Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 148 (MP)

LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. JEET SINGH

2010-02-04

ALOK ARADHE

body2010
Judgment Alok Aradhe,J. ( 1. ) This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 has been filed by the State Government being aggrieved by the order dated 10.4.1992 passed by 1st Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Seoni in M.J.C.No.12/90. ( 2. ) Admittedly, original respondent Nanhelal was owner of land bearing survey No.265 admeasuring 0.251 hectares situate in village Lonia,Tahsil and District Seoni. Aforesaid lands were acquired by the State Government for construction of road from Seoni to Mungwani. Proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") were initiated for acquisition of land belonging to original respondent. An award was passed on 19.4.1989 by which Land Acquisition Officer awarded a sum of Rs.1256/- as compensation on account of value of the land. An amount of Rs.377/- was awarded as 30% solatium and an amount of Rs.83/- was awarded by way of interest. ( 3. ) Original respondent being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded to him, filed an application under Section 18 of the Act for making a reference to the Court. Aforesaid application was allowed and reference was registered as M.J.C. No. 12/90. ( 4. ) Claimant submitted a statement of claim in which inter- alia it was pointed out that the land which was acquired is situate within the municipal limits of Municipal Corporation,Seoni. In close vicinity of the land which has been acquired, Govt. Post-Degree College and Govt. Higher Secondary School are situate. The adjoining lands are being used for residential purposes and new residential colonies are coming up around the land which has been acquired. It was further pleaded that compensation at the rate of Rs.800/- per RA has been fixed by the Collector in respect of the adjoining lands. Accordingly, the deceased respondent claimed compensation on account of market value of the land @ Rs.800/- per RA and claimed 30% solatium on the market value of the land. Deceased respondent further claimed interest @ 15% from the year 1982, as possession of the land was taken in the year 1982. Deceased respondent in support of his claim examined himself as well as Sub-Registrar namely Gulab Singh. ( 5. ) It is pertinent to mention here that appellant/State did not adduce any evidence in rebuttal of the claim made by the deceased respondent. ( 6. Deceased respondent in support of his claim examined himself as well as Sub-Registrar namely Gulab Singh. ( 5. ) It is pertinent to mention here that appellant/State did not adduce any evidence in rebuttal of the claim made by the deceased respondent. ( 6. ) Trial Court on the basis of material available on record, held that market value of the land on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was Rs.800/- per RA and the amount of compensation on account of market value of the land was quantified at Rs.2 Lacs. Trial Court further directed that from the date of award till date of order, the amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% and thereafter, @ 12% till payment is made. ( 7. ) Shri Sudesh Verma,learned Govt. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant/State has contended that trial Court grossly erred in taking into account the price which was fixed by the Collector for stamp purposes for determining the . market value of the land. In support of aforesaid proposition, counsel has placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court reported in Painder Singh Vs. Union of India, 1995 (2) M.P. Weekly Notes, note 189.Placing reliance in Ahad Brothers Vs. State of M.P. and another, 2005(2) M.P.L.J.5, learned counsel has contended that 30% ought to have been deducted on account of developmental charges, as the land had potentiality of being put to residential use. The Court grossly erred in not deducting any amount towards developmental charges. Learned counsel has also referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in S.S. Rajendra Kumar and others Vs. Collector,Jabalpur, 1977(2)M.P.Weekly Notes note 373, in support of the contention that if market value of the land is to be assessed in per sq.ft. Basis, then 25% of the area must be deducted from the total area. ( 8. ) Shri A.S. Jha,learned senior counsel per contra has argued that the order passed by the Reference Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference. He has further contended that trial Court has not awarded interest to the land owner, which is permissible under statutory heads. ( 9. ( 8. ) Shri A.S. Jha,learned senior counsel per contra has argued that the order passed by the Reference Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference. He has further contended that trial Court has not awarded interest to the land owner, which is permissible under statutory heads. ( 9. ) It is well settled in law that when the Courts are required to assess the market value of the land in compulsory acquisition, best evidence of value of property is the sale of acquired land to which claimant himself is a party and in its absence, the sales of neighbouring lands can also be taken into account. The Court is required to adopt a pragmatic approach and should also take into account the potentialities of the land. It is well settled that market value of property has to be determined having due regard to its existing advantages. The object of entire exercise is to arrive at a fair and reasonable market value of the land and in that process, at times, some guess work is involved. See:Periyar and Parkeekanni Rubbers Ltd., Vs. State of Kerala, (1991) 4 SCC 195 and Executive Director Vs. Sarat Chandra Bisoi and another, (2000) 6 SCC 326 , Atma Singh Dead through Lrs and Others v. State of Haryana and another, (2008) 2 SCC 568 . ( 10. ) From aforesaid proposition of law, the ratio which emerges is that sale transaction in respect of the acquired land to which claimant himself is a party and in its absence the sales of neighbouring land are best piece of evidence. For ascertaining market value of land, potentiality of acquired land should also be taken into consideration. ( 11. ) In the backdrop of aforesaid legal position, facts of the case may be adverted to. As has been stated supra, deceased respondent in order to prove his claim examined himself as well as the Sub-Registrar. Claimant in his examination-in- chief clearly stated that the lands which have been acquired are situate within the municipal limits and are situate adjacent to the road. Since 1982, Government has taken possession of the land. He has further stated that the lands which have been acquired are surrounded by residential locality. He has also stated that lands covered under acquisition are earmarked for residential purposes and adjoining lands have been sold on per sq.ft. basis. Since 1982, Government has taken possession of the land. He has further stated that the lands which have been acquired are surrounded by residential locality. He has also stated that lands covered under acquisition are earmarked for residential purposes and adjoining lands have been sold on per sq.ft. basis. He has further stated that at the relevant time i.e. in the year 1987-88, market value of the land was Rs.800/- per RA. No challenge has been made to the aforesaid facts in the cross-examination. It is well settled in law that where a witness is not cross-examined on a particular point, his testimony has to be accepted. [See AIR 1965 SC 1179 ] Since claimant has not been specified the date when possession was taken and has merely stated that possession was taken in the year 1982, therefore, it is reasonable to fix the date for taking over possession as 1.1.1983. Another witness namely Gulab Singh, Sub-Registrar has produced the guidelines of the year 1988-89 as well as index register which has been marked as Ex.A/2 of the year 1987-88 of village Lonia and index register of the year 1987-88 of village Bhairoganj,which contains details of the plots which have been sold prior to issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. In rebuttal, no evidence has been adduced by the State Government. From perusal of Exs.A/2 and A/3,it is apparent that these documents contain the details of the land which have been sold on various dates in between 3.4.1987 to 19.10.1987. Trial Court has relied on documents Ex.A/2 and A/3 and has come to the conclusion that market value of the land on the date of acquisition was Rs.800 per RA. Aforesaid finding is based on material on record. Decision relied on by learned counsel for the appellant reported in Painder Singh (supra) has no application to the obtaining factual matrix of the case. In the aforesaid case, Supreme Court has held that circular issued under Section 48 of the Stamp Act for fixing the market value for the purposes of registration bears no relevance to determine the market value under Section 23(1) of the Act. In the instant case, trial Court has relied on index register of the relevant period which contains details of the sales in respect of adjoining land which have taken place prior to issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. In the instant case, trial Court has relied on index register of the relevant period which contains details of the sales in respect of adjoining land which have taken place prior to issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Therefore, trial Court has not committed any illegality in holding that market value of the land was Rs.800/- per RA. Accordingly, contention of the learned counsel for the State that trial Court on the basis of documents Ex.A/2 and A/3could not have determined the market value of the property, does not deserve acceptance and is rejected. ( 12. ) So far as the arguments of the learned counsel for the State that while determining the market value, an amount equivalent to 30% of the developmental charges ought to have been deducted, is concerned, it is noteworthy that Supreme Court in Ahad Brothers (supra), 2005(2)MPLJ 5,has held that where an agricultural land which has the potentiality of being put to residential use, is acquired, an amount of 30% should be deducted on account of developmental charges out of amount of compensation. Claimant in para 11 of his deposition has admitted that prior to date of taking possession of land under acquisition it was being used for agricultural purposes. Thus, the trial Court ought to have deducted 30% on account of developmental charges while determining the market value of the land. ( 13. ) However, from perusal of order passed by the trial Court, it is apparent that interest which is payable to the land owner under various heads have not been properly awarded. Under Order 41 Rule 33 of C.P.C.,the appellate Court may pass any decree or order which ought to have been made and to make such further order or decree as the case may be in favour of all or any of the parties even though the appeal is as to part only of the decree and such party or parties may not have filed an appeal. [See: K. Muthuswami Gounder Vs. N. Palaniappa, (1998) 7 SCC 327 and Division Bench decision of this Court in 2003 (3)MPLJ 514]. Court is required to award interest as per statutory rates prescribed in the Act. [Refer (1995) 5 SCC 683 ]. [See: K. Muthuswami Gounder Vs. N. Palaniappa, (1998) 7 SCC 327 and Division Bench decision of this Court in 2003 (3)MPLJ 514]. Court is required to award interest as per statutory rates prescribed in the Act. [Refer (1995) 5 SCC 683 ]. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law by the Supreme Court, I find that claimants are entitled to receive interest under various statutory heads, which has not been awarded to them. ( 14. ) It is stated before me by the learned counsel for the parties that by order dated 9.10.2006 passed in Civil Revision No. 155/94, this Court has already ordered payment of solatium to land owners. In view of aforesaid, my conclusions are as under:- 1. Respondents shall be entitled to receive a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- (Rs. One Lac Seventy Thousand) on account of market value after deduction of 30% of the developmental charges. 2.That possession of land was taken over by State Government on 1.1.1983. 3. Respondents shall also be entitled to interest as provided under Sections 28 and 34 of the Act. In view of aforesaid discussion, the appeal is allowed in part and the order passed by the Reference Court is modified accordingly. Parties shall bear their respective costs. Appeal partly allowed.