Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 660 (MP)

Mohanlal v. State of M. P.

2009-05-15

K.K.LAHOTI, K.S.CHAUHAN

body2009
JUDGMENT Chauhan, J. -- 1. This appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1894") has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the award dated 8.7.2004 passed by the 9th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Land Acquisition Case No. 08/1995 affirming the award and supplementary award dated 12.11.1990 and 20.12.1990 respectively passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Jabalpur in Case No. 20/171 A-82/87-88. 2. The brief facts of the case are that claimant-appellant owned and possessed the land bearing Khasra No. 57 measuring 0.923 hectare situated at Village Maharajpur, Tahsil and District Jabalpur. The State of Madhya Pradesh through Executive Engineer, PWD, National Highway, Jabalpur wanted to acquire this land for construction of Jabalpur Bypass Road, hence issued notification under sections 4 and 6 of the Act on 24.3.1989 for acquisition of this land. The claimant-appellant on receiving notice under section 9 of the Act filed reply along with documents before the Land Acquisition Officer, Jabalpur. The Land Acquisition Officer, Jabalpur passed the award on 12.11.1990 and supplementary award on 20.12.1990 in Case No. 20/171 A-82/87 -88. In the award the compensation was determined at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per sq.ft., but in the supplementary award the compensation was determined at the rate of Rs. 5/- per sq.ft. On that basis this land was diverted. The claimant received compensation under protest and applied under section 18 of the Act for referring the matter to the District Court, Jabalpur. The matter was so referred. Claimant-appellant submitted statement of claims stating therein that the land is developed and diverted, therefore compensation be awarded at the rate of Rs. 70/- per sq.ft. The claim was resisted by the non-appellant-respondent on the ground that the land was not developed. It was an agricultural land outside the limits of the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur, therefore compensation cannot be determined on the basis of sq.ft. After enquiry, the Court below found that the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer was proper, hence claim submitted by the appellant was dismissed. Being aggrieved by this award, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 3. Shri A.K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Court below has not considered the sale deeds Ex. P-3 and P-4 in proper perspective. Being aggrieved by this award, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 3. Shri A.K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Court below has not considered the sale deeds Ex. P-3 and P-4 in proper perspective. The evidence was adduced that the adjacent land was sold at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq.ft., but the Court has not awarded compensation on that basis. The finding that the land was used for agricultural purposes is without any basis. The finding of the Land Acquisition Officer has been affirmed in mechanical way. The awarded amount is not adequate. It deserves to be enhanced and the award be modified. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that no deduction is required from the awarded amount keeping in view the purpose for which this land was acquired. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Nelson Fernandes v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa and others, (2007) 9 SCC 447 . 4. On the contrary, Shri G.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent supported the impugned award mainly contending that the awarded amount is proper, hence does not call for interference. 5. The main point for consideration in this appeal is that whether the Court below has committed any illegality in affirming the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Jabalpur in Case No. 20/17/A-82/8788. 6. Kishan Patel (AW 1), who is son of the appellant Mohanlal has deposed that the land in question was diverted and the land adjacent to this land was sold at the rate of Rs. 70-80/- per sq.ft. The area in which this land is situated is developed one where houses, shops and markets have been constructed and the colony developed, therefore compensation be determined at the rate of Rs. 60/- per sq.ft. He has placed reliance on two sale deeds Ex. P-3 and Ex. P-4. 7. On perusal of sale deed Ex. P-3 it reveals that it was executed on 20.11.1985. This sale deed is prior to 3 years before acquisition of the disputed land. By this sale deed, area of 4800 sq.ft. has been sold for Rs. 26,400/-. This is the sale deed of the land situated in adjacent Village Kheri. P-4. 7. On perusal of sale deed Ex. P-3 it reveals that it was executed on 20.11.1985. This sale deed is prior to 3 years before acquisition of the disputed land. By this sale deed, area of 4800 sq.ft. has been sold for Rs. 26,400/-. This is the sale deed of the land situated in adjacent Village Kheri. On calculation, it is found that the land was sold at the rate of Rs. 5.15 per sq. ft. in the year 1985. 8. On perusal of another sale deed Ex. P-4, it reveals that this sale deed was executed on 12.7.1988 near about 8 months before acquisition of this land. By this sale deed, area of 1500 sq.ft. has been sold for Rs; 9,000/- and on calculation it is found that the land was sold at the rate of Rs. 6/- per sq.ft. in the year 1988. By taking average of these two sale deeds, it comes at the rate of Rs. 5.50 per sq. ft., but the Court below has found the compensation proper determined at the rate of Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. 9. Janardan Gupta (AW 3) has also stated that in the year 1980 the plots were sold at the rate of Rs. 20-25/- per sq. ft. and he has also filed the copy of the award dated 11.5.1999 (Ex. P-10) passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 7/1997. But the land in this case was acquired in pursuance of notification issued on 21.9.1990 much after the acquisition of land in question. As the value of land is increasing day by day, hence it cannot be made the basis of determining the compensation. 10. Thus on foregoing discussion we find that the appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation at the rate of 50 paise per sq. ft. On the enhanced amount, he is entitled for interest @ 12% per annum under section 23 (1A) of the Act from the date of notification under section 4 (1) of the Act. He is also entitled for 30% solatium under section 23 (2) of the Act being compulsory nature of the acquisition. Further he is also entitled for interest @ 9% per annum under section 28 of the Act from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess amount. He is also entitled for 30% solatium under section 23 (2) of the Act being compulsory nature of the acquisition. Further he is also entitled for interest @ 9% per annum under section 28 of the Act from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess amount. Keeping in view the purpose for which this land was acquired no deduction from this amount is required to be made. See Nelson Fernandes's case (supra). 11. Consequently, this appeal succeeds and is partly allowed as indicated above. The enhanced amount be paid within three months from today, failing which appellant shall be entitled to interest @ 15% per annum. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. The award be modified accordingly.