Sachida Nand Lal v. State Of Bihar — 1999 DIGILAW 487 (PAT)

Judgment D. N. Prasad, J. 1. Both the appeals were heard together as they arise out of the common judgment and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The case of the appellants in brief as alleged that the acquisition of the land of the claimants situated at village and P. S. Lohar-dagga was made for construction of Agriculture Market yard by virtue of Notification No. D. LAKr. VI-14/78-363 RA (Ext.4) under Sec.4 (2)and it was published in the Official gazette on 16-2-1978. The awards were prepared in the name of several claimants. The extracts of the award indicate that it was prepared in two names payable to Kishun Sao, son of Ramu Sao for Rs.5,666.82 pand the amount payable to Bhairo Sao, son of Bhawani sao for Rs.2,000/-oniy. It is further claimed that the value assessed by the Court below is very low and he has not considered the sale-deeds already adduced on behalf of the appellants as well as the lands are situated within the area of township. There is also facility of electricity, water, childrens school. hospital and the market and the value assessed by the learned Court below which is without any basis which is fit to be set aside and the market price of the land acquired would come to Rs.66,000/- per acre, whereas the price of the land acquired has been fixed arbitrarily at much lower rate of Rs.48,000/- per acre. It is also claimed that the appellants are entitled to interest at the rate of Rs.12% per annum and so the judgment of the lower Court is fit to be set aside and the price of the land acquired should be increased at the higher rate. 3. On being aggrieved by the impugned judgment the appellants preferred this appeal claiming that the value of the land in question should be at the rate of Rs.1.000/aper decimal, besides.12% interest per annum increase in the market value. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the learned court below has committed error in fixing the rate of value of the land in question as both the lands described in Schedules ka and kha are equivalent in nature. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the learned court below has committed error in fixing the rate of value of the land in question as both the lands described in Schedules ka and kha are equivalent in nature. It is further submitted that the sale deed Exts.1 and 1/a, according to which, the market price per acre would come at Rs.660/- per decimal of the land in question, but even then the learned Court below has fixed the value of the land at the rate of rs.480a per decimal. It is further argued that the lands are situated within the jurisdiction of the town and there is facility of hospital, school and electricity and, as such, there is a great potentiality of the land which was acquired but the Trial Court has not considered in proper way. it is further submitted that subsequent to the said sale-deeds, Ext.1/b of 1977 by which the land was sold at the rate of Rs.1,000/-per decimal, but even then this sale-deed has not been taken into account by the learned court below. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants relied upon the cases reported in AIR 1998 Supreme Court 781 and 1028. 5. On the Other hand, the learned Coun-sel for the respondent submitted that there is no illgality In the imprugned judgment and the learned Court below has rightly assessed the value of the land in question. It is further submitted that the learned Court below has rightly determined the value of the land as being the quality of the said two types of land are different which has been described as schedule ka and Schedule kha and the land described in schedule kha is very low land. It is further submitted that the appellant is not entitled to get the interest under Sec.23 (1-A) of the Land acquisition Act and this case was not pending before the Collector after 1982, rather the award was published on 15-5-1980 and the appeal is fit to be dismissed. 6. Before appreciating the contention of the learned Counsels of rival parties it would be appropriate to consider the evidence of both the parties adduced in the lower Court. 6. Before appreciating the contention of the learned Counsels of rival parties it would be appropriate to consider the evidence of both the parties adduced in the lower Court. It is an admitted position that the lands which were found within 150 feet from Ranchi Lohardagga road were kept in the category of Schedule ka, whereas the lands found to be away from the said distance from the road was taken to be in the category of Schedule kha. 7. P. W.1 Sri Govind Misra proved two sale deeds Exts.1 and 1/a. According to him, there was rate of sale for the land in the year 1977-78 at Rs.1,500/- per decimal, but admittedly, no sale-deed has been produced from the side of the appellants to substantiate this fact. The sale deed, Ext.1/b is in respect of the sale of the land at the rate of Rs.1.000/- per decimal 8. P. W.2 Deoki Prasad also proved the sale-deed Ext.1/b dated 16-8-1977. According to him, he had purchased two decimals of the land at the rate of Rs, 1,000/- per decimal by the said sale-deed in the year 1977, but it is pertinent to mention here that admittedly a dilapidated house was also standing on the land purchased by this petitioner (Ext.1/b) as well as this witness purchased the land having an area of two decimals and two karis for Rs.2,000/- only and. as such, he had purchased the land more than two decimals of land for rs.2,000/- as well as one dilapidated house was also standing over the said land. In this way, in my view, this sale-deed, Ext.1/b can not be the determning factor for the assessment of the value of the land in question. 9. P. W.3 Ganga Prasad deposed that the land in question is surrounded by hospital, school and market as well as it is situated by the side of the Gumla-Ranchi Road. According to him, the price of the land in question would be at the rate of Rs.1.000/- to 3.000/- per decimal He proved two notices and notification tender, Exts.2/a and 3. He stated in his cross examination that the land in question is situated at the distance of two kilometres from the station. 10. According to him, the price of the land in question would be at the rate of Rs.1.000/- to 3.000/- per decimal He proved two notices and notification tender, Exts.2/a and 3. He stated in his cross examination that the land in question is situated at the distance of two kilometres from the station. 10. P. W.4 Sachidanand Lal, one of the appellants stated that the land in question is situated by the side of Gumla Lohardagga road and it is within the Jurisdiction of the municipality. According to him, the price of the land in question would be at the rate of Rs.2.500/- to 3.000/- per decimal, but he admitted in his cross-examination that the lands in question are cultivable land and paddy crop is also grown there. But the said land is also useful for construction of the house. According to him, there is production of 40 to 50 mounds of paddy per acre. but it may be noted here that there is no corroboration of this fact, either by oral or documentary evidence and so such statement in respect of production of paddy in such rate cannot be taken into account in determining the market value of the land. 11. O. P. No.1 Murlidhar Sahu proved the valuation chart, as assessed by the Land acquisition Officer, Ext. A. He also proved valuation khatiyan and the sale statement, Exts. B and C. 12. In order to establish the case. the appellants filed two sale-deeds. Exts.1 and 1/a in the lower Court from which it appears that both the sale-deeds were registered on 1.7.1974 and 2 decimals of land was sold for a sum of Rs.1,660/-, i. e. , at the rate of rs.660/- per decimal. It is also -clear that the notification under Sec.4 (1) of the Land acquisition Act was made on16-2-1978. In this way, both the sale-deeds, Exts, 1 and l/a which have been executed in the year 1974 just before the publication of notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, and as such, both the sale-deeds can be taken into account in determining the value of the" land in question and both the said sale-deeds can be best evidence for determining the rate of value of lands in question for the land described as ka land. 13. 13. The witnesses examined on behalf of the appellants also claimed that the land in question is within the jurisdiction of the municipality and it is also situated by the side of the Gumla-Lohardagga Road. It has also come in evidence that the hospital, school and market are lying nearby to which admittedly there is not any evidence by way of rebuttal from the side of opposite party on this score and such type of lands have been kept in the category of ka, whereas other lands which were found in the lower and more than 150 feet away from the road, were taken into category kha. It appears that in getting them fit for the residential purposes, a considerable expenditure said to have incurred in raising the level of the lands and also in giving passage in it. As per the sale deed, Ext.1/b, by which two decimals and two karis of land were purchased in plot No.1262 for the value of less than rs.1,000/- per decimal. There is also mention in the sale deed about the sale of a dilapidated house and as such this sale-deed cannot be taken into account for ascertainment of the value of the land in question. 14. But, it is clear from the evidence on record that the lands in question under category ka are situated by the side of Gumla Lohardagga Road and also within the jurisdiction of Municipality. In this way, I find that the value of the lands in question should have been assessed as per the sale-deed, Exts.1 and 1/a of 1974 by which it appears that there was a value of the land at the rate of Rs.660/- per decimal. Thus, I find that the value of the land under category ka should have been assessed at the rate of Rs.660/- per decimal. But the lands belonging to category kha have been rightly assessed by the lower Court and there appears no interference in respect of the value of the lands belonging to the category kha. in the result, the petitioner/appellant is entitled to get the value of the lands of category lea only at the rate of Rs.660/- per decimal. 15. But the lands belonging to category kha have been rightly assessed by the lower Court and there appears no interference in respect of the value of the lands belonging to the category kha. in the result, the petitioner/appellant is entitled to get the value of the lands of category lea only at the rate of Rs.660/- per decimal. 15. It appears that the lower Court has already held in the impugned judgment that the appellant is entitled for solatium at the rate of 30 per cent under Sec.23 (2) of the Land acquisition Act, but the lower Court granted interest at the rate of 6 per cent on the compensation amount which does not appear to be consonant to the Sec.28 of the Land acquisition Act. Thus, I find that the claimant is entitled to rate of interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the excess compensation from the date of taking of the possession to the date of payment of such excess amount. But the claimant/appellant is entitled to compensation on such excess amount at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of taking possession for a period of one year if the payment and 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 cent per annum. Thus, in view of the discussions made above the award on the point of valuation as well as on the interest is to be modified in the manner discussed above. 16. In the result, both the appeals are, hereby, allowed in part and the award of the lower Court to that extent is modified. But there is no order as to costs. Both appeals allowed in part.