Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 2491 (ALL)

C. K. TYAGI v. STATE OF U. P.

2003-10-22

PRAKASH KRISHNA

body2003
PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE State Government acquired 9. 8438 acre of land in village Dundhera district Ghaziabad for planned development of the area. The claimants land measuring 8 biswa was also acquired under the same project. The notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued on 25th June, 1976. The final notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 9th November, 1976 and possession was taken on 28. 2. 1977/24th May, 1977. The special Land Acquisition Officer gave the award on 2nd August, 1979. Aggrieved against the said Award the appellant filed a reference application and claimed compensation at the rate of rs. 25 per sq. yard. Reference was made to the court below. The District Judge, Ghaziabad, has enhanced the compensation amount to Rs. 11 per sq. yard and granted solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value of the land acquired. He also granted 12% as additional compensation from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act till the date of taking possession. The interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of taking of possession, i. e. , 28. 2. 1977/ 24. 5. 1977 to 27. 2. 1978/23. 5. 1978 till the date of payment, by order dated 2. 12. 1998 was also awarded. Still aggrieved the present appeal has been filed for further enhancement. ( 2 ) HEARD S/sri Faujdar Rai and B. B. Paul, learned counsel for the appellant, the learned standing counsel for the respondents and perused the records. ( 3 ) IT was submitted that compensation awarded at the rate of Rs. 11 per sq. yard is towards the lower side and the market value of land should be fixed at Rs. 25 per sq. yard. The second submission was that the court below should have awarded the cost while allowing reference in part. ( 4 ) IT appears that the claimant filed three sale deeds dated 20. 3. 1976, 26. 5. 1975 and 31. 7. 1973, as exemplars. The Court below has held that these sale deeds are in respect of small pieces of land having an area of 150 sq. yard to 200 sq. yard. It fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 11 per sq. 3. 1976, 26. 5. 1975 and 31. 7. 1973, as exemplars. The Court below has held that these sale deeds are in respect of small pieces of land having an area of 150 sq. yard to 200 sq. yard. It fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 11 per sq. yard on the basis of similar reference made under Section 18 of the Act. Reference Nos. 3 of 1980, 6 of 1980, 7 of 1980. 8 of 1980 and 9 of 1980 were decided by a common judgment dated 18th May, 1984. The leading case was Raj Kumar Goel v. State of U. P. and Ors. . In these references the market value of the land was determined as on the date of notification under section 4 of the Act at Rs. 11 per sq. yard. The Court below was of the view that since the present case also arises out of the same award and was the subject matter of the same acquisition proceedings, therefore, the market value of land in question should also be fixed at Rs. 11 per sq. yard. Disputing this finding of the Court below the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the land in question is situate near bye-pass road Ghaziabad and other important industries are nearby to it. The acquired land is very fertile and as such the appellant is entitled for higher amount of compensation. ( 5 ) I have given thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. It is true that in the reference application it was asserted by the claimant that acquired land is situated near the bye-pass road, Ghaziabad and there are other important industries. Unfortunately, there is no material to substantiate this plea. It appears that no oral evidence was recorded in this case. The claimant was satisfied by filing copies of three sale deeds as exemplar. The court below has also not recorded any such finding in its judgment although this plea has been noticed in para 3 of the judgment. Therefore, much reliance cannot be placed on this plea. ( 6 ) NOW the most important question, which falls for consideration, is about the market value of the claimants land as on the date of Section 4 notification. The average selling price comes to rs. 25 per sq. yard from the sale deed dated 20. 3. 1976. Therefore, much reliance cannot be placed on this plea. ( 6 ) NOW the most important question, which falls for consideration, is about the market value of the claimants land as on the date of Section 4 notification. The average selling price comes to rs. 25 per sq. yard from the sale deed dated 20. 3. 1976. From other two sale deeds dated 26th may, 1975 and 31st March, 1973, the average selling price comes to Rs. 20 and 19. 40 respectively, as mentioned in the judgment under appeal. It is true that these sale deeds relate to the small pieces of land measuring between 150 sq. yard to 200 sq. yard. The total area of the claimants land is 8 biswas, which is equivalent to 1008 sq. yard as informed by the learned counsel for the parties. Therefore, the exemplars are in respect of smaller piece of land. Learned district Judge was of the view that these sale deeds cannot be treated as exemplar in view of the fact that 9. 843 acres of land were acquired. This approach of the Court below is not legally correct. Each landholder is interested to the area of his land, which has been acquired. In thakarsibhai Devjibhai and Ors. v. Executive Engineer, 2001 (2) AWC 924 (SC) ; JT 2001 (3)SC 90. It has been held that largeness is merely when each landholders land is clubbed together ; then the area becomes large. Each landowners holdings are of small area. ( 7 ) IT has been held in number of cases that price fetched for small plots cannot be directly applied in the case of large area. Small plots exhibit retail price of developed land and in big plot certain land has to be left for development work such as laying street, etc. In such cases some reduction should be made to arrive at a correct market value of the big plots from the price of small plots. The genuineness of the aforesaid three sale deeds have not been disputed or doubted by the respondents. The sale deed dated 20th March, 1976, gives an average price at Rs. 25 per sq. yard. While the other sale deed gives an average price around Rs. 20 per sq. yard. The genuineness of the aforesaid three sale deeds have not been disputed or doubted by the respondents. The sale deed dated 20th March, 1976, gives an average price at Rs. 25 per sq. yard. While the other sale deed gives an average price around Rs. 20 per sq. yard. Taking into consideration the fact that these sale deeds were in respect of comparatively smaller plots I think it appropriate to make deduction of 25% in the price of smaller plots to arrive at a market price of the land in question. By making deduction of 25% from Rs. 20 it comes to Rs. 15. Thus, I am of the opinion that the reference court should have fixed the market value of the land in question at Rs. 15 per sq. yard. This appears to be reasonable market price of the land in question on the relevant date, i. e. , 25th June, 1976. These two sale deeds are earlier to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The sale deed dated 20. 3. 1976, which gives Rs. 25 per sq. yard, as average market price is indicative of the fact that there was upward revision in the price of the land in the year 1976. Therefore, the award of the reference Court needs modification to this extent. ( 8 ) AS regards second submission I find some force in the argument of the appellant that the Court below should have awarded cost while allowing reference in part. Reliance was placed on a division Bench judgment of this Court in Harbans v. State of U. P. and Anr. , 2000 (4) AWC 2975 : 2000 (1) CRC 326. Sub-section (2) of Section 27 of the Act provides that when the award of the Collector is not upheld the cost shall ordinarily be paid by the Collector, unless the Court is of the opinion that the claim of the applicant was so extravagant or he was so negligent in putting his case or he should pay as part of Collectors cost. The applicant had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 25 per sq. yard, the reference Court has granted it at Rs. 11 per sq, yard. Therefore, the cost of the reference Court should have been awarded by it. Therefore, I award cost of the reference court. The applicant had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 25 per sq. yard, the reference Court has granted it at Rs. 11 per sq, yard. Therefore, the cost of the reference Court should have been awarded by it. Therefore, I award cost of the reference court. ( 9 ) THE reference Court has granted interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from the date of taking of possession for one year. There is no order for payment of interest for the period after one year. Under Section 28 of the Act the grant of interest is mandatory. Therefore, the interest in terms of Section 28 of the Act is also awarded. The claimant is also entitled for interest at the rate of 15% per annum for the period after expiry of one year from the date of taking possession till the date of deposit of enhanced amount in the Court. Supreme Court in the case of Sunder v. Union of India and Ors. , 2001 (4) AWC 3084 (SC) : JT 2001 (8) SC 130 (Para 19), has held that interest is also payable on solatium and on additional compensation. ( 10 ) IN view of the above appeal is allowed in part and the following relief is granted : (1) The market value of land in question is fixed at Rs. 15 per sq. yard. (2) The solatium at the rate of 30% is awarded in view of Section 12 (2) of the Act. (3) Additional compensation at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of notification under section 4 of the Act till the date of possession is awarded. (4) Interest at the rate of 9% for the first year and for the subsequent year till the date of actual deposit at the rate of 15% as per Section 28 of the Act on the enhanced compensation amount. (5) Cost of reference Court as well as of this Court. Appeal is allowed in part as indicated above. .