Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 903 (HP)

STATE OF H. P. v. SANJEEV KUMAR

2009-10-22

V.K.AHUJA

body2009
JUDGMENT V.K. Ahuja, J.-This is a regular first appeal filed by the appellant under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), against the award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla, dated 28.12.2005, in Land Reference No.26-S/4 of 2000. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued by the State Government on 5.9.1996 for acquiring the land of the respondents in village Kufri Junga, which measured 1-15 bigha. The Collector entered into reference and vide his award, dated 17.6.1999, he assessed the value of the land per bigha, based upon classification, as under: Classification of land Rate per bigha 1.Kuhal Awal Rs.43,625.80 2.Kuhal Doyam Rs.36,468.40 3.Bagicha Bakhal Awal Rs.28,629.40 4.Bagicha Bakhal Doyam Rs.21,812.80 5.Karali Awal Rs.13,633.00 6.Karali Doyam Rs.7,157.40 7.Banjar/Ghasni Rs.5,453.20 The compensation was awarded to the respondents accordingly. 3. A reference petition was filed by the respondents before the court of the learned District Judge under Section 18 of the Act. The learned Additional District entered into the reference and assessed the market value of the land at Rs.2.00 lac per bigha. Being dissatisfied with the enhancement of the compensation, the State has preferred the present appeal. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 5. The submissions made by the learned Assistant Advocate General for the appellants were that the sale deed Ext.PW-3/A relied upon by the court proved that the value of the land was not Rs.2.00 lac per bigha and accordingly, the learned trial Court has wrongly granted this amount as compensation taking the rate of Rs.2.00 lac per bigha. It was submitted that the learned trial Court had wrongly ignored Ext.R-1, copy of the sale deed, dated 9.9.1996, vide which per bigha rate comes to Rs.15,260/-. It was submitted that the learned trial Court in relying upon Ext.PW-3/A has ignored the fact that the land sold vide this sale deed was only one biswa, which was sold for a sum of Rs.10,000/- and accordingly 30% to 40% deduction ought to have been made in the sale price while determining the market value of the land. It was submitted that the learned trial Court in relying upon Ext.PW-3/A has ignored the fact that the land sold vide this sale deed was only one biswa, which was sold for a sum of Rs.10,000/- and accordingly 30% to 40% deduction ought to have been made in the sale price while determining the market value of the land. It was submitted that the land in question was quite away from Kufri Bazar or the Kufri Resort and the location of the land was a prime factor to be considered which has been wrongly ignored by the learned trial Court and as such compensation awarded deserves to be reduced accordingly. It was also submitted that the learned trial Court has wrongly granted interest from the date of taking possession which has to be from the date of notification and as such the appeal deserves to be allowed accordingly. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the sale price was rightly determined by the learned trial Court relying upon the sale deed Ext.PW-3/A and no deduction was required to be made since the price rise due to passage of time and development of the area. It was also submitted that the respondents were entitled to 10% of the annual increase from the rate paid in the year 1990 vide sale deed Ext.PW-3/A and if these factors are considered, the compensation was rightly awarded by the learned trial Court at the rate of Rs.2.00 lac per bigha, which calls for no interference by this Court. 7. To substantiate his submission that 30% to 40% deduction should have been made keeping in view the fact that the sale deed Ext.PW-3/A was only for one biswa of land, the learned Assistant Advocate General had placed reliance upon the decision in The Collector of Lakhimpur versus Bhuban Chandra Dutta, AIR 1971 Supreme Court 2015. In considering the provisions of Section 23 of the Act, it was observed by their Lordships that in determining the compensation, the value fetched for small plot also cannot be applied to lands covering a very large extent. It was held that the large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are sold. 8. The reliance was also placed upon the decision in Kaushalya Devi Bogra and others etc. It was held that the large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are sold. 8. The reliance was also placed upon the decision in Kaushalya Devi Bogra and others etc. versus Land Acquisition Officer Aurangabad and another, AIR 1984 Supreme Court 892. The observations made in para 13 are relevant and are being reproduced below: “When large tracts are acquired, the transactions in respect of small properties do not offer a proper guideline. Therefore, the valuation in transactions in regard to smaller property is not taken as a real basis for determining the compensation for larger tracts of property. For determining the market value of a large property on the basis of a sale transaction for smaller property a deduction should be given.” 9. In the above case, in para 13 of the judgment, their Lordships had referred to an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in which deduction of 25% was indicated, while in other cases mentioned therein, it was observed that the deduction should be to the extent of 1/3rd. It is, therefore, clear that in case the court comes to the conclusion that the sale deed of small piece of land is to be relied upon, a deduction of about 30% should be made. 10. Coming to the evidence in the present case, the learned trial Court has relied upon the sale deed Ext.PW-3/A, dated 5.9.1990, vide which one biswa of land was sold for a sum of Rs.10,000/-and, therefore, the price per bigha was assessed at Rs.2.00 lac. The date of notification was 5.9.1996 and, therefore, this sale deed having been effected prior to the issuance of the notification was relevant and was rightly considered by the learned trial Court. However, the learned trial Court did not grant any reduction while considering the price per bigha since a small piece of land measuring one biswa only had been sold for a sum of Rs.10,000/-. It is a common knowledge that fancy price is paid for small piece of land, which cannot be the basis for determination of the price per bigha. Therefore, even if the court had considered this sale deed as relevant, a reduction should have been made to the extent of 30% and, therefore, the price of one biswa comes to Rs.7,000/- and per bigha it will come to Rs.1,40,000/-. Therefore, even if the court had considered this sale deed as relevant, a reduction should have been made to the extent of 30% and, therefore, the price of one biswa comes to Rs.7,000/- and per bigha it will come to Rs.1,40,000/-. However, according to the latest law laid down by the Apex Court, due to rise in prices, an increase of 5 to 7% is permissible in case of land in rural area, as in the present case. In this behalf, I am supported by the decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana versus Gurbax Singh (dead) by LRs. and another, 2008 (11) Supreme Court Cases 65, wherein the reliance was placed on sale deeds of 1981 fixing compensation for acquisition of land in the year 1983. The marginal enhancement of compensation for two years at the rate of 12% per annum since acquisition was held to be proper. 11. Therefore, 6% annual increase was required to be made by the Court. In case 6% annualincrease is granted from the date of sale upto the date of notification, which comes to 6 years, an increase of 36% can be said to be justified, which takes the price per biswa to Rs.9,520/- or Rs.1,90,400/- per bigha. 12. From the above discussion, it is clear that in case this sale deed is only considered, the rate granted by the learned trial Court at Rs.2.00 lac per bigha cannot be said to be excessive. 13. Coming to the other sale deeds, the second sale deed was Ext.R-1, copy of which was filed by the appellants before the learned trial Court and the same was only tendered in evidence. According to this sale deed, land measuring 7 bigha 15 biswa had been sold for a sum of Rs.1,17,500/- and, therefore, the value per bigha came to Rs.15,260/-. According to the latest law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer versus Narasaiah, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 1117, it was held that certified copy of the sale deed relating to similar lands situated in vicinity can be relied upon without examining vendee or vendor or anybody else connected with the sale. According to the latest law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer versus Narasaiah, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 1117, it was held that certified copy of the sale deed relating to similar lands situated in vicinity can be relied upon without examining vendee or vendor or anybody else connected with the sale. But this cannot be said to be conclusive if other factors do not stand established, namely, the purpose for which the land was purchased, the proximity of the land to the acquired land etc., which evidence is not on record since only this copy was tendered in evidence by the counsel for the appellants before the learned trial Court. Moreover, this sale deed was executed on 9th September, 1996 i.e. after the issuance of the notification and not prior to the notification and, therefore, it cannot be said to be relevant. Reliance was also placed upon the sale deed Ext.PW-4/B, which is dated 16th May, 2000, vide which the land measuring 3 bigha situated at Kufri Junga was sold for a sum of Rs.27.00 lac and the rate comes to Rs.9.00 lac per bigha. To my mind, this sale deed was rightly ignored by the learned trial Court since this sale deed was executed about 4 years after the issuance of the notification and as such was not relevant. No other sale deed was pointed out which could be considered by the Court. 14. Coming to the location of the land in question, it has come up in the statement of PW-1 Sanjeev Kumar, petitioner, that this land was situated at a distance of 10 meter from Kufri Bazar and he stated that Kufri is an international tourist spot. PW-3 Raj Kumar has stated that this land was adjacent to National Highway and Kufri Bazar. RW-1 Ashok Gupta, Executive Engineer, has admitted that the land was at a distance of 14 meters from the National Highway. All these factors are sufficient to show that the copy of the sale deed Ext.PW-3/A was relevant and it was rightly relied upon by the learned trial Court in coming to its decision. RW-1 Ashok Gupta, Executive Engineer, has admitted that the land was at a distance of 14 meters from the National Highway. All these factors are sufficient to show that the copy of the sale deed Ext.PW-3/A was relevant and it was rightly relied upon by the learned trial Court in coming to its decision. Keeping in view all the factors it is, therefore, clear that the compensation awarded by the learned trial Court at the rate of Rs.2.00 lac per bigha for the land being nearer to Kufri Resorts as well as to National Highway cannot be said to be excessive and it calls for no interference by this Court and as such the findings enhancing the compensation by the learned trial Court are liable to be affirmed which are affirmed accordingly. 15. Coming the to second plea raised by the learned Assistant Advocate General that the interest was awarded from the date of possession. A perusal of para 14(c) of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court shows that the interest was granted by the court from the date of notification i.e. 19.10.1996 and as such it cannot be said that it has been granted from the date of taking of possession. The Collector shall calculate the compensation and interest as awarded by the learned trial Court and the interest shall be payable only from the date of notification and the amount, if any, remaining to be paid to the respondents shall be paid accordingly in terms of the award and the observations made above. 16. In view of the above discussion, I hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellants which is dismissed accordingly.