Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 111 (MP)

LAXMAN SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2006-01-19

S.L.JAIN

body2006
( 1 ) THIS order shall govern the disposal of this appeal as well as F. A. 354/96 (The State of M. P. v. Dharmendra Singh and Ors.) and F. A. No. 590/96 (The State of M. P. v. Laxman Singh ). As all these three appeals arise out of a common order passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 146/94 and 147/94 and all were heard together, they are being decided analogously by this common judgment. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to the filing of these appeals lie in a narrow compass:--The State Government for the purposes of construction of Bhanpur Sub Miner Canal proposed to acquire the lands situated in Village Bhanpur, Tehsil Babai, Distt. Hoshangabad which included Khasra No. 143/1, total area 3. 7 acres and was lateron sub divided and new Khasra No. 143/5 total area of. 52 acres belonging to Laxman who is the appellant in First Appeal No. 346/96 and respondent in First Appeal No. 590/96 and 3 acres of land of Khasra No. 146/6 belonging to Bhagwan Singh whose L. Rs. are respondents in First Appeal No. 354/96. A notification to that effect was published. ( 3 ) THE land owners including said Bhagwan Singh and Laxman submitted their claims for compensation alleging that the market value of the land is Rs. 51,000/- per acre. Bhagwan Singh also claimed a sum of Rs. 1,01,950/- per acre for the loss of standing crop and Rs. 4,00,000/- for the loss of lemon trees standing on the acquired land. He also claimed Rs. 3,000/- towards loss arising out of the fact that the canal divided his land into two parts. He also claimed damages for tube well. Claimant Laxman Singh claimed Rs. 1,06,000/- towards loss of crop standing on the land acquired and for the value of 100 lemon trees standing on the land in question, He also claimed compensation on account of the fact that the canal divided his land into two parts. The land Acquisition Officer assessed the value of the land @ Rs. 7,705/- per acre. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation towards the value of lemon trees to Bhagwan Singh but did not awarded any compensation to Laxman Singh towards the same. ( 4 ) ON the request of claimants Bhagwan Singh and Laxman Singh, the references were made to the District Judge, Hoshangabad. 7,705/- per acre. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation towards the value of lemon trees to Bhagwan Singh but did not awarded any compensation to Laxman Singh towards the same. ( 4 ) ON the request of claimants Bhagwan Singh and Laxman Singh, the references were made to the District Judge, Hoshangabad. The reference of Bhagwan Singh was registered as Land Acquisition MJC Case No. 146/94 and the reference case of Laxman Singh was registered as Land Acquisition MJC No. 147/94. Both the cases were consolidated by the Reference Court and the evidence for both the cases was recorded in Reference Case No. 146/94. ( 5 ) WHILE deciding the reference IIIrd Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad held that the land acquired by the State Government was irrigated land. On the basis of different sale deeds filed by the claimants the Reference Court assessed the value of unirrigated land @ Rs. 4,623 per acre. As the land in question was irrigated land, the Reference Court held that its value should be assessed at the rate double then the unirrigated land and recorded a finding that the value of the land acquired was of Rs. 9,246/- per acre. ( 6 ) SO far as the compensation for the loss of crop standing on the acquired land is concerned, the Reference Court found that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is proper. Regarding the value of the lemon trees alleged to have been standing on the land of Laxman Singh, in view of the contradictions in the evidence adduced, the Reference Court found that the order of Land Acquisition Officer in this regard is proper and refused to award any claim towards this head. The Court below also awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for the tube well to Bhagwan Singh. ( 7 ) AGAINST this order, Laxman Singh has filed F. A. No. 346/96. State Government has filed F. A. No. 354/96 against Laxman Singh and F. A. No. 590/96 against the L. Rs. of Bhagwan Singh. ( 8 ) I have heard Shri R. K. Samaiya, Counsel for the appellant in F. A. No. 346/96 and Counsel for respondents in F. A. Nos. 354/96 and 590/96 and Shri A. L. Patel, G. A. for the respondent/state in F. A. No. 346/96 and Counsel for the appellant/state in F. A. Nos. 354/96 and 590/96 and perused the record. 354/96 and 590/96 and Shri A. L. Patel, G. A. for the respondent/state in F. A. No. 346/96 and Counsel for the appellant/state in F. A. Nos. 354/96 and 590/96 and perused the record. ( 9 ) IN F. A. No. 346/96, Shri R. K. Samaiya, learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the value of the land assessed by the Reference Court @ 9,246/- is extremely low. ( 10 ) THE contention does not hold water. In the case of land the market value is generally ascertained on a consideration of the prices obtained by sale of adjacent lands with similar advantages. The word 'normal' postulates a genuine transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller as also the absence of any special circumstances. The Court below considered the different sale deeds filed by the claimants. The comparable lands were unirrigated land and as the land in question was irrigated land the Court below assessed the market value @ double than the unirrigated land. Under the Urban Land Ceiling Act and certain other enactments such as M. P. Land Revenue Code, one acre of irrigated land is stated to be equal to two acres of un-irrigated land. On the similar analogy, the Reference Court assessed the compensation, therefore, the compensation as awarded by the Reference Court can not be said to be inadequate. ( 11 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant further drew the attention of this Court that to determine the market value various factors should be taken into consideration. The size and shape of the land, the locality and its situation, the tenure of the property, the user, its potential value, and the rise or depression in the value of the land in the locality and even in its near vicinity are the factors to be considered. The witnesses examined by the claimants have specifically stated that the value of the land in the vicinity is Rs. 15,000/- per acre. There was no evidence in rebuttal. Therefore, it was the duty of the Reference Court to assess the value @ Rs. 15,000/- per acre. ( 12 ) IT is true that the facts suggested by the Counsel for the appellant must be seen while assessing the value of the acquired land. 15,000/- per acre. There was no evidence in rebuttal. Therefore, it was the duty of the Reference Court to assess the value @ Rs. 15,000/- per acre. ( 12 ) IT is true that the facts suggested by the Counsel for the appellant must be seen while assessing the value of the acquired land. The Reference Court determined the market value relying on the prices of the land in the same village fetched by sale deeds effected recently of land with similar advantages situate in the neighbourhood. While considering oral evidence, Court is not bound to accept the evidence of witnesses only because they have not been effectively cross examined or the same is not rebutted. Judges are not computers. They are bound to consider the evidence by the experience of their life and assess the evidence on the basis of the probabilities. Where the sale deeds of comparable sales were filed on behalf of the claimants they alone were the best material for determination of the market value. On the face of these documents, the oral evidence can not be said to be unimpeachable. Therefore, the assessment made by the Court below can not be found faulted with. ( 13 ) IN F. A, Nos. 354/96 and 590/96, the learned Counsel for the appellant/state vehemently submitted that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer @ Rs. 7,705/- per acre was proper. The Revisional Court arbitrarily enhanced the market value from Rs. 7,705/- per acre to Rs. 9,246/-per acre. ( 14 ) THE contention is not acceptable. As has been stated above, the Reference Court awarded the compensation on the basis of market value. The best method of determination of the true market price of the land under Section 23 (1) of the Act is to base it on instances of sale of the same land or the land adjacent to the land acquired and possessing similar advantages. The comparable sales were within the reasonable time of notification. The transactions on which the claimants relied before the Reference Court can not be said to be lacking in bonafides. Where sale deeds pertaining to different bonafide transaction were relied on by the claimants, the Reference Court took the average of the sale deeds and not only one representing the highest values. Therefore, it can not be said that the assessment of the Reference Court was at the higher side. Where sale deeds pertaining to different bonafide transaction were relied on by the claimants, the Reference Court took the average of the sale deeds and not only one representing the highest values. Therefore, it can not be said that the assessment of the Reference Court was at the higher side. Accordingly, the contention raised by the Counsel for the State is not acceptable. ( 15 ) REGARDING the value of the lemon trees, learned Counsel for appellant Laxman vehemently submitted that 100 lemon trees were standing on the land acquired from the appellant. The Reference Court on flimsy grounds, on the basis of contradictions in the oral evidence, refused the compensation for lemon trees. The grounds given in Para 14 of the order impugned for refusing to pay the compensation for lemon trees are not sustainable. ( 16 ) IN this regard, learned Counsel for the respondent/state submitted that there is no material that lemon trees were standing on the land acquired from Laxman Singh. He drew my attention to the entries in the relevant Khasras which do not disclose that lemon trees were standing on the land acquired from Laxman Singh. ( 17 ) I have perused the Khasra entries. The Khasra entries do not disclose that lemon trees were standing on the land acquired from Laxman Singh, therefore, the Court below committed no error in refusing to award compensation for lemon trees. ( 18 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submitted that this is not the finding of the Court below that lemon trees were not standing on the land acquired, therefore, the appellant can not challenge the finding on this ground. ( 19 ) THE contention is not acceptable. Respondent can support the finding recorded by the Court below on the grounds other than the one relied by the Court. When the Kahsra entries do not disclose that lemon trees were standing on the land acquired from Laxman Singh, the Land Acquisition Officer of the Reference Court committed no error in refusing to award the compensation for lemon trees. ( 20 ) THE another limb of the argument of learned Counsel for the appellant in First Appeal No. 346/96 is that the interest awarded by the Reference Court on the enhanced amount is meager. ( 20 ) THE another limb of the argument of learned Counsel for the appellant in First Appeal No. 346/96 is that the interest awarded by the Reference Court on the enhanced amount is meager. The rate of interest as provided under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act is 9% per annum but the Court below awarded interest @ 6% per annum only. ( 21 ) THE contention is not acceptable. The words 9 per centum have been substituted in Section 34 of the Act for the words 6 per centum by Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984. This Amendment Act No. 68/84 came into force with effect from 24-9-84. before this Amendment, the rate of interest as provided was 6 per centum per annum, therefore, the Trial Court committed no error in awarding interest @ 6% per annum for the period February, 1979 to December, 1981 and at the modified rate of 9% per annum after December, 1981. Therefore, this interest awarded by the Court below is defensible. ( 22 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant/state in F. A. No. 590/96 vehemently submitted that the Reference Court awarded the compensation for tube well in the arbitrary manner. ( 23 ) THE Khasra entries of the acquired land reveal that there was a tube well in the land in question. As a tube well was standing on the acquired land, the Reference Court committed no error in awarding the compensation towards tube well. The Reference Court assessed the value of tube well @ Rs. 5,000/-, the same does not appear to be unreasonable or excessive. ( 24 ) ON the basis of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the findings recorded by the Reference Court in the common order deciding all the reference cases arc rational and sustainable. The order passed by the Court below is defensible. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in all the three appeals and the same are dismissed. The costs of all the appeals shall be borne by the parties. .