Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1853 (PAT)

Baleshwar Chowdhary v. State Of Bihar

2007-12-05

S.K.KATRIAR

body2007
Judgment S.K.Katriar, J. 1. The applicants (the appellants herein) have preferred this appeal under sec. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act). It arises out of the judgment dated 29.9.1978, and the subsequent decree, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Purnea, in Baleshwar Choudhary and Others V/s. State of Bihar, L.A. Case No. 41 of 1972 whereby he has enhanced the amount of compensation fixed by the learned Land Acquisition Officer, Purnea, in P.L.A. Case No. 29 of 1968-69. We shall go by the description of the parties before the court below. 2. The State of Bihar had issued notification under sec. 4(1) of the Act on 27.9.1969. Ultimately a total of 1.98 acres of plot no. 1204, appertaining to Khata No. 17, situate at village- Champawati, P.S.-Dhamdaha, District- Purnea, was acquired for the purpose of construction of a housing colony. Plot No. 1204 covered a total area of 11 acres and 18 decimals. The learned Land Acquisition Officer had determined a total amount of Rs.5,503.51 paise by way of compensation. The applicants were deprived of possession of the lands on and from 20.5.1970. Aggrieved by the award, the applicants took steps under sec. 18 of the Act leading to Reference Case No. 41 of 1972. The learned trial court framed the following issue for adjudication: (i) The point for consideration is whether the applicants are entitled to get higher compensation? 3. The applicants led evidence in support of their case and are enumerated hereinbelow: (i) Exhibit-1registered deed of absolute sale dated 16.7.1968; (ii) Exhibit-2Unregistered agreement for sale of 5.1.1968; (iii) Exhibit-3Applicants objection under section 9 of the Act; (iv) Exhibit-4R.S. Map. (v) Six witnesses deposed in support of the case of the applicants. 4. The State of Bihar led the following evidence to rebut the case of the applicants: (i) Exhibit-Ka-Sale statement. (ii) Exhibit-Anga-Notification under section 4 of the Act: (iii) One witness proved Exhibit-Ka. 5. On a consideration of the entire materials before him, the learned Land Acquisition Judge enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 3,500/- per acre with solatium and 6% interest. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants has relied on Exhibit-1 and serial no. 1 of Exhibit-Ka in support of their claim for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 5. On a consideration of the entire materials before him, the learned Land Acquisition Judge enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 3,500/- per acre with solatium and 6% interest. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants has relied on Exhibit-1 and serial no. 1 of Exhibit-Ka in support of their claim for enhancement of the amount of compensation. He further submits that the applicants had in their objection under section 9 (Exhibit-3), confined their claim to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- per acre which is their stand in this Court also. 7. The learned Government Advocate submits that heavy onus lies on the applicants for enhancement of the amount of compensation which has to be established by contemporary sale-deeds with respect to adjoining lands. He next submits that the learned Land Acquisition Judge can enhance the amount of compensation only on consideration of relevant materials that amount of compensation determined under the award was inadequate for reasons that weighed with it. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another etc. V/s. Sri Siddappa Omanna Turnari and Others etc., AIR 1995 SC 840 He next submits that the evidence with respect to sale of small extent of lands is not good evidence for the purpose. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Siddappaa Omanna Tumari (supra) (paragraph 14), as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (Raj Kumar and Others V/s. Haryana State and Others., 2007 4 PLJR 120(SC) The evidence relied by the applicants are with respect to alienation of small portion of lands and, therefore, would not be a safe guide in the present context. He also submits that the most reliable evidence on record is serial no. 9 of Exhibit- Ka. He has also relied on serial no. 4 of Exhibit-Ka which is with respect to alienation of 14 decimals of land by a registered deed of absolute sale dated 16.7.1968, for a consideration money of Rs. 2080/-, which comes to Rs. 14,857/- per acre. It is relevant to state that serial nos. 1 & 4 are with respect to plot nos. 1381, and both are of the same date. 8. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed heavy reliance on Exhibit-1 which is a registered deed. 2080/-, which comes to Rs. 14,857/- per acre. It is relevant to state that serial nos. 1 & 4 are with respect to plot nos. 1381, and both are of the same date. 8. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed heavy reliance on Exhibit-1 which is a registered deed. of absolute sale from one Chatura Nand Choudhary and Anjani Kumar Choudhary, in favour of Shiv Lal Keshan and Shiv Pujan Keshan, which was registered on 16.7.1968, whereby 7 decimals of land of Plot No. 1381, for a total sum of Rs. 1500/-, has been alienated. It, therefore, comes to about Rs. 21,450/- per acre. It is relevant to state that, according to the R.S. Map (Exhibit-4), the same is just by the side of the road not far away from the acquired land in question, with the difference of no consequence that the two are on two sides of the road. The same as well as the acquired land are just by the side of the road. It is correct to state that a total of 1.98 acres of land of plot no. 1204 has been acquired, whereas Exhibit-1 deals with only 7 decimals of land, registered on 16.7.1968. 8.1) Consideration of Exhibit-2, which is an unregistered agreement for sale of 5.1.1968, need not detain us for the reason that neither of the parties has relied on the same. 8.2) Learned counsel for the appellants has also heavily relied on serial no. 1 of Exhibit Ka, which is a sale statement prepared by the learned Land Acquisition Officer. Serial No. 1 is with respect to sale of Plot No. 1381, covering an area of 7 decimals of land, by a registered deed of absolute sale dated 16.7.1968, for a total consideration money of Rs.1500/-, which comes to Rs. 14,857/- per acre. It is relevant to state that the sale in point of time had taken place fourteen months prior to the notification under sec. 4 of the Act published on 27.9.1969 (Exhibit- Anga). 9. The learned Government Counsel has placed heavy reliance on serial no. 9 of the sale statement (Exhibit-Ka), which was with respect to sale of 14 decimals of plot no. 1374, for a total consideration money of Rs. 500/-, by registered deed of absolute sale dated 11.6.1969. The consideration money after conversion comes to Rs. 3500/- per acre. 9. The learned Government Counsel has placed heavy reliance on serial no. 9 of the sale statement (Exhibit-Ka), which was with respect to sale of 14 decimals of plot no. 1374, for a total consideration money of Rs. 500/-, by registered deed of absolute sale dated 11.6.1969. The consideration money after conversion comes to Rs. 3500/- per acre. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that this is much closer to the acquired land and, therefore, reliance may be placed on this. I regret my inability to accede to the submission for two reasons, firstly, it militates against his own submission that the sale of small extents of land should not be taken into account. This document itself is with respect to small area of land. Greater objection is that this plot of land is not by the side of the road, is clearly away from the main road and is separated by other plots. It is common knowledge that valuation of such lands would be considerably reduced. It thus appears to me that Exhibit-9 of the sale statement would not be a reliable guide in the present context. 10. I must now deal with the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another V/s. Sri Siddappa Omanna Tumari and Others (supra) in paragraph 14 as follows: "14. Therefore, where a sale deed or an agreement to sell relating to a small extent of land is produced by the claimant, in the enquiry held for determination of compensation payable for his large extent of land, the Court is not always bound to determine the market price of such large extent of acquired land on the basis of the price fetched or to be fetched by small extent of land covered by such sale deed or agreement to sell." 10.1) The judgment in Raj Kumar and Others V/s. Haryana State and Others (supra) is to the same effect as paragraph 14 quoted hereinabove. 11. The Supreme Court has observed to the effect in its judgment reported in Panna Lal Ghosh & Others V/s. Land Acquisition Collector & Others, 2004 2 PLJR (SC)1 that compensation payable on a piece of land acquired under the Act is determined by taking into account the market value of the land so acquired. 11. The Supreme Court has observed to the effect in its judgment reported in Panna Lal Ghosh & Others V/s. Land Acquisition Collector & Others, 2004 2 PLJR (SC)1 that compensation payable on a piece of land acquired under the Act is determined by taking into account the market value of the land so acquired. While determining the market value of land, it must be with reference to a piece of land which is comparable to the land being acquired. Most reliable way to determine the market value is to rely on the instances of sale of portions of the same land as has been acquired or adjacent lands made shortly before or after the notification. There is no dispute in the present case that the lands adjacent to each other are comparable and adjoining. It thus appears that Rs. 200/- per dhur was the market value of the acquired land on the date of the notification under section 4 of the Act, ignoring the time-lag of nearly 10 months. 12. Applying the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that serial no.9 of Exhibit-Ka is wholly irrelevant in the present context and would be a very unsafe guide, inter alia, for the reason that the same is with respect to a plot of land which is clearly away from the main road and separated by other plots. It further appears from the map that it is entirely land-locked without any access. In so far as serial nos. 1 and 4 of Exhibits-Ka are concerned, the common features between the same and plot nos. 1381 (Exhibit-1), is that both are just by the side of the road and are interior by about 14 months. In my view, the sales with respect to serial nos. 1 and 4 of Exhibit-Ka as well as Exhibit-1, are of assistance in determining the amount of compensation in the present case. In so far as Exhibit-1 is concerned, it comes to Rs. 21,000/- per acre, and the alienations, vide serial nos. 1 and 4, come to about Rs. 14857/- per acre. The applicants in their objection under Section-9 (Exhibit-3), have limited the amount of compensation prayed for, to Rs. 20,000/- per acre. 13. In so far as Exhibit-1 is concerned, it comes to Rs. 21,000/- per acre, and the alienations, vide serial nos. 1 and 4, come to about Rs. 14857/- per acre. The applicants in their objection under Section-9 (Exhibit-3), have limited the amount of compensation prayed for, to Rs. 20,000/- per acre. 13. I am mindful of the position that the amount of compensation is being determined for acquisition of 1.98 acres of land, whereas the three sales are with respect to smaller areas. I am equally mindful of the position that the three sales had taken place 14 months earlier. It would serve the interest of justice if 18,0007- (eighteen thousand) per acre is determined as the price of land on the date of notification under sec. 4. The appellants shall be entitled to the amount of solatium and interest as per the relevant provisions of the Act. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs throughout. The impugned judgment and decree are hereby set aside.