State of Bihar v. Chandradip Yadav — 1987 DIGILAW 171 (PAT)

JUDGMENT R. N. Prasad, J.-These seven appeals have been preferred by the State of Bihar against the decision of the court given on reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the' Act'.) 2. It appears that a notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was published on 22.5.1969 acquiring 3.385 acres of land forming parts of plot no. 162 and 182 of the village Deodharpur and portions of plot nos. 206, 207, 208 and 209 of village Jainandanbigha within Tekari Police Station. The entire acquired land is in one compact block and the acquisition was made for construction of Tekari Power House. The land-holders had claimed compensation at the rate of 40,000/- per acre but the Collector allowed at the rate of Rs. 3007 per acre. On reference under section 18 of the Act the court determined the value of the land at Rs. 13500/- per acre. Being aggrieved by the enhancement of the compensation by the learned Judge, the State of Bihar has preferred these appeals. 3. It appears that the learned Judge has determined the market price on the basis of the sale-deed dated 20.12.1966 (Ext-1). This sale deed-was in respect of a portion of Plot No. 209, some portions of which plot are involved in First Appeal Nos. 391 and 304. Through this sale deed 3-3/4 decimals of land out of the aforesaid plot no. 209 of Jainandanbigha was sold for R s. 500/- which would come to about Rs. 135/- per decimal or Rs. 13500/- per acre., The Collector, on the other hand, had determined the market price at Rs. 3007/- per acre on the basis of the' sale deeds mentioned at serial nos. 18, 19, 20 and-2l of the sale statement prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer. The learned Judge, however, did not think it proper to place reliance on these sale deeds as they in substance were exchange transactions and not pure and simple sale transactions as stated by A. W. 9. The learned Judge, appears to have accepted this evidence as A. W. 9 was supported by the circumstance that the area of the lands covered by serial Nos. 20 and 21 were equal to the area of the lands covered by serial nos. The learned Judge, appears to have accepted this evidence as A. W. 9 was supported by the circumstance that the area of the lands covered by serial Nos. 20 and 21 were equal to the area of the lands covered by serial nos. 18 and 19 and were executed in close proximity-the first two on 29.1.1968 and the last two on 31.1.1968. The Land Acquisition Officer, on the basis of whose report, the value was determined by the Collector, was not examined in the case and the three witnesses examined on behalf of the State were evidently incompetent witnesses, as none of them was present when the verification was done at the spot by the land Acquisition Officer, and had anything to do with the preparation of the sale statement. So, there was no denial of the assertions made by A. W. 9 and the learned counsel appearing for the State could not show as to why the finding of the learned Judge should be disturbed in this regard. 4. If the sale deeds mentioned at serial nos. 18, 19, 20 and 21 were really exchange transactions and not sale pure and simple as found by the learned Judge, he was quite justified in excluding them from consideration while determining the market value. The learned Judge has also given cogent reasons for excluding other sale deeds referred to in the sale statement. In fact, they themselves were not relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer or the Collector. 5. As said above, the learned Judge has fixed the value of the acquired land on the basis of the sale deed dated 20.12.1966 (Ext.'1') in the absence of any other reliable evidence adduced on behalf of the State. It is true that only a small piece of land was sold through this sale deed, but, it is significant to note that this sale deed is in respect of a plot which is itself the subject of acquisition in the present proceeding. No doubt, the value of a small piece of land is generally higher than bigger chunks of land and, as such, this sale deed may not be a good guide for the sale of bigger chunks of land in 1966. But, the value of the lands bad considerably increased by June, 1969 i. e. about 29 months thereafter. No doubt, the value of a small piece of land is generally higher than bigger chunks of land and, as such, this sale deed may not be a good guide for the sale of bigger chunks of land in 1966. But, the value of the lands bad considerably increased by June, 1969 i. e. about 29 months thereafter. It is well known that the prices had been increasing every year at that time and, so, the consideration of smallness of the area sold loses its importance when the land was being acquired after 29 months thereafter, and, in my opinion that price may be considered to be at least appropriate price 29 months thereafter. 6. It can not be disputed that the sale price of a portion of plot no. 209 would provide a good guide for the price of the acquired land as, admittedly, the acquired lands are in one block and are similarly situated. It would also be significant to note that according to the evidence of A. Ws. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, the acquired lands are Dih lands and are situated within the municipal limits of Tekari Municipality. They have further stated that these lands are near the Block Office, Tekari Bazar and the College. A. W. 2 has further stated that these lands are by the side of the road. There is no denial on behalf of the State of these assertions made on behalf of the witnesses examined by the land-owners. Taking into consideration, all the relevant aspects of the matter, I feel that the market value of the lands acquired, determined by the learned Judge at Rs. 33,500/- per acre can not be termed as excessive, rather, it appears to be the just and proper considering the situation and character of the lands. I, therefore, find no merit in these appeals which has, therefore, to be dismissed. 7. Before parting with the judgment, it is necessary to discuss a very significant question raised on behalf of the respondent-land-holders. It has been contended on their behalf that in view of the pendency of these appeals on the date of the commencement of Act 68 of 1984 by which various provisions of the Land Acquisition Act have been amended, the respondents should be awarded solatium and interest at the rates fixed by the Amending Act even though they are not the appellants. The learned counsel referred to the amendment made in section 23 and section 28 of the parent Act by the new amendment. It appears that "15 percentum” was substituted by "30 percentum" in sub-section (2) of section 23 of the parent Act, which provides for solatium and similarly, the interest payable under section 28 was increased from 6% to 9%. The submission of the learned counsel is that the respondents are entitled to the benefits of these amendments since these appeals were pending on 24.9.1984 when these amendments came into force in 'view of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 which is as follows :- "(2) The provisions of sub-section (2) of section 23 and section 28 of the Principal Act, as amended by clause (b) of section 15 and section 18 of this Act respectively, shall apply, and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation to, any award made by the Collector or Court or to any order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court in appeal against any such award under the provisions of Principal Act later than 20th day of April, 1982 (the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, in the House of the People) and before the commencement of this Act." 8. The highest court of the land had an occasion to interpret this sub-section in the case of Bhagwan Singh and others vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh in Civil Appeals Nos. The highest court of the land had an occasion to interpret this sub-section in the case of Bhagwan Singh and others vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh in Civil Appeals Nos. 1619-23 of 1985 (AJR 1985 SC 1576) and the court clarified the effect of the amendments in the following words :- "Even if an award is made by the Collector or the Court on or before 30th April, 1982 and an appeal against such award is pending before the High Court or the Supreme Court on 30th April, 1982 or is filed subsequent to that date, the provisions of the amended section 23 sub-section (2) and section 28 would be applicable in relation to an order passed in such appeal by the High Court or the Supreme Court." x x x x x "Moreover, the present appeal was pending at the date of commencement of the Amending Act rind, therefore, in any view of the matter, this Court is bound to give effect to the provisions of the amended section 23 sub-section (2) and Section 28 in determining the amount of compensation." 9. Following this decision a Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Nikhileshwari Choudhary vs. State of Bihar (1986 B.B.C.J. 519 : 1986 PLJR 737 ) has held that if the appeal was pending before this Court on the date of the commencement of the Amending Act, the provision of Section 23 (2) and Section 28 shall be attracted and the land-owners would get the advantage of these amendments in the appeal. It is true, that in that case the land-owner was the appellant, whereas in the present appeals the appellant is the State of Bihar. But, in my opinion, this difference is of no consequence as section 30 (2) does not make any distinction in this regard. Plainly enough, this sub-section lays down only this much that the benefits of these amendments in respect of solatium and interest would be available to the land-holders if the appeal was pending at the date of the commencement of the Amending Act, irrespective of the question as to who is the appellant. The real consideration is the pendency of the appeal at the date of the commencement of the Amending Act and the question as to who is the appellant seems to be of no consequence. 10. The real consideration is the pendency of the appeal at the date of the commencement of the Amending Act and the question as to who is the appellant seems to be of no consequence. 10. So, if the appeals were pending when the Amending Act came into force, the provisions of section 23 and 28 as amended would be attracted automatically. The question as to whether any claim has been preferred by the land-holder in this regard or not is also immaterial as they are entitled to these benefits not on the basis of claim but by the mandate of the legislature which has not laid down any condition for preferring claim in this regard. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the land-holders respondents are entitled to the benefits of these two amendments and would, therefore, get the solatium and interest at the enhanced rate. 11. In the result, all the appeals are dismissed but without costs. It is, however, directed that the respondents shall get solatium calculated at the rate of 30% instead of 15% and interest at 9% instead of 6% on the enhanced amount of compensation determined by the court, from the date on which the possession of the lands was taken till the date of the payment of the enhanced compensation.