Union Of India vs Bhanwar & Ors.

Both these appeals are on identical set of facts, thus, they are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts of F.A. No.147/2015 are being referred.

The present appeals have been filed in terms of Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 being aggrieved by the award dated 31.10.2014 passed by First Additional District Judge, Shajapur in land acquisition Case No.20/2013 whereby a reference filed by the respondents under Section 18 of the said Act was partly allowed.

The facts of the case are the the appellant/railways intended to construct railway crossing at village-Maksi, thus, it requested the collector, Shajapur to acquire land situated at survey No.1915 area 0.135 hectare pursuant to which notification under Section 4(1) was issued and thereafter award dated 21.03.2003 was passed by the land acquisition officer. The land acquisition officer determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs.2,66,613/- per hectare for unirrigated land and accordingly, compensation was paid to the land owners along with other statutory amount and interest.

The land owners being aggrieved filed reference in terms of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the reference court i.e. First Additional District Judge, Shajapur. The reference was initially rejected by the reference court vide order dated 22.08.2006 on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. The same was challenged by the land owners before this Court in First Appeal No.311/2010 and 198/2010. This Court after considering the facts of the case allowed both the appeals and remanded the matter back to the reference court for deciding the same on merits. After remand by this Court a common judgment was passed by the reference court on 31.10.2014 whereby both the references were allowed in part thereby holding that the market value of the acquired land is Rs.70/- per square foot, thus, amount of compensation was directed to be calculated by taking such value of acquired land with a further direction to pay solatium and interest etc. in accordance with the provisions of Section 23 and other relevant provision of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, thus, being aggrieved, the present appeals have been filed by the Union of India.

Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset referred to common order passed by this court on 29.06.2017 in FA Nos.553/2001, 554/2001, 547/2001, 578/2001 and 8/2002. Learned counsel by referring to para 8 of the said order submits that name of Bhanwarji and Dariyav/present respondents are mentioned in the table reproduced by this Court in para 8 of the said order. He thus submits that the present case is identical to the case which was decided by this Court in the said bunch of appeals. He then refers to para 29, 30 and 31 of the said order and submits that the court after extensive deliberations determined the rate of the land at Rs.19/- per square foot. Thus, in the present case also the order passed by the reference court deserves to be modified to the extent that the rate of the land instead of Rs.70/- per square foot be determined at Rs.19/- per square foot. Learned counsel submits that the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid first appeals was also affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ramchandra & sons, Civil Appeal No.5006/2022 and other connected appeals.

Learned counsel by referring to para 5 of the impugned judgment, submits that only for the reason that the matter came to reference court after remand by this Court the order was passed subsequently in the year 2014, however, the issue is similar which was involved in the earlier bunch of cases. To buttress his submission, learned counsel refers to para 9 and points out that survey No.1915 is mentioned which is also mentioned in the table reproduced in para 8 of the cited order. He thus submits that the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside and market value of the land acquired deserves to be fixed at Rs.19/- per square foot as directed by this Court in the case of Ramchandra (supra).

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in fact the appellant has misconceived the facts of two cases. He points out that there is no denial of the fact that the lands of the respondents were acquired for railway line and name of both the respondents are mentioned in table reproduced in para 8 of the judgement in the case of Ramchandra (supra). However, there is a significant fact which has not been pointed out by the appellant. He submits that the subject matter in Ramchandra's case (supra) was the acquisition of land by way of notification issued under Section 4 (1) dated 09.03.1990 for acquisition of land for laying down railway line. Pursuant to this notification award was passed by the land acquisition officer on 02.06.1992. After acquisition of land for railway line, need arose for constructing a crossing on the railway line, thus fresh acquisition proceeding was undertaken for which notification under Section 4(1) was issued on 25.05.2001 pursuant to which award was passed on 21.03.2003. As such, he submits, there is a gape of 11 years between the two acquisition proceedings. He refers to award passed by the land acquisition officer on 21.03.2003 and submits that in para one itself it is mentioned "for construction of crossing (समपार बनाने हेतु)". He thus submits that difference of 11 years in two acquisition proceedings in itself would establish the case of respondent. He submits that if the rate of land at Rs.19/- per square foot in the year 1990 is calculated by addition of 15% appreciation for each year then the amount would come to Rs.95.99 per square foot. He also submit that in order to prove their case the respondents in both the cases have placed on record Ex.P-1 sale-deed which was executed on 24.01.2001, the notification under Section 4(1) was issued on 25.01.2001. The respondents placed guidelines of 2001 and 2002 on record as Ex.P-3 in which at serial Nos.4 and 5, rate of land was provided and for demonstrating potentiality of the land Ex.P-2 map was placed on record. Ex.P-4 is spot map and Ex.P-5 are the proceedings of land acquisition officer. He submits that all theses documents would show that the potentiality is demonstrated and accepted by the authority by recording development work. He submits that in fact Ex.P-9 sale deed would show that there was even higher rate of transaction then Rs.70/- per square foot. Thus, he submits that in fact the land owners have been given less compensation even at the rate of Rs.70/- per square foot. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Shaik Azam Saheb and others, 2009 (4) SCC 395 and Madhusudan Kabra and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2018 (1) SCC 140 and also on the orders of this Court in the cases of (i) Kamal Kant Shrivastva and others Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2006 (4) MPLJ, 317 (ii) The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Devisingh (F.A. No.50/2015) (iii) The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mrs. Vandna Jain and others (F.A. No.181/2018) and (iv) Secretary Krishi Upaj Mandi Samittee, Shajapur Vs. Shri Ram Chandra and another (F.A. No.895/2012).

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant is essentially based on the fact that in earlier litigation in the case of Ramchandra (supra) the rate of land was determined at Rs.19/- per square foot which covers even the present appeals also. However, what is being ignored by the learned counsel for the appellant is the difference of point of time between the two acquisitions. In the case of Ramchandra (supra) the preliminary notification in terms of Section 4(1) was issued on 09.03.1990 and in the present case the notification was issued on 25.05.2001, thus, there is a clear gape of 11 years between two acquisition proceedings. Now, even if we see the mandate of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 then the first factor to be considered is the market value of the land on the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act, thus, difference of 11 years is significant and for this reason, this Court is of the considered view that the determination of rate of land at Rs.19/- in the case of Ramchandra (supra) cannot be considered as guiding factor let alone the determinative factor for adopting same rate in the present case also for the reason that the difference of time of 11 years is significant. Now what has to be considered is the market value of the land on the date of notification issued under Section 4 (1) and that has been demonstrated by the appellant by placing on record the sale deeds Ex.P-1, guidelines Ex.P-3, Map Ex.P-2 and spot map Ex.P-4. The land acquisition officer in its proceedings which are placed on record as annexure P-5 has clearly noted the fact that around the acquired land development is being done. Reference to specific institution/constructions is made then Ex.P-9 was also placed on record providing the market value of the land in question at the relevant time. The reference court considered all these materials in paras 10 of the award. Specific reference to these evidences was made by the reference court then in para 11 reference to guidelines Ex.P-3 is made. In which it is recorded that at Maksi-Ujjain square the market value of the land is Rs.135/- per square foot and ahead of it at Ujjain road it is Rs.90/- per square foot. The sale deed was considered and the court found that the transaction took place for a nearby land at 140/- per square foot. The court then considered the order-sheets of the land acquisition officer in para 14 and found that land acquisition officer himself has recorded that the nearby land is being sold at Rs.100/- per square foot. The reference court then considered sale-deed Ex.P-1 in para 16 and found that according to the said sale-deed the market value of the land is Rs.105/- per square foot and as per Ex.P-9 sale deed the rate is Rs.140/- per square foot. The court also recorded that the land of Ex.P-9 is situated in ward No.4 and acquired land is situated in ward No.5. Significantly, in para 16 the court noted that the appellant itself had given a suggestion to the witness Daryab Singh PW-4 that at the time of acquisition the market value of the land was Rs.100/- per square foot. The court in same para referred to guidelines Ex.P-3 and the statement of DW-3 R.S. Mishra, who stated that the guideline value of the land is Rs.90/- per square foot. Thus, the court concluded that on considering all these materials it will be appropriate to consider the market value of the land at Rs.100/- per square foot. While doing so the court also consider the potentiality of the land by referring in para 17, construction of Murlidhar hospital and Medical College nearby to the acquired land and its location adjacent to Maksi-Ujjain square. The location of Ramco colony around 200 meters away from the acquired land, thus considering, the court determined the market value of the land at Rs.100/- per square foot and after making deduction at 30% for development charge the compensation was directed to be calculated at the rate of Rs.70/-per square foot. It is settled position of law that determination of market value of the land being acquired depends upon several factors like its situation i.e. it is located at a place which is conducive for its commercial use or whether it is an agricultural or home stayed land, irrigated or unirrigated land. Potentiality of the land is also a very significant factor which has to be kept in mind while determining market value of land.

This Court has repeatedly held that the sale deed showing the market price of land situated in close proximity and executed around the time of the preliminary notification for acquisition are to be relied and that compensation should be determined on the basis of the highest price bona fide sale exemplar. It has further been held that it is the duty of the Land Acquisition Officer to determine proper compensation and that transactions reflecting the highest value are required to be preferred unless strong circumstances exist for adopting different course.

There is one more significant factor that the appellant itself asserts that in the year 1990 when the acquisition took place, this Court in the case of Ramchandra (supra) determined the value of Rs.19/- per square foot. This is equally settled position of law as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mudhusudan Kabra (supra) that it will be just if annual increase on exemplar is fixed at 15% at compounding rate. If we calculate the compensation by applying this method of appreciation of 15% for each year then in the considered view of this Court, the value of the land would come to almost the same as has been determined by reference court. The reference court has objectively considered evidence which was placed on record before it in the form of sale-deeds as Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-9, maps at Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-4, and guidelines as Ex.P-3. Thus, in the considered view of this Court, the rate as arrived at by the reference court is just and proper in the facts of the present case. Thus no interference is warranted in determination as made by the reference court. Consequently, the appeals being bereft of merits are hereby dismissed.