceedings in matter referred for the determination of the Court.

This means that though it is called an appeal u/s 387 (4), the District Court acts like an original Court on a reference made under the: Land Acquisition Act. He records the evidence and gives his own hiding. No doubt the decision of the Panchayat is a relevant fact and the District Court could have been justified if he referred to the award of the Panchayat but by not mentioning the decision of the Panchayat or its shortcoming in order to come to its own finding, the Addl. District Judge cannot be said to have gone beyond his jurisdiction so as to call for an interference.

Next it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the Panchas that the High Court has been given the power of revision u/s 392 of the Corporation Act. He contents that if an appeal cannot be treated a: an appeal contemplated u/s 96 of the C.P. Code, then the revision also cannot treated as revision u/s 115 CPC Therefore the revision should not have a restricted jurisdiction as contemplated under that section and if the ethnological(sic) meaning of "revision"'' is taken it may mean going into the facts as well once more.

The argument is apparently sound but the Act itself has restricted even the powers of revision. Section 393 (1) of the Corporation Act says:

For the purpose of any appeal, inquiry or proceeding under this Act, the High Court and the District Court may exercise all the powers conferred on them by the CPC 1908 and the M. P. Civil Courts Act 1958 (19 of 1958) and shall observe the procedure prescribed in the said enactments, so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act.

Under the above section the powers conferred on the High Court are under CPC unless it is inconsistent with the provisions of this Act. This means thai S. 96 will apply in cases of first appeals and in cases of revision S. 115 would apply, unless it is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act.

Now so far as the appeal to the District Court is concerned there is definite provision u/s 387 (4) and the appeal has to be decided under that section. Therefore the powers conferred under the CPC can not be made applicable to appeals, but so far as revisional powers arc concerned there is no specific provision in the Corporation Act and it is C. P. Code that governs the revision. The High Court therefore will only interfere when there is an error of jurisdiction or exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity.

The learned Counsel for the applicant then argued that the District Court has to decide the matter in accordance with S. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act and in deciding the compensation one of the items is Tie potential value of the land acquired. Consideration of the potential value of the land is no doubt one of the considerations. But it is the method by which he has to arrive for a particular compensation. It cannot be said that the District Judge has acted without jurisdiction if he did not mention what would be the potential value. In fact if we look to the discussion in his order, it is clear that he has considered the value which also includes potential value. He has taken into consideration various lands for which compensation was paid situated nearby. While taking into consideration those lands the consideration of the potential value is also considered.

The only submission made is that the plot is a corner plot and it has got more potential value than the other plots. It is a matter of opinion as to whether corner plots would fetch more price than the plays(sic) just by the side of the road. It depends always on the facts and circumstances. It is very difficult to give the exact valuation of a particular play(sic) acquired. The value is to he fixed by making comparison with similar lands similarly situated and not identical lands identically situated. The Court has considered number of lands and also the compensation paid for them and has come to a conclusion that the compensation would be at the rate of Rs. 2.75 per sq. ft. I, therefore, do not think there is any reason for interference in this revision petition.

The revision petition is dismissed with costs. Counsel fee according to scale, if certified.