State of U. P. v. Kisan Kalyan Samiti — 1986 DIGILAW 383 (ALL)

JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act filed by the State of U.P. against the judgment and decree of the Second Additional District Judge, Mathura, dated 30-11-1978 passed in Land Acquisition Reference No. 85 of 1977. The Second Additional District Judge enhanced the compensation awarded to the respondent Kisan Kaiyan Samiti (hereinafter referred to as the Samiti) by warding Rs. 57,000/- as compensation for the land and Rs. 42,508.13 as compensation for building and constructions. Rs. 100.50 was awarded as compensation for the Chhonkra trees. On the total compensation of Rs. 90,608.63, the learned Additional District Judge awarded solatium at 15 per cent, which brought the total figure to Rs. 1,14,548.83. 2. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was made by the State of U.P. for acquiring the respondent's land situated in village Pannapur, District Mathura, for Industrial purposes, by the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Kanpur, on 17-4-1976. The State of U.P. dispensed with Section 5-A of the said Act, on 19-4-1976 a notification under Section 6 was issued. In pursuance of the final declaration under Section 6, possession of the land was taken on 15-7-1976. 3. Before the District Land Acquisition Officer, much more claim was made by the respondent Samiti for compensation for the buildings and constructions etc. separately from that of the land. The District Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 39,520.13 Paise for buildings etc. and Rs. 100.50 paise for the trees. He further held that the respondent Samiti was entitled to get compensation for the land @ Rs. 1200/- per acre. 4. Aggrieved, the respondent Samiti moved an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for reference. In the reference, compensation for the land was claimed at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per acre. For buildings and other constructions as well, higher compensation was claimed. The reference was allowed partly and compensation for both, buildings etc., as well as the land had been enhanced. The figures have already been mentioned by us earlier. 5. In this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, two points were raised by the Standing Counsel. The first was that compensation for buildings, etc. The reference was allowed partly and compensation for both, buildings etc., as well as the land had been enhanced. The figures have already been mentioned by us earlier. 5. In this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, two points were raised by the Standing Counsel. The first was that compensation for buildings, etc. had been raised unjustifiably and illegally by the Additional District Judge in the reference, although the claim for the same had not been made in the proceedings before the District Land Acquisition Officer, It was argued that the compensation awarded by the Additional District Judge was more by Rs. 6,356/- than what had been claimed by the Samiti respondent. 6. Section 25 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act lays down the rules as to amount of compensation. Under sub-section (1) of the said section, the rule enacted is that when the claimant has made a claim pursuant to any notice given under Section 9, the amount awarded to him by the court shall not exceed the amount so claimed. From the award, it appears that the total compensation that was awarded in respect of the buildings etc. was Rs. 26,150.13 Paise. In enhancing the amount of compensation, the learned Additional District Judge took into consideration the report of the Assistant Engineer, which found the value of the buildings more than what had been awarded by the District Land Acquisition Officer. The argument before us in the appeal was that even if the report found that the value of the buildings was more than what was found by the District Land Acquisition Officer, it was not open to the learned Additional District Judge in reference to the enhance same. 7. Under sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act the court has power to accept the amount demanded if fresh reason is found for the omission to make the claim. In the present case, the argument of the state was liable to be rejected on two grounds. The first was that this objection about the applicability of sub-section (1) of Section 25 should have been taken before the Additional District Judge, who decided the reference, which was not done. It is not appropriate for us to interfere in the appeal on that ground inasmuch as the matter of awarding more compensation then claimed was in the discretion of the Additional District Judge. It is not appropriate for us to interfere in the appeal on that ground inasmuch as the matter of awarding more compensation then claimed was in the discretion of the Additional District Judge. The second reason is that the evidence of the State itself showed and established that the value of the buildings was more than what had been claimed. Consequently, on this argument, we do not feel justified to reverse the judgment of the Additional District Judge on this controversy. 8. The second point was relating to awarding of compensation for the land. The District Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1200/- per acre. This was enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- acre in reference. This enhancement appears to us to be unjustified, inasmuch as the two grounds given for the said purpose are not tenable in law. It may be noted at the beginning that the Additional District Judge had discarded the sale deeds filed by the respondent Samiti on grounds which were justified in law. For instance, one of the grounds was that each one of the sale deed was for a small fraction of land, whereas the land acquired in the instant case deeds had been executed much near the date of acquisition and, consequently, there was grave doubt about their genuineness. 9. The ground for enhancement of compensation for the land was reliance on the agreement entered into between the respondent Samiti with Sudamapuri Housing Society, Mathura, on 16-2-1976. Under this agreement, 3 acres out of 3.75 acres land involved in the present case was agreed to he sold in favour of Sudamapuri Housing Society by the respondent Samiti at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per acre. The learned Additional District Judge relied upon this agreement mainly because he found it to be a registered document, whereas it was not a registered document and was written on an ordinary stamp paper. What is interesting to note is that Digambar Singh who was the Sabhapati of the respondent Samiti, was also a member of the Sudamapuri Housing Society agreed to purchase 3 acres out of 3.75 acres of the respondent Samiti for Rs. 45,000/-. This agreement appears to us to have been collusively manufactured for the purpose of making a claim of enhanced compensation. 45,000/-. This agreement appears to us to have been collusively manufactured for the purpose of making a claim of enhanced compensation. The agreement does not even describe the location of the land of 3 acres out of 3.75 acres which had to be purchased. 10. There is substance in the submission of the State Counsel that this was a document prepared after the notifications. Payment of Rs. 10,000/- alleged to have been made under this agreement had not been established. Digambar Singh admits in his statement that vouchers etc. are maintained in the Samiti, but no document worthy of reliance was filed in the court below. We have gone through the statement of Digambar Singh, P.W. 1, and also considered Exhibits 5, 9 and 10 filed in proof of the payment of money by Sudamapuri Housing Society. None of them inspires confidence. The statement of Digambar Singh is wavering and far from truth. 11. The only other aspect on which the court below also relied on was the fixation of price of the land by the State Government under Rule 341 of the Stamp Act for the purposes of fixing the value to realise the stamp duty. This rule was made to give effect to Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. A Division Bench of this Court in Kaka Singh v. The Additional Collector and District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Bulandshahr and another, (AIR 1986 Allahabad 107) held as follows :- "Section 47-A empowers the Collector to deal with these cases where the parties by arrangement deliberately undervalue the property with a view to defraud the Government of the legitimate revenue by way of stamp duty. It is not correct, that the Collector is not empowered to determine, on a case being referred to by the Sub-Registrar under Section 47-A (1), that the market value is in fact less than the minimum value to be determined by Rule 341 and to find on that basis whether the transaction sets forth the market value true or not. Similarly, the hands and power of the Collector are not confined to the minimum value given in Rule 341. It can hold it to be more if it is satisfied on the materials brought before him to that effect." 12. From the above ruling, it appears that the fixation of rate is not conclusive, and the court below erroneously treated it to be so. It can hold it to be more if it is satisfied on the materials brought before him to that effect." 12. From the above ruling, it appears that the fixation of rate is not conclusive, and the court below erroneously treated it to be so. As a result of this, without applying its mind to the other evidence, the court below erroneously held that the value of the land could be found to be at Rs. 15,000/- per acre. In this connection, it may be stated that the value relied upon was for the year 1977-78, whereas the notification under Section 4 was made in April 1976. The fixation of this value could not also be the basis for enhancing compensation. 13. As a result of what we have said above, there being no evidence about the value of the land, the court below was not justified in increasing it. It is true that determination of market value is not a geometrical problem and certain amount of guess is permitted to the court for arriving at the compensation which a party may be entitled to. The guess work, however, has not to be wild and purely imaginary. Initial burden for claiming higher compensation is on the party who sets it up. Consequently, we are unable to uphold the view of the Court, below on the two points stated above that the market value of the land was Rs. 15,000/- per acre. However, seeing the situation of the land and also its potentiality of being used as a building site as well as taking into consideration the other relevant circumstances, we consider that the compensation of the land should be fixed at Rs. 4,000/- per acre. 14. In Bhag Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, ( AIR 1985 SC 1576 ), the Supreme Court held while dealing with Sections 23 (2) and 28, as amended by Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, that to the enhanced compensation the benefits of the aforesaid two provisions would be available. 4,000/- per acre. 14. In Bhag Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, ( AIR 1985 SC 1576 ), the Supreme Court held while dealing with Sections 23 (2) and 28, as amended by Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, that to the enhanced compensation the benefits of the aforesaid two provisions would be available. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court are as follows : "..........and they shall also receive solatium calculated @ 30% on the amount of enhanced compensation under the amended Section 23, sub-section (2) as also interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date on which possession of their land was taken up to the date of payment of such enhanced compensation." Since, in the instant case, we have not enhanced compensation, the aforesaid decision will not apply. 15. In the result, the appeal succeeds in part and is partly allowed. The market value of the land is reduced to Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) gross with interest @ 9% per annum till the date of payment. In other respects, the appeal is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.