Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1997 DIGILAW 216 (PAT)

State Of Bihar v. Shital Bhagat

1997-03-14

M.Y.EQBAL

body1997
Judgment M.Y.Eqbal, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 27.5.1991 and 4.6.1991 respectively passed by the Land Acquisition Judge, Chaibasa in the Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 77 (70) of 85 allowing the aforesaid land acquisition reference case and enhancing the compensation payable to the claimant-respondent. 2. It appears that the State of Bihar acquired land of village Badia, P.S. Ghatshila, P.S. No. 167 in the district of Singhbhum. It appears that the land of the said village was acquired pursuant to the notification issued in 1985 under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Besides other land, petitioners land measuring an area of 1.47 acre of different plots was acquired and the Collector prepared an award and the compensation assessed in respect of the land of the claimant was Rs. 20,615.00 . Aggrieved by the said award, the claimant-respondent filed an application under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Land Acquisition Officer, Adityapur, Jamshedpur, for referring the matter to the Land Acquisition Judge for deciding the quantum of compensation. The Land Acquisition Judge, Chaibasa (hereinafter referred to as the learned court below) decided the reference by the impugned judgment and award. The case of the claimant-respondent was that the land in question is situated at village Badia adjacent to the Musabani Block and it is situated at a stones throw distance from the town. The claimants further case was that it is a very fertile land and adjacent to the main road leading to Musabani, which is an industrial town. According to the claimant, the market valuation of the land is at a minimum of Rs. 1000.00 per decimal. Both the parties led evidence before the learned court below. The claimant-respondent examined three witnesses while one witness was examined on behalf of the appellant State. The claimant-respondent also proved a sale-deed in support of his case, which was marked as Ext. 1. AW 1, D.S. Singh, stated in his evident that his father is very old and not in a position to come to court. He further deposed that his father sold 39 decimals of and in the year 1983 on consideration of Rs. 40,000.00 . AW 2, MD Ibrahim stated in his evidence that he is a resident of Badia and he knows Hiralal Singh, who sold his land to Nityanandji at a price of Rs. He further deposed that his father sold 39 decimals of and in the year 1983 on consideration of Rs. 40,000.00 . AW 2, MD Ibrahim stated in his evidence that he is a resident of Badia and he knows Hiralal Singh, who sold his land to Nityanandji at a price of Rs. 1000.00 (rupees on thousand) per decimal. AW 3, S.S. Acharya has proved the sale-deed (Ext. 1) which was registered being sale-deed No. 24 of 1983. The claimant who was examined as PW 4 stated inter alia that his land was acquired for the purpose of Government in the year 1984-85. At that time, the market value of the land at Badia village was in between Rs. 1000.00 and 1002.00 per decimal. He further stated that his land was just adjacent to the main road, which leads to Musabani town, which has commercial importance. On the other hand, one John Tuti, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Subernrekha Project, Adityapur was examined as OPW 1, who, in his deposition stated that he inspected the land which was acquired for the purpose of constructing main canal at Galudih. After completing the inspection, he prepared the rates for acquisition which is under the signature of the Dy. Commissioner. In course of cross-examination, the witness has stated that he has got no knowledge about the market valuation of the property and he further stated that for the purpose of market valuation, the records of the Registry Office are correct. Documentary evidence brought on record from the side of the appellant were Ext. A, which is a rate chart; Ext.B, copy of the . commissioners letter and Ext. C is the copy of the order sheet of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Adityapur. 3. Mr. P. D. Agarwal, learned Government Pleader No. 2 assailed the judgment and award of the learned court below as being illegal and contrary to the evidence on record. learned Counsel submitted that the court below while determining the valuation of the land has failed to consider the nature and potential of the land. The learned Counsel lastly submitted that Ext. 1 (sale- deed) could not have been the basis for determining valuation. 4. The method of valuation resorted to by the court in determining the valuation of the acquired land necessarily depends upon the nature of the evidence adduced by the parties in that regard. The learned Counsel lastly submitted that Ext. 1 (sale- deed) could not have been the basis for determining valuation. 4. The method of valuation resorted to by the court in determining the valuation of the acquired land necessarily depends upon the nature of the evidence adduced by the parties in that regard. When parties adduced evidence of sale relating to an adjacent land or land in the vicinity of the acquired land and requires the court to determine compensation payable for such acquired land, then the court has to adopt comparable sales method of valuation of acquired land. 5. In lnder Singh V/s. Union of India -- ,the Apex Court while considering the question with regard to valuation of the land has observed as under: It is settled law that claimant is entitled to just and reasonable compensation and under Sec. 23 to determine the market value of the lands the prevailing prices as on the date of the publication of the notification under Sec. 4 (1), the sale transaction of the same lands or sales of lands situated in the neighbourhood would furnish as evidence of comparable sales. The price which a hypothetical willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser would from the basis to fix the market value. It would be possible to have reliable evidence when sale transactions are proved by either the vendor or the vendee and if either of them was not available, the attesting witness who had personal knowledge of the transaction is to be examined by producing either the original sale-deed or certified copies thereof as evidence 6. In the case of Land Acquisition Officer V/s. Jasti Rohini -- the Apex Court further observed as follows: 7. The reasonable method to determine the market value of the acquired land is on the evidence of transactions of bona fide sales of acquired land, but not on evidence of sales of such land got up having had knowledge of the proposed acquisition, the former would furnish reasonable basis to determine the compensation. In its absence, bona fide sales but not manipulated sales of the land in the neighbourhood possessed of same or similar quality and having the same or similar advantages would give an unerring as urance to the court to determine just and proper compensation. Such sales must not only be proved but also be bona fide transactions etc. In its absence, bona fide sales but not manipulated sales of the land in the neighbourhood possessed of same or similar quality and having the same or similar advantages would give an unerring as urance to the court to determine just and proper compensation. Such sales must not only be proved but also be bona fide transactions etc. These factors must be established as a fact by examining either the vendor or the vendee. Larking of certified copies of sale deeds are not proof of either the contents of the circumstances in which it came to be executed. Bona fide sale or series of sales of small pieces of land do not furnish the sole basis to determine market value. Bona fide sales may furnish evidence of the market conditions for consideration. Fixation of market value on the basis of the basic valuation register is, therefore, illegal and unsustainable. 7. In the instant case, as stated above, the claimant-respondent proved the sale-deed of the year 1983 i.e. prior to the date of acquisition to show that the market valuation of the adjacent land in the year 1983 was Rs. 1000.00 per decimal. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant-State to show that; the said sale-deed was not a bona fide transaction, or otherwise created for the purpose of claiming enhance valuation of the acquired land. On the contrary, 0PW1, the Land Acquisition Officer has categorically stated in his evidence that for the purpose of valuation, the records of the Registry office shall be correct. 8. In view of the facts and the evidence on record, I have no hesitation in holding that the sale-deed (Ext. 1) is the material piece of evidence for the purpose of determining valuation and that the market valuation of the land sold by Ext. 1, the sale-deed, was Rs. 1000.00 (rupees on thousand) per decimal in the year 1983. However, one factor necessary to be considered in the instant case is that by the said sale-deed (Ext. 1), only a piece of land was sold, while by the notification in question a very vast area of land was acquired and therefore, in such circumstances, the valuation for the entire land necessarily will be less than Rs. 1000.00 (rupees one thousand) per decimal. 1), only a piece of land was sold, while by the notification in question a very vast area of land was acquired and therefore, in such circumstances, the valuation for the entire land necessarily will be less than Rs. 1000.00 (rupees one thousand) per decimal. In such circumstances, therefore, the market valuation of the land of the claimant respondent cannot and shall not be more than Rs. 750.00 (rupees seven hundred and fifty) only per decimal. 9. In the result, this first appeal is allowed in part and the judgment and award passed by the learned court below is modified to the extent that the claimant and respondent would be entitled to get compensation @ Rs. 750.00 (seven hundred and fifty) per decimal for the land acquired by the appellant-State of Bihar. However, there will be no order as to costs.