Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2599 (ALL)

COLLECTOR, VARANASI v. DARIYAO SINGH

2007-10-11

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2007
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the judgment, order and award dated 3.11.1989 and the consequential decree of the reference Court passed in LAR No. 77 of 1988 (Dariyao Singh v. Collector, Varanasi) by which the reference Court has enhanced the compensation of the acquired land awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO). 2. At the behest of the Executive Engineer, Chandraprabha Khand, Varanasi the State of U.P. notified to acquire 10.42 acres of land of various villages for increasing the capacity of Narainpur Pump Canal having a length of about 20 Kms. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 31.5.1986 and was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act dated 19.7.1986. By the aforesaid notifications agriculture land having an area of 0.28 acres of the claimant-respondent situate in Village Dhurikot, Pargana Majhwar, Tehsil Chandauli, District Varanasi was also acquired. The Special Land Acquisition Officer vide award No. 80 of 143 dated 30.7.1987 offered market value of Rs. 2,16,875.34 paise per acre alongwith statutory benefits. The claimant-respondent was awarded a sum of Rs. 8,384.81 paise as compensation. He was not satisfied by the compensation so offered. Therefore, he preferred a reference under Section 18 of the Act claiming market value @ Rs. 1,60,000/- per acre. The reference Court on the basis of the judgment and order dated 18.9.1989 passed in LAR No. 352 of 1988 (Kailash Bhushan v. Collector, Varanasi) determined the market value @ Rs. 67,200/- per acre of the acquired land. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid enhancement the Collector, Varanasi has preferred this appeal. 4. Heard Sri Shrish Chandra, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri R.C. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the claimant/respondent. 5. It is settled legal position that the amount awarded by the SLAO is like an offer and the reference is equivalent to a plaint of a suit. It is upon the claimant-respondent to show or establish that the compensation offered by the SLAO is in-adequate and at the same time to prove the appropriate market value by adducing cogent evidence. In this regard the exemplar sale-deeds of the same village relating to genuine and bona fide sale transactions are considered to be the best exemplars. It is upon the claimant-respondent to show or establish that the compensation offered by the SLAO is in-adequate and at the same time to prove the appropriate market value by adducing cogent evidence. In this regard the exemplar sale-deeds of the same village relating to genuine and bona fide sale transactions are considered to be the best exemplars. Admittedly, in the present case, the claimant-respondent has not filed any exemplar sale-deed to prove the market value of the acquired land prevailing at the time of the acquisition. The claimant-respondent though claimed market value @ of Rs. 1,60,000/- per acre but no documentary evidence in support was adduced except for the copy of the judgment and order dated 18.9.1989 passed in LAR No. 352 of 1988 wherein compensation @ 67,200/- per acre was awarded in respect of the land of village Katshila, Pargana Majhwar. 6. I have perused the original record of the reference Court. The award of the SLAO indicates that he had considered 5 sale-deeds which were executed within 3 years preceding the acquisition in the village as per the office of the Sub-Registrar Registration. The SLAO discarded the two sale-deeds as one of them was regarding the abadi land and the other was in respect of a grove. Thus he placed reliance upon the remaining 3 sale-deeds which involved the land similarly and identically located as the acquired land in making the award. In ONGC Ltd. v. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel and others, (2005) 6 SCC 454 , the Apex Court ruled that where the reference Court intends to take a different view from the one taken by the SLAO, it is duty bound to record reasons. In reference the claimant-respondent has not adduced any evidence to show that the reasoning adopted by the SLAO in making the award is in any way wrong and is not tenable. The reference Court has also not recorded any finding that the SLAO had committed an error in choosing the exemplar sale-deed or that he has otherwise ignored material evidence or a better exemplar while determining the market value. Therefore, in nut shell no fault was found with the award of the SLAO and no reasons for deferring with the view expressed by the SLAO were assigned. Thus, when no fault appeared in the award of the SLAO, the reference Court was not justified in enhancing the compensation awarded. 7. Therefore, in nut shell no fault was found with the award of the SLAO and no reasons for deferring with the view expressed by the SLAO were assigned. Thus, when no fault appeared in the award of the SLAO, the reference Court was not justified in enhancing the compensation awarded. 7. Now it has to be examined whether there was sufficient material/evidence before the reference Court to increase the compensation. It is admitted on record that no exemplar sale-deed was brought on record to prove the market value. The only documentary evidence thus is the judgment and order passed in the LAR No. 352 of 1988 (Kailash Bhushan v. Collector, Varanasi). 8. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 18.9.1989 passed in LAR No. 352 of 1988 indicates that it is in respect of land of village Katshila which is a different village. There is no evidence of any kind to indicate the location of village Katshila vis-a-vis village Dhurikot in which the land of the claimant-respondent is situate. There is neither any pleading nor evidence oral or documentary to prove the similarity in the lands of both the villages. In Ranjit Singh and others v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, JT 1992 (5) SC 414, the Apex Court observed where the claimants have not adduced evidence to show that the acquired land was similar to the land for which higher market value was awarded, the prayer for demand of higher compensation is liable to be dismissed. Moreover, the land of village Katshila involved in LAR No. 352 of 1988 was acquired by a notification dated 26.4.1984 issued under Section 4 of the Act dated i.e. two years prior to the acquisition of the land of the claimant-respondent. The award in respect of the said acquisition was also made by the SLAO on 14.8.1986. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment and order dated 18.9.1989 passed in LAR No. 352 of 1988 was passed in a totally different situation and in the absence of any evidence establishing the similarly or comparably of the two lands the said judgment and order could not have been applied and made the basis for determining the market value of the land involved in the present reference/appeal. Thus, the reference Court fell in patent error in enhancing the compensation on its basis. 9. Thus, the reference Court fell in patent error in enhancing the compensation on its basis. 9. Sri Sinha, learned Counsel for the claimant-respondent then placed reliance upon a judgment and order of this Court dated 25.11.2003 passed in First Appeal No. 307 of 1990 (State of U.P. v. Jai Govind Singh) and submitted that in the said appeal the award of Rs. 67,200/- per acre as market value has been upheld by the High Court. Therefore, on parity alone this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submitted that the above judgment and order of the High Court cannot be applied as it has only upheld the decision of the reference Court which has been passed on the basis of the judgment and order impugned in the present appeal. 11. From the perusal of the judgment and order dated 25.11.2003 passed in above First Appeal No. 307 of 1990, it transpires that the said appeal had arisen from the LAR No. 78 of 1980. In the said reference also the dispute was about the determination of compensation of the land situate in village Dhurikot which was acquired by the same notifications. The High Court upheld the judgment and order of the reference Court treating the judgment and order in the case of Dariyao Singh i.e. the present reference to be final and conclusive. It appears that the fact of pendency of this appeal was not brought to the notice of the Court. The Dariyao Singh’s case was decided on the basis of judgment and order dated 18.9.1989 passed in LAR No. 352 of 1988 and @ Rs. 67,200/- per acre was awarded. It has already been held by me above that the judgment and order passed in LAR No. 352 of 1988 had no application for awarding compensation for the land situate in village Dhurikot for the simple reason that the land involved in the said reference was of a different village and was acquired two years prior to the acquisition of the land involved herein coupled with the fact that there was no evidence to establish the comparability of the lands of the two villages. In ONGC (supra) the Supreme Court has also laid down that the judgments and awards in respect of neighbouring lands would be of no value of the comparability of the lands are not established by evidence and particularly when they have not attained finality. Similarly, in Jai Prakash and others v. Union of India, JT 1997 (4) SC 112, the Apex Court had ruled that merely because higher compensation was given for lands in neighbouring villages does not entitle the claimants the same compensation. Thus, to conclude the judgment and order passed by the reference Court in LAR No. 352 of 1988 was wrongly made the basis of awarding compensation in the present case. Moreover, the High Court had decided the First Appeal No. 307 of 1990 in view of the judgment and order of the reference Court passed in the present reference which had not become final. Therefore, even though the First Appeal No. 307 of 1990 has been dismissed and the award of compensation @ Rs. 67,200/- per acre has been upheld in one of the references, it would not effect the jurisdiction of the Court to decide this appeal independently and to determine the true and fair market value of the acquired land for the purposes of payment of compensation. In Bhag Singh and others v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, JT 1992 (5) SC 402, the Supreme Court has laid down that the award of compensation at a particular rate in one stray case would not mean that the Court is not competent to determine the market value and is bound to award the same compensation as in other case even when there is no evidence on record to establish the comparability of the lands. 12. Thus, in the totality of the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the reference Court has erred in law in enhancing the compensation awarded by the SLAO to the claimant-respondent. 13. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order of the reference Court dated 3.11.1989 passed in LAR 77 of 1988 (Dariyao Singh v. Collector, Varanasi) is set aside. No orders as to costs. ————