Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 295 (JK)

Parlhad Singh v. Collector Assistant Commissioner

2009-06-05

SUNIL HALI

body2009
1. The land measuring 165 kanals situated at Chak Manga Rakwal, Samba owned by the appellants was acquired by respondent-1 for respondent-2. Compensation at the rate of Rs. 26,000/- per kanal with 15% solatium was awarded by the Collector. Feeling dis-satisfied with the aforesaid rate of compensation, reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was made to the District Judge, Jammu for determining the market value of the land in question. The reference was rejected by the District Judge. This court allowed the appeal of the appellants and remanded the case for fresh determination to the District Judge, Jammu. The District Judge had after hearing the parties, determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 26,000/- per kanal together with 15% solatium. On fresh enquiry, the District Judge has awarded the compensation after determining the market value of the land as Rs. 50,000/- per kanal. He has made deduction @ 40% as development charges of the area and thereby compensation @ Rs. 30,000/- per kanal has been assessed, which is payable to the appellants . Feeling dis- satisfied with the award, the appellants have filed the present appeal. 2. The controversy in the present case relates to the compensation which is payable to the appellants. The principle for determining the compensation under the Land Acquisition Act has to be done on the basis of market value of the land. What is fair and reasonable market value is always a question of fact depending upon the nature of the evidence, circumstances and probabilities in each case. The guiding factor would be the conduct of a hypothetical, willing vendor would offer the lands and a willing purchaser in normal human conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market conditions as on the date of notification. The relevant features to determine the market value, would be the nature of the land, the quality of land, the market conditions prevailing as on the date of acquisition, potential value of the land as on date of its acquisition. 3. The court is required to consider while analyzing the aforementioned exigencies as to what is true market value of the land. Some of the important methods for determination of market value of the land are as under: a) Comparable sale rates of the area where the land is situated. 3. The court is required to consider while analyzing the aforementioned exigencies as to what is true market value of the land. Some of the important methods for determination of market value of the land are as under: a) Comparable sale rates of the area where the land is situated. b) The average sale rates in the area as also its potential market value to which the land can be used; and c) The location of the land and the comparable sale rates on the date of notification. 4. The appellants had stated that price of the land in the area was Rs. 60,000/- per kanal but in view of the fact that the acquisition was for large portion of land, Rs. 40,000/- per kanal was payable to them. This amount was claimed by the appellants on the basis that the land in question was situated near Bus Stand and Railways Station at Samba, which has great potential for commercial exploitation. The appellants have placed on record the judgment of the District Judge dated 18.12.2002 wherein he had awarded Rs. 50,000/- per kanal as compensation for the land acquired in the vicinity of the land in question. The District Judge has relied upon this as comparable sale to determine the compensation. He has held that the appellants would be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per kanal and after holding the same, he has made deduction of 40% as development charges. While doing so, the District Judge has placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported as AIR 1998 SC 781. In essence, this is the controversy, which is required to be determined by this court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon a Division Bench Judgment of the Apex Court titled Kasturi and others Vs. State of Haryana reported as AIR 2003 SC 202. In the said judgment, the Apex Court has held that cut of 20% on rate of compensation towards development charges would be proper. The judgment relied upon by the appellants is later in point of time. Deduction of 20% would be proper instead of 40% as done by the District Judge. State of Haryana reported as AIR 2003 SC 202. In the said judgment, the Apex Court has held that cut of 20% on rate of compensation towards development charges would be proper. The judgment relied upon by the appellants is later in point of time. Deduction of 20% would be proper instead of 40% as done by the District Judge. The other aspect is that right to property still continues to be the fundamental right in the State of Jammu and Kashmir and the persons are entitled to protection under Articles 19 and 31 of the Constitution of India. The globalisation has induced massive hike in real estate price which includes the land also. Cities and towns are saturated and people are moving towards rural areas. There is reluctance shown by the owners for selling their lands to the State and Union Governments .In such circumstances, it would not be proper to make deduction of 40%. 6. I, therefore, set aside the award to the extent that the appellants would be entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per kanal, as the market value determined by the District Judge and cut of 20% of rate of compensation towards the development charges. 7. The respondents also filed a cross appeal in this court. Their grievance in the appeal is that while awarding compensation, no sale deed was relied upon by the trial court. It is noted that while determining the compensation, sale instances of small tracks of land cannot always form acceptable basis for determining the compensation. However, instances of acquisition by the State Government within a distance of 500 yards from land in dispute for sale purpose can be considered. In the present case, the learned District Judge has relied upon decision of this court where compensation was given at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per kanal for the land adjacent to the land of the appellants. The Apex Court in the Division Bench Judgment titled Hans Raj Sharma Vs. In the present case, the learned District Judge has relied upon decision of this court where compensation was given at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per kanal for the land adjacent to the land of the appellants. The Apex Court in the Division Bench Judgment titled Hans Raj Sharma Vs. Collector Land Acquisition, Doda, reported as AIR 2005 SC 1136, held that: "Land Acquisition Act( 1 of 1894 ), S. 23- Compensation -- Determination of market value -- Comparable instances of sale -- Land acquired for purpose of setting up sheep breeding farm -- Sale instances of small tracks of land though cannot always form acceptable basis for determining compensation -- However, instance of acquisition by State Government within a distance of 500 yards from land in dispute for same purpose could be considered Order of the High Court taking it as reasonable comparable instance of sale and fixing market value of acquired land based thereupon -- Is proper." 8. In view of this, there is no infirmity committed by the District Judge in awarding the compensation to the appellants after taking into consideration the instance of acquisition by the State Government within a distance of 500 yards from the land in dispute for the same purpose. 9. I find no force in this appeal, which is dismissed. Respondents are directed to pay compensation to the appellants at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per kanal after making deduction at the rate of 20% as development charges. The balance amount shall be paid to the respondents within a period of four months from today alongwith interest.