Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 102 (MP)

Sita Bai v. State of M. P.

2009-01-21

SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2009
ORDER 1. All these appeals under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short "the Act") are arising out of common land acquisition proceedings and involve common questions of law and facts. For the convenience the facts of FA. No40 of 2001 are taken. 2. This appeal by the land owner is directed against award dated 9.10.2000 passed by the Additional District Judge, Khachrod in M.J.C. No.34/1996. 3. Briefly stated the State Government exercising the powers conferred upon it under section 4 of the Act issued a notification dated 12.10.1990 for acquisition of the land situated in village Banbana and village Makla, Tehsil Khachrod, District Ujjain. The acquisition of the land was for the construction of 800 KV Electricity Sub-Station by the National Thermal Power Corporation Limited India. The total land acquired for the purpose is 106.469 hectares. For village Banbana 89.78 hectares land was acquired and for village Makla 16.78 hectares of land was acquired and the possession of the land was taken on 17.12.1990. 4. The land owners submitted their objections. Then followed the proceedings for determination of compensation payable to the land owners by the Land Acquisition Officer (for short LAO) under section 11 of the Act. The LAO vide order dated 7.11.1992 awarded compensation to the land owners of village Banbana at the rate of 21,466/- per hectare and for village Makla at the rate of Rs.25,654/- per hectare. Dissatisfied with the determination of the compensation by the LAO the land owners sought reference invoking the provisions of section 18 of the Act. The prayer was acceded to by the Collector and references in all the 3 cases as prayed for by the land owners were made to the civil Court (hereinafter referred to as reference Court). The reference Court vide its award dated 9.10.2000 enhanced the compensation by partly allowing the claim of the land owners by determining the market value of the land for village Banbana at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per hectare and for village Makla Rs.29,000/- per hectare. The reference Court also granted other statutory benefits provided under the Act namely solatium, interest, etc. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the compensation determined by the reference Court the appellants have filed these appeals claiming enhancement of the compensation. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The reference Court also granted other statutory benefits provided under the Act namely solatium, interest, etc. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the compensation determined by the reference Court the appellants have filed these appeals claiming enhancement of the compensation. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. It has been argued by Shri M.D. Arya, learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants having filed the certified copies of the sale deeds Exs.P-6 and P-7 to demonstrate that prior to the date of notification under section 4 of the Act the land situated at village Banbana was sold vide registered sale-deeds dated 30.3.1989 and 31.3,1989 for Rs.35,365/per hectare and Rs.47,337/- per hectare respectively, the reference Court has committed error in not relying the same and committed error in placing reliance on the Sale and Purchase Register of the office of Registrar of documents produced by the respondents and has committed a further error in calculating the market value on the basis of the average of the market price preceding 3 years of the transaction as recorded in the said Register. He submits that by calculating the market value on the basis of 3 years average from the price of the land recorded in the said the sale and purchase register, the assessment of market value by the reference Court to the tune of Rs.25,000/- per hectare for village Banbana and Rs.29,000/- per hectare for village Makla is erroneous. 8. Shri M.D. Arya, learned counsel for the appellants in support of his submissions placed reliance in the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan, District Badaun v. Bipin Kumar and another [ (2004)2 SCC 283 ], Sri Rani M. Vijayalakshmamma, Rao Bahadur, Ranee ofVuyyur v. The Collector of Madras [(1968)2 SCJ 869], Bakhtawar Singh and another v. Union of India and another [( 1995)2 SCC 495]. 9. Smt. Rashmi Pandit, learned Deputy Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Shri Shailendra Mukati, learned counsel for respondent No.2 on the other hand argued that the compensation arrived at by the reference Court is based on sound appreciation of evidence and has been made by applying correct principles, it needs no enhancement. 10. 9. Smt. Rashmi Pandit, learned Deputy Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Shri Shailendra Mukati, learned counsel for respondent No.2 on the other hand argued that the compensation arrived at by the reference Court is based on sound appreciation of evidence and has been made by applying correct principles, it needs no enhancement. 10. It is now well settled that while determining the compensation for such compulsory acquisition the relevant factors, are the purpose for which the land was acquired, potentiality of the land, its location, its potential use, market price of the land sold in near proximity just prior to the acquisition, and the appreciation of the value of the land for every subsequent year. The Courts for making assessment can safely take into account the documentary as well as the oral evidence led by the parties in support of these factors. The Courts have also to take into consideration in order to avoid element of speculation for fixation of market value with reference to comparable sales as to whether the sale is within the reasonable time of the date of notification, whether it is a bona fide sale, whether it is for the land adjacent to the land acquired and whether it possesses similar advantages. 11. In the case of U.A.O. and M.R.O. v. Harsalilal [ AIR 2001 SC 1117 ], the Supreme Court has held that the certified copy of the sale-deed relating to similar lands situated in the vicinity can be relied upon without examining vendee or vendor or anybody else connected with the sale. The Supreme Court -in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan, District Badaun v. Bipin Kumar and another (supra), noticing the evidence of high potentiality held that the increase of 15% per year on the sale deed comparable can be taken for assessment of the market value on the date. of notification under section 4 of the Act and observed that the same cannot be said to be unreasonable. In the case of Sri Rani M. Vijayalakshmamma, Rao Bahadllr, Rance of Vllyyur v. The Collector of Madras (supra), the Supreme Court has observed that the sale-deed representing highest value out of the different transactions has to be preferred and average of two sale-deed should not be taken. In the case of Sri Rani M. Vijayalakshmamma, Rao Bahadllr, Rance of Vllyyur v. The Collector of Madras (supra), the Supreme Court has observed that the sale-deed representing highest value out of the different transactions has to be preferred and average of two sale-deed should not be taken. Similar is the view taken by the Supreme Court in case of Bakhtawar Singh and another v. Union of India and another (supra), in which it has been held that for determination of market value on the basis of comparable sale transaction I application of principle of average price is illegal. 12. The determination of the compensation by the reference Court by averaging the price which was recorded in the office of Registrar in the Sale and Purchase Register prior to 3 years of the date of notification for arriving the market value of the acquired land cannot be accepted more particularly when the sale-deeds Exps.P-6 and P-7 were available before it. 13. In the present case, the appellant examined village Patwari Phoolsingh (PW1), Rameshwar (PW2), Ashok Kumar (PW3) and Sawarmal (PW4). (PW3) and (PW4) are the purchasers of lands vide sale-deeds Exs. P-6 and P-7. They have proved the sale-deeds Exs. P-6 and P7 executed on 31.3.1989 and 30.3.1989, respectively. Sale-deed Ex.P-7 demonstrate the market value of per hectare of land at village Banbana to be Rs.35,365/-. Ex.P-6 is the sale-deed of 31.3.1989 according to which the market value per hectare of the land at village Banbana is Rs.47,337/ Applying the ratio of Supreme Court market price of the higher of the sale-deeds has to be taken which is market price as per the sale-deed Ex.P-6 in respect of the land which is for Rs.47,337/- per hectare. 14. The sale-deed Ex.P-6 is of 1 year 6 months and 12 days prior to the date of notification. 14. The sale-deed Ex.P-6 is of 1 year 6 months and 12 days prior to the date of notification. The appreciation of the market value to the extent of 15% per year of the land in between the period of execution of the saledeed Ex.P-6 and the date of notification under section 4 of the Act, having regard to the fact that it is situated near Nagda an industrial town, near the Ujjain-Nagda Highway in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan, District Badaun v. Bipin Kumar and another (supra), can be accepted as rate of increase of the price of the land from the date of sale-deed to the date of notification. Thus, taking into consideration sale-deed Ex.P-6 by which on 31.3.1989 the market value of land was Rs.47,337/- per hectare and adding 15% per annum as appreciation of the rate of the land for 1 year 6 months and 12 days the market value of acquired land of Banbana comes to Rs.47,337 + Rs.10,888/- = Rs.58,225/- per hectare. 15. Though, there is no sale-deed in respect of the market value of village Makla but it is not in dispute that village Makla and village Banbana are contiguous. The acquisition of the entire land was for establishment of 1 single unit of power sub-station. Thus, the lands of both the villages being contiguous, similarly situated and having being acquired under the same notification for the same purpose market value which has been assessed on the basis of the sale-deed in respect of village Banbana can safely be taken to be the market value of the land acquired of village Makla (See Nandram and others v. The State of Haryana, a judgment of the Supreme Court, reported in 1989 All India Land Acquisition and Compensation cases Vol.3 page 1). 16. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and after taking into consideration of the evidence available on record the sale-deed Ex.P-6 dated 31.3.1989 by which 1.014 hectare land was sold for Rs.48,000/- the per hectare market value of the land comes to Rs.47,337/-. As already observed for determination of market value the appreciation of price at . the rate of 15% per annum for 1 year 6 months and 12 days is taken into consideration which comes to Rs.10,888/-. 17. As already observed for determination of market value the appreciation of price at . the rate of 15% per annum for 1 year 6 months and 12 days is taken into consideration which comes to Rs.10,888/-. 17. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid discussion the appeals are allowed with cost. The impugned award passed in all the 3 cases which are subject-matter of these appeals is modified to the extent that per hectare market value of the acquired land is assessed to Rs.47,337/- + Rs.10,888/ = Rs.58,225/-. In other words, the appellants whose land was acquired in these proceedings are entitled to claim compensation at the rate of Rs.58,225/- per hectare. In addition the appellants are also entitled for other statutory compensation payable under the Act which shall be worked out on the basis of the rate determined by this Court along with interest at the rate awarded by the reference Court. 18. Counsel fees Rs.1,000/- in each appeal to the counsel for the appellants, if certified. A decree be drawn accordingly.