Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2850 (RAJ)

Gurtej Singh v. State

2005-10-28

B.PRASAD

body2005
Judgment B. Prasad, J.-These misc. appeals have been filed by the Commandant BSF being aggrieved by the Judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar in various references pending before it and decided by it by a common Judgment dated 010.1996 and also against the Judgment in separate references of the same nature. There are similar appeal filed by the claimants also against the same set of Judgment for enhancement of the award. All these appeals are decided by a common Judgment . 2. For the purpose of factual matrix, the appeal filed by Gurjant Singh is taken into consideration. The land was acquired for making a housing complex for the BSF personal and the land measuring 190 bighas was sought to be acquired for this purpose. A notification was issued under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the L.A. Act) on 10.08.1987. Vide this notification, objections were invited under Section 5 of the L.A. Act. Such objections were disposed of by the order of Land Acquisition Officer dated 211.1987 and a declaration was prepared under Section 6 of the Act and it was notified by the Government on 09.02.1988. 3. After the aforesaid, a notice under Section 9 of the L.A. Act was issued to the land holders and the Land Acquisition Officer passed his award on 06.06.1988. Such award was sent for approval to the State Government but the same was not approved by the State Government and was sent back with certain modifications on 08.08.1988. The Land Acquisition Officer after considering the said modification suggested by the State Government, passed a fresh award on 011.1988 awarding compensation @ Rs. 15,000/-to Rs. 19,000/-per bigha. Apart from compensation, solatium @ 30% on the said amount was also allowed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Feeling aggrieved by the award, the claimants applied for reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. 4. The reference was taken up by the Court of Additional District Judge No.1 Sriganganagar. For determination of reference, learned Judge framed five points. Learned Additional District Judge proceeded to decide the claim. While deciding these issues, the learned reference Court observed that the claim of the claimants is based on oral evidence which the Court did not find to be of any significant value. For determination of reference, learned Judge framed five points. Learned Additional District Judge proceeded to decide the claim. While deciding these issues, the learned reference Court observed that the claim of the claimants is based on oral evidence which the Court did not find to be of any significant value. Further, no documentary evidence was produced by the claimants, however, two documents in the shape of registered sale-deeds, though not properly presented, were brought before the Court and they were considered by the Court. After considering the sale-deeds, the Court came to the conclusion that instead of compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer to the tune of Rs. 15,000/-to Rs. 19,000/-, flat rate of Rs. 19,000/-be awarded to all the claimants. 5. The Reference Court also came to the conclusion that claimants are not entitled to any compensation for permanent water channel because water channel belongs to the whole chak. The Reference Court had made proper reference of material available on record in this regard. The Court further came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to 30% solatium and interest was also awarded as delineated in the Judgment . 6. The claimants in their appeal have stressed that the Reference Court was not right in giving weightage to the sale-deed as produced and not awarding compensation to the tune as delineated in those pieces of evidence. According to their claims, if the average value of the sale-deeds is taken, it comes to Rs. 40,000/-. At least the claimants were entitled to Rs. 28,000/- per bigha. The Reference Court has further considered it illegal that the lands were sold for commercial purpose because it is not clarified that the land is sold for commercial purpose and, therefore, this is a wrong premise that the compensation has been fixed. 7. Learned Counsel for the BSF urged that the Courts below have erred in taking in to consideration the sale-deeds which were not properly produced and there being no proper documentary evidence on record, it was not open for the Courts below to ward a higher compensation to the tune of Rs. 19,000/-per bigha. So also, it was not open to increase the solicium @ 30% and interest on the increased amount. .8. I have considered the rival submissions and have given thoughtful consideration. 19,000/-per bigha. So also, it was not open to increase the solicium @ 30% and interest on the increased amount. .8. I have considered the rival submissions and have given thoughtful consideration. As regards the consideration of sale-deeds produced on record, it would be worthwhile to notice that law in this regard has been clearly stated by the Honble Supreme Court in a case decided in the mater of Ravinder Narain and Anr. vs. Union of India reported in 2003 (4) SCC 481 , that for determination of compensation, the market value can be made on the basis of following points:- .(i) When sale is within a reasonable time of the date of notification under Section 4(1); .(ii) it should be a bona fide transaction; (iii) it should be of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to the land acquired; and (iv) it should possess similar advantages." In the same Judgment Honble Supreme Court in Paragraph 6 that land area is a determining factor for deciding the compensation. "Where large area is the subject-matter of acquisition, rate at which small plots are sold cannot be said to be a safe criterion. Reference in this context may be made to three decisions of this Court in Collector of Lakhimpur vs. Bhuban Chandra Dutta, Prithvi Raj Taneja vs. State of M.P. and Kausalya Devi Bogra vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad." 9. Honble Supreme Court has further considered the question of consideration of documents on record and in this regard a reference may be made to the observations of the Court in the matter of Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer vs. V. Narasaiah reported in 2001 (3) SCC 530 :- "14. The words "may be accepted as evidence" in the section indicate that there is no compulsion on the Court to accept such transaction as evidence, but it is open to the Court to treat them as evidence. Merely accepting them as evidence does not mean that the Court is bound to treat them as reliable evidence. What is sought to be achieved is that the transactions recorded in the documents may be treated as evidence, just like any other evidence, and it is for the Court to weigh all the pros and cons to decide whether such transaction can be relied on for understanding the real price of the land concerned. 17. What is sought to be achieved is that the transactions recorded in the documents may be treated as evidence, just like any other evidence, and it is for the Court to weigh all the pros and cons to decide whether such transaction can be relied on for understanding the real price of the land concerned. 17. In the light of the above discussion, we are unable to concur with the observations made by the two Judge Bench in the decisions in Inder Singh vs. Union of India and P. Ram Reddy vs. Land Acquisition Officer, that even in spite of Section 51-A of the Act certified copies of the sale-deed could not be considered without examining persons connected with the transactions mentioned therein." 10. It will be seen from the above reference made by the Honble Supreme Court that the Court may consider the documents on record. It has been done by the Courts below in arriving at a just conclusion for awarding Rs. 19,000/-per bigha. The objection of the Union of India in this regard that those documents could not be considered is un-sustainable. The documents were taken on record and were a valid piece of evidence vide Narasaiah (Supra). 11. The arguments of the learned Counsel for the claimants that certain instances of sale have not been considered, is also not of any worth because the sale-deeds which have been pressed for determining the compensation could not have been made the basis for compensation. Because one of them related to a very small portion where a petrol pump is in function and other one was for commercial purpose. The land was very close to the commercial establishment of the town. Whereas, the land in question was more than 2 kms away from the town. Thus, the considerations which have been made the basis of award are justified propositions. The points raised cannot be held to be of such a value, which can make this Court to take a different view than the one taken by the Reference Court. In that view of the matter, the appeals preferred before this Court by both the parties are not to be of any merit. All the appeals deserve to be dismissed. Their number and title are mentioned above. 12. In that view of the matter, the appeals preferred before this Court by both the parties are not to be of any merit. All the appeals deserve to be dismissed. Their number and title are mentioned above. 12. The award as stands today, neither makes out a case for any undre enrichment or excessive claim and in that view of the matter, the appeals filed before this Court are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.