Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1997 DIGILAW 331 (PAT)

State of Bihar v. Nityanand Sarkar

1997-04-24

LOKNATH PRASAD

body1997
Judgment Loknath Prasad, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26.7.88 passed by Subordinate Judge I, Chaibasa in Land Acquisition Reference Case no. 40(34)85 through which compensation of the acquired land was fixed at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per acre. 2. The fact, in short, giving rise to this appeal is that an area of 2.33 acres of land appertaining to plot no. 700 in khata no. 33 of Mouza Moubhandar P.S. Ghatshila, Dist. Singhbhum was acquired by the State Govt. for the purpose of construction of Divisional Colony of Subarnarekha Project at Moubhandar. Necessary notification u/s. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was duly published on 4.3.81 and immediately 2.33 acres of the aforesaid plot no. 700 was acquired and the award was prepared on 26.3.85 and on the basis of the annual average product of the crop, the value of the acquired land was assessed at Rs.3210/- per acre and as such a sum of Rs.9723.09 P. as was awarded as compensation to the claimant. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied. the applicant-respondent file objection claiming that the acquired land had a potential value because it is very contiguous to urban area of Moubhandar where there is' office and quarters of Hindustan Copper Ltd. and near to the acquired land there is the residence of S.D.O. Ghatshila and various other officials and schools. So more or less it is a homestead land situated near the urban area and in any view of the matter, the market value of the acquired land will not be less than Rs.1.50 lakhs per acre at the time of acquisition. The learned Subordinate Judge after evidence of the parties and on the basis of rate chart prepared by the Land Acquisition Deptt., that is. the various sale deed executed near about the date of notification had relied upon a sale deed of the year 1980 which was executed by the claimant himself in respect of the other portion of the acquired plot itself and fixed the market value of the land at Rs.20,000/- per acre and ordered for payment of compensation at that rate besides 30% solatium and interest @ 9% per annum on the excess compensation amount from 'the date of taking of the possession. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with this order, the State Govt. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with this order, the State Govt. preferred this appeal and has challenged the findings of the learned Subordinate Judge mainly on the ground that there was no basis for enhancement of the compensation amount. 4. On the other hand, the respondent also tiled cross-objection against the order of the court below and has challenged the findings and it was submitted that the value of the acquired land will not be less than Rs.1.50 lakh per acre at the time of acquisition because the acquired land is close to various quarters of the State Govt. and also the Copper Corporation. So the land in-question was within the urban area and had a great potential value. Furthermore, the Special Land Acquisition Officer in another case recommended for payment of compensation @ Rs.60,000/- per acre for similar land. The State Govt. also settled some land to Military personnel at the rate of Rs.75,000/- per acre. Furthermore for other similar land acquired for the similar purpose, compensation was enhanced and it was fixed @ Rs.60,000/- per acre. Accordingly it was submitted that respondent is entitled to claim compensation in view of the matter not less than Rs.1 lakh per acre. 5. Now the only question of consideration is as to what will be the market value of the acquired land at the time of necessary notification u/s. 4 (1) of the L.A. Act, that is, on 4.3.81. 6. Admittedly 2.33 acres of land bearing plot no. 700 belonging to the respondent was acquired in the year 1981 for construction of some quarters for Subarnarekha Project at village Moubhandar. Earlier the compensation was fixed and award was prepared @ Rs.3210/- per acre on the basis of production value of the crop. However, in the reference case, the Land Acquisition Judge has fixed the value of the land and awarded compensation @ Rs.20,000/- per acre. Admittedly the land is in village Moubhandar and it is more or less in urban area and situated by the side of official quarters of State Govt. or that of Hindustan Copper Ltd. and the learned trial court was perfectly justified in coming to a conclusion that the market value of such land which had potential value cannot be fixed on the basis of average production and rightly relied upon the rate chart, that is, Ext. 2. or that of Hindustan Copper Ltd. and the learned trial court was perfectly justified in coming to a conclusion that the market value of such land which had potential value cannot be fixed on the basis of average production and rightly relied upon the rate chart, that is, Ext. 2. So far oral evidence is concerned, no doubt on behalf of the respondent, as many as five witnesses were examined. A.W. 1 to 5 had simply stated that acquired land had a potential value and it is near the urban area of Moubhandar and there are number of quarters of the Hindustan Copper Ltd. near the acquired land. A.W. 6 Nityananda Sarkar, claimant and respondent himself, has claimed that the acquired land has a potential value and it is near the urban area and he has further claimed that he sold part of the acquired plot on 16.6.80, that is, about 5 decimals for Rs.3000/- and claimed compensation of the acquired land @ Rs.1.50 lakhs per acre. The claimant has not produced sale deed to give an impression under what circumstance some lands were sold near about the date of notification in respect of land of Moubhandar. However from the rate chart, which was prepared in respect of sale deeds executed by different persons, that is, Ext. 2, it can be said that two sale deeds of 16.6.80 are in respect of part of the acquired plot i.e. plot no. 700. So these two sale deeds which are of June, 1980 are definitely the basis in coming to a conclusion or making an idea about the value of the acquired land. So far the sale deed of 5 decimals is concerned, it was executed in respect of same plot no. 700 by the respondent-claimant on 16.6.80 for Rs.3000/-, that means, @ Rs.60,000/- per acre and another sale deed on the same day in respect of same plot that is, plot no. 700 was executed at Rs.3000/- in respect of 16½ decimals of land. As both the sale deeds were executed on the same date and in the sale deed executed for 5 decimals of land, the consideration amount is much more higher and the claimant himself has admitted that this very land was very close to Copper Corporation quarter. 700 was executed at Rs.3000/- in respect of 16½ decimals of land. As both the sale deeds were executed on the same date and in the sale deed executed for 5 decimals of land, the consideration amount is much more higher and the claimant himself has admitted that this very land was very close to Copper Corporation quarter. Moreover, small portion of land, if at all sold cannot give proper picture about the value of the land because it is quite possible that the small plot was the homestead land and had a great potential value. The Supreme Court in the case of Prithvi Raj Taneja vs. State of M.P. ( AIR 1977 SC 1560 ) also held that the price paid for small plots of land cannot provide a safe guide or criteria for the compensation for a large area. 7. In the instant case, 2.33 acres of land were acquired and in view of the cross-examination of the claimant himself, it can be said that 5 decimals of land had a potential value and so it was sold at higher rate @ Rs.60,000/- and the portion of the same plot was also sold, that was to the extent of 16½ decimals by the same claimant-respondent for Rs.3000/- that is, at the rate of Rs.18000/- per acre. So the trial court was perfectly justified in accepting this very sale deed for fixing the market value of the land. Learned counsel for-the State of Bihar rightly submitted that the best evidence of the market value of the acquired land is the transaction of sale in respect of the same acquired land provided, of course, there is nothing to doubt the authenticity of the transaction and this view finds support from the authority of the Supreme Court reported in Bangaru Narasingha Rao Naidu vs. Revenue Divisional Officer (reported in AIR 1982 SC 63 ) and that of Dollar Co. Madras vs. Collector of Madras reported in AIR 1975 SC 1670 . 8. Thus it can be said that the claimant himself sold the same land of the same plot, that is, plot no. Madras vs. Collector of Madras reported in AIR 1975 SC 1670 . 8. Thus it can be said that the claimant himself sold the same land of the same plot, that is, plot no. 700 of village Moubhandar @ Rs.18000/- per acre or so and in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court, it can be said that if the claimant himself sold portion of the same plot, subject matter of the acquisition, then that will' be the best evidence for determining the market value and as such the trial court was perfectly justified on the basis of sale deed executed by the claimant himself and fixed the market value @ Rs.20,000/- per acre. 9. Learned lawyer for the respondent who has preferred objection no doubt submitted that in some other cases regarding the acquisition of the land of village Moubhandar or near about that, the land Acquisition Judge fixed the market value of the land at Rs.60,000/- per acre. In that view of the matter, at least the respondent is entitled to receive the amount at this rate in view of the provision of Section 28A of the Act. On the other hand it was contended on behalf of the State that each case is to be decided on its own merit and on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties. In this case at hand the claimant-respondent has not adduced any specific evidence nor any sale deed was produced and only rate chart was produced. So the trial court was justified in accepting one of the sale deeds executed by the claimant himself in respect of large portion of the acquired plot and if a reference under Section 18 was made by any person that in that view of the matter that person is not entitled to take advantage of Section 28A of the L.A. Act and in support of this contention, learned counsel has relied upon an authority of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1991 page 730 (Scheduled Caste Land Owning Society Ltd. vs. Union of India and others). So definitely the claimant has preferred reference u/s. 18 of the Act and also preferred cross-objection. In that view of the matter, the respondent is not entitled to take advantage of Section 28A of the Act. 10. So definitely the claimant has preferred reference u/s. 18 of the Act and also preferred cross-objection. In that view of the matter, the respondent is not entitled to take advantage of Section 28A of the Act. 10. So from the discussions made above and on consideration of the entire evidence on the record, it can be said that the trial court has rightly fixed the compensation of the acquired land @ Rs.2000/- per acre and as such there is no merit in this appeal or even in the cross-objection and so both are hereby dismissed but without any costs. However, this much is hereby observed that the trial court has already held that the respondent-claimant is entitled to 30% solatium on the amount of compensation and that the claimant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the excess compensation from the date of taking possession to the date of payment of such excess amount. But the claimant-respondent is entitled to compensation on such excess amount granted by the court below @ 9% per annum from the date of taking of the possession for a period of one year if the payment of the compensation amount will be paid and if no payment will be made within that period, then the rate of interest after one year will be 15% per annum. So award on the point of interest is to be modified in the manner indicated above. Accordingly judgment dt. 26th July, 1988 passed in L.A. Reference case no. 49 (34) 85 by Subordinate Judge I, Chaibasa is hereby confirmed and maintained save and except the rate of interest granted to the claimant as mentioned above.