Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1995 DIGILAW 792 (RAJ)

Union of India v. Nathu Ram

1995-08-31

B.R.ARORA, D.C.DALELA

body1995
Honble ARORA, J. – This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21-11-83, passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge partly allowed the appeal filed by the appellant; the Union of India, and modified the award dated May 5, 1982, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sri Ganganagar, and awarded the compensation for seven Bighas of acquired agricultural land of respondent No.1 Nathu Ram @ Rs. 9000/- per Bigha and maintained the award of Rs. 7000/- per Bigha with respect to one Bigha of the land, namely, Kila No. 17 of Square No. 58. The learned Single Judge, also, maintained the order passed by the learned Civil Judge granting solatium @ 10% and interest thereon. (2). A large chunk of agricultural land situated near village Lalgarh Jatan (dis- trict Sri Ganganagar) was acquired by the Central Government for establishment of Military Cantonment Area under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred as `the Act). A Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the Rajasthan Gazette on 18.2.78 and the Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 4-9-78. The possession over the land in ques- tion, which vested in the State after publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, was taken over by the Land Acquisition Officer (Sub- Divisional Officer), Hanumangarh, on 1-11-78. Alongwith the other agricultural land, eighty-eight Bighas of land belonging to respondent No.1 Nathu Ram was, also, acquired. After acquisition of the land, the persons interested submitted their claims for awarding compensation with respect to their land acquired for the establishment of Military Cantonment Area. The Land Acquisition Officer, by his order dated 29.3.79, deter- mined the compensation payable for the various land acquired for the establishment of Military Cantonment Area @ Rs. 8000/- per Bigha for irrigated land and Rs. 5000/- per Bigha for Barani (unirrigated) land. The Land Acquisition Officer, also, awarded solatium @ 10% and interest @ 4% per annum from the date of acquisition till the payment is made. While determining the compensation, sixty one Bighas of land of respondent Nathu Ram was treated as irrigated land while remaining 27 Bighas of land was treated as Barani land. The Land Acquisition Officer, also, awarded solatium @ 10% and interest @ 4% per annum from the date of acquisition till the payment is made. While determining the compensation, sixty one Bighas of land of respondent Nathu Ram was treated as irrigated land while remaining 27 Bighas of land was treated as Barani land. Nathu Ram filed an application under Section 18 of the Act before the Sub- Divisional Officer for making reference to the Civil Court for determination of the market value of the land and claimed Rs. 12,000/- per Bigha as the price of the irrigated land and Rs. 6000/- per Bigha as the price of Barani (unirrigated) land. A claim was, also, made by respondent Nathu Ram that twenty Bighas of land, which has been treated as Barani land by the Land Acquisition Officer for determining the compensation was actually, irrigated land and the compensation for that land should, also, be awarded treating it as irrigated land. The Sub-Divisional Officer made a reference to the Civil Court on the application filed by Nathu Ram. The Civil Judge, Sri Ganganagar, by his order dated 5.5.82, passed an award on 5.5.82 modifying the compensation from Rs. 8000/- per Bigha to Rs. 9000/- per Bigha for the irrigated land and maintained the compensation @ Rs. 5000/- per Bigha for the Barani land, as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The learned Civil Judge, also, treated twelve Bighas of the land out of twenty Bighas of the unirrigated land of Nathu Ram as the irrigated land and awarded compensation @ Rs. 9000/- per Bigha. So far as remaining eight Bighas of the land is concerned, the learned Civil Judge observed that this eight Bighas of land was shown in the Revenue Record as `Barani land but actually it is irrigated land which is clear from the Girdawari (Ex.8) produced by the parties regarding the land in question wherein it has been shown that two crops every year are sown over this land and he, therefore, awarded a sum of Rs. 7000/- per Bigha for this land taking the average of the irrigated and Barani lands as the relevant material for determination of the price of such type of land, like the sale deed etc. or the opinion of the expert, was not available with him. 7000/- per Bigha for this land taking the average of the irrigated and Barani lands as the relevant material for determination of the price of such type of land, like the sale deed etc. or the opinion of the expert, was not available with him. The learned Civil Judge, also, awarded solatium @ 10% and interest on the remaining amount @ 4% per annum, as per Section 20 of the Act, with effect from 1.11.78 till the payment is made. Dissatisfied with the Award dated 5.5.82 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sri Ganganagar, treating this eight Bighas of the land as unirrigated (Barani) land and awarding compensation @ Rs. 7000/- per Bigha, the Union of India and the Military Estate Officer, for which the land was acquired, as well as Nathu Ram, both, preferred appeals before this Court and both these appeals were decided by the learned Single Judge by His Judgment dated 23.11.83. Both the appeals were partly allowed. The appeal filed by Union of India and Another was allowed with respect to one Bigha of land comprising Kila No. 17 of Square No. 58 which was treated as Barani land while the other seven Bighas of land was treated as irrigated land and compensation with respect to that seven Bighas of land was enhanced from Rs. 7000/- per Bigha to Rs. 9000/- per Bigha treating this seven Bighas of land as irrigated land, has preferred the present appeal. (3). It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Single Judge erred in holding seven Bighas of the land of Nathu Ram as irrigated land when in the Revenue Record it has been shown as Barani land. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the Union of India that while determining the compensation, the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the price of the land at the time of Notification issued under Section 6 of the Act while as per Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the market value of the land should be determined on the date of publication of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge determining the compensation @ Rs. 9000/- per Bigha treating the land as `irrigated land. (4). Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge determining the compensation @ Rs. 9000/- per Bigha treating the land as `irrigated land. (4). We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. (5). The controversy in the present case relates only to seven Bighas of land which was treated as irrigated land though the same has been shown in the Reve- nue Record as `Barani land. The question, which, therefore, requires consideration, is : whether the compensation is to be determined on the basis of the classification of the land shown in the Revenue Record or its actual use? Section 23 of the Act deals with the matters to be considered in determining the compensation. According to Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Act, for the purpose of de- termining the market value of the land, the authorities are required to determine the market value according to the `use to which the land was put on the date of Publication of the Notification. It has, also, been provided in Sub-section (2) (b) of Section 23 of the Act that if the owner, before the prescribed date, has taken active steps and incurred expenses to secure more profitable use of the land then that matter should, also, be taken into consideration while determining the amount of compensation. While fixing the market value of the land, the advantage which the land possesses and the potential value of the land have to be taken into consideration and the owner of the land is entitled to have the price of the land assessed with the advantages which the land possesses and its actual use on the date of Publica- tion of the Notification and alongwith the condition of the land together with its existing advantages, the possibility and probability of its more advantageous use to which it can be put, are, also, to be taken into consideration and the market value of the land should not be assessed merely by making a reference to the entry in the Revenue Record but it should be assessed on the basis of the `use for which the land is actually put. The land in the present case, of course, has been shown as unirrigated (Barani) land in the Revenue Record but is is clear from the Revenue Record (Girdawari) produced by Nathu Ram, the owner of the land, that the land yields two crops per year and it is an admitted fact that it is only the irrigated land which can yield two crops per year. The learned Single Judge has, also, given spe- cific finding that the land yields two crops per year. He, therefore, rightly treated the land as the irrigated land and awarded the compensation @ Rs. 9000/- per Bigha. The finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge as well as by the learned Civil Judge that the land in question is irrigated land as it yields two crops per year, are based on the relevant material available on record and we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality in treating the land as `irrigated land. Merely because the land has been shown in the Revenue Record as `Barani land for the determination of compensation, it cannot be treated as Barani land because the land is actually an irrigated land yielding two crops per year. The fact that the land is in possession of Nathu Ram and yielding two crops, cannot be ignored in determining the compensation. The owner is entitled and has a right to get the higher value of the land taking into consideration the character of the land, the existing condition thereof and the probable potentiality. The land, though having lower classification shown in the Revenue Record as Barani land, is actually an irrigated land which is clear from the Girdawari (Ex.8) and, therefore, it can fetch higher price. The assessment of compensation cannot be made merely on the basis of the entry made in the Revenue Record but it has to be made on the basis of the actual use of the land at the time of publication of the Notification and the potential value of the land. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, not committed any illegality in determining the market value of the land at Rs. 9000/- per Bigha treating it as an irrigated land. (6). The learned Single Judge has, therefore, not committed any illegality in determining the market value of the land at Rs. 9000/- per Bigha treating it as an irrigated land. (6). The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that while determining the compensation, the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the market value of the land on the date of publication of the Notifi- cation under Section 6 while the law requireds that the market value of the land should be considered at the time of publication of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The contention, raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is based on the provisions of Section 23 (1) (i) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Central Act) while the land in the present case was acquired under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act. Sub-section (1) (i) of Section 23 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, which deals with the determination of compensation, mandates that while determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for a land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration the market value of the land at the date of Publication of the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act or at the relevant date whichever is less. According to this Sub-section of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, the compensation has to be determined on the market value of the land on the date of publication of the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The learned Single Judge as well as the learned Civil Judge have determined the compensation on the basis of the provisions of Section 23 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act which is applicable in the present case. Section 23 of the Central Act for determination of compensation is not applicable in the present case as the land was not acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act). The contention, raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is, therefore, devoid of any force. (7). We, therefore, see no reasons to take a different view from the view taken by the learned Single Judge as the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity. The appreciation of the evidence, made by the learned Single Judge and the conclusion arrived-at by him, require no interference. (8). (7). We, therefore, see no reasons to take a different view from the view taken by the learned Single Judge as the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity. The appreciation of the evidence, made by the learned Single Judge and the conclusion arrived-at by him, require no interference. (8). In the result, we find no merit in this special appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with costs.