Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1433 (MP)

Hira Devi v. State of M. P.

2008-12-11

A.K.MISHRA, SUSHMA SHRIVASTAVA

body2008
JUDGMENT Mishra, J. --1. These appeals arise out of award dated 8th September, 2001 passed by First Additional District Judge, in Case No. 42/97 MJC. 2. The facts, in short, are that on 14.2.1986 a notification under section 4. of the Land Acquisition Act was issued for the purpose of acquisition of 25.66 acres of the land belonging to the claimants. It was adjacent to the National Highway No. 12 and on other side of the road, it is not in dispute, that Rajeshwari Talkies, some shops and residential houses were situated. Initially, the award (P-23) was proposed by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Competent Authority on 9.2.1988 in which valuation per acre was proposed at Rs. 23,770/-. This award was not accepted by the Competent Authority. Ultimately, the award was passed by the LAO determining the compensation in two modes; upto 100 meters of the National Highway Rs. 12,543.50 per acre, beyond 100 meters @ Rs. 9,332/-. On reference being sought under section 18 of the Act the Reference Court has valued the land @ Rs. 12,543/- per acre for the entire land irrespective of distance from the National Highway No. 12. Dissatisfied with the award passed by the Reference Court the claimants as well as MPEB have come up in the appeals. 3. Shri Ravish Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing with Shri Pranay Verma on behalf of the claimants has submitted that the evidence of sale-deed (Exhs. P-1 to P-10) by which land was sold at the rate of 2 to 5 per square feet has been totally ignored by the Reference Court as on the other side of the road residential houses, talkies as well as shops were situated, the sale-deeds were relevant. Compensation awarded is meagre, thus, it be suitably enhanced. He has prayed determination of compensation @ Rs. 2.076 per square feet, as per that appeal has been valued. 4. Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of MPEB has submitted that the large tract of the land has been acquired admeasuring 22.66 acres, thus, it would not have been possible to value the land at per square feet basis. There was no justification for the Reference Court to enhance the compensation even for the land situated beyond 100 meters at the same road which is awarded to the land just adjacent to the road. There was no justification for the Reference Court to enhance the compensation even for the land situated beyond 100 meters at the same road which is awarded to the land just adjacent to the road. Thus, the enhancement made by the Reference Court be set aside. 5. It is not in dispute that the land is abutting to the National Highway No. 12. But, at the same time this is large tract of the land. In front of the area in question on the other side of the road talkies, residential houses and shops have come up, thus, the area adjacent to the road was capable of being used for the commercial purpose, rest of the area could have been used at the time of issuance of notification for residential purpose considering the potentiality as on the date of issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act. We are not taking into consideration the subsequent user to which the land has been put, due to acquisition, but, the potential value on the date of notification as laid down by the apex Court in LAO Karnataka Housing Board v. P.N. Malappa, AIR 1997 SC 3661 . The price has to be offered applying the test of a prudent buyer as laid down by the apex Court in Special Duty Collector v. K. Sambasiv Rao, AIR 1997 SC 2625 . In Basant Kumar v. Union of India, [ (1996) 11 SCC 542 ], in case of acquisition of developing land 60% deduction towards development was held permissible considering the facts of the said case. If the land is developed, less deduction can be made. At the same time situation of the land is relevant criteria if the land is situated abutting the road it may fetch higher value, higher compensation is permissible to the land adjacent to the road as enunciated by the apex Court in Priya Vrat v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 2471 . In B. Rameshan v. State of Kerala, AIR 1997 SC 2159 , offer of two different price abutting road and the land which was low lying areas was upheld. Similarly, acquisition of the plot where it is small or large is relevant factor, nearness to road where land is in frontage or only small opening on front, proximity to developed area, depressed portion requiring filing, shape, level etc. Similarly, acquisition of the plot where it is small or large is relevant factor, nearness to road where land is in frontage or only small opening on front, proximity to developed area, depressed portion requiring filing, shape, level etc. are relevant considerations as observed by the apex Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. LAO, Poona, AIR 1988 SC 1652 . In Land Acquisition Officer and Sub-Collector, Gadwal v. Smt. Sreelatha Bhoopal and another, AIR 1997 SC 2552 , the apex Court has laid down that sale-deed of small piece of land cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of determination of the compensation for the large tract of the land. The apex Court in Gafar and others v. Moradabad Development Authority and another, (2007) 7 SCC 614 , has observed that the burden of proof is upon the claimants to establish that amount awarded to them by the Land Acquisition Officer is not adequate. In the instant case, as the area is large tract of the land 25.66 acres and sale-deeds from P-1 to P-1 0 indicates that the land was being sold @ Rs. 2 to 5 per square feet, but, we cannot adopt the same method for the purpose of determination of value for the large tract of the land. Area in question is 25.66 acres, at the same time some area is adjacent to the road that would fetch higher value as compared to the land situated beyond 100 meter from the road. In the instant case, initially the award was proposed by the Land Acquisition Officer @ Rs. 23,770/- per acre, that was not accepted for the reason best known to the authorities. At the rate· of Rs. 2/- per square feet the appellant has claimed that the compensation would come to Rs. 22 lakh for which they have come up in the appeal, but, we are not accepting the claim based on the sale deeds (Exhs. P-1 to P-10), which is average worked out on the basis of sale-deeds (Exh. P-1 to P-10). Per acre price at Rs. 2 per sq. feet comes approximately to Rs. 86,000/- on the basis of sale-deed evidence. However, we are not accepting the aforesaid as area in question is large tract. Though we are adopting two different tracts for 100 meter we are awarding higher compensation as compared to the land situated beyong 100 meters of the Highway. 2 per sq. feet comes approximately to Rs. 86,000/- on the basis of sale-deed evidence. However, we are not accepting the aforesaid as area in question is large tract. Though we are adopting two different tracts for 100 meter we are awarding higher compensation as compared to the land situated beyong 100 meters of the Highway. It would still be appropriate to value the land at Rs. 30,000/- per acre for land situated within 100 meter area abutting the road and beyond 100 meter we deem it appropriate to assess the compensation at Rs. 25,000/per acre. In large tract of the land certain area is required to be deducted for the purpose of development and then large tract of land would not fetch same value as that of small plots. We have come to the aforesaid valuation at per acre basis, calculating in terms of per square feet it would come between 52-60 paise per square feet. Though we have awarded compensation per acre basis, not on per square feet basis, but, we have made the aforesaid calculation only in order to satisfy ourselves that the compensation awarded is reasonable one not on higher side. Interest shall be paid on the solatium and other component mentioned in section 23 of the Act as per decision of the apex Court in Sunder v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 211 , interest shall be worked out in terms of section 28 in the light of the aforesaid decision. Accordingly, the compensation shall be worked out by the Reference Court. We make it clear that area of 5.85 acre is beyond 100 meter that would carry valuation @ Rs. 25,000/- per acre and remaining area within 100 meter from road as found by Reference Court is 19.81 acre shall carry valuation @ 30,000/- per acre. 6. Consequently the appeal F.A. No. 37812002 preferred by the MPEB is dismissed and the appeal F.A. No. 60012001 preferred by the claimants is partly allowed. Parties to bear their own costs as incurred.