Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 485 (GAU)

Oil India Ltd. v. Lal Babu Das

2010-07-20

B.D.AGARWAL

body2010
JUDGMENT : 1. The aforesaid three appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 28.9.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.3 (Ad hoc), Kamrup, Guwahati in Reference applications filed by the claimants/respondents under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 ('the Act'). By this impugned judgment the reference court has enhanced the amount of compensation from Rs.50,000 per katha to Rs. 1,20,000, with all consequential benefits. 2. Being aggrieved with the judgment, M/s. Oil India Ltd., the beneficiary of the acquired land, has filed the appeals under section 54 of the Act. Since all the appeals raises identical issues and filed the members of the same family and based on same set of facts this judgment will dispose of all the three appeals. 3. Heard the argument of Sri K.R. Pathak, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Sri R. De, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 as well as Sri R. Adhikari, learned counsel representing the State of Assam. To supplement the oral arguments, learned counsel for the appellants and the claimants also filed their written argument. I have perused the written arguments, impugned judgment as well as evidence, both oral and documentary, laid by the parties in the reference court. It may also be mentioned here that during the pendency of the appeals the appellants also submitted applications under order 41, rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure to adduce additional evidence to clarify that the acquired land had already been included in the Guwahati Municipal Corporation in the year 1976 and not in the year 1993, as has been held by the reference court. These applications have been registered as Misc. case Nos. 961 and 962 of 2010. The appellants, being Misc. case No.963 of 2010, have also filed another application under the said provisions of CPC to bring on record three Sale Deeds executed by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents during the period 9.9.1992 to 16.3.1995 for sale of some plots of land that has been acquired and under consideration in these appeals. The respondents have filed objections and the prayers and objections will be considered in this judgment at a later stage. 4. The respondents have filed objections and the prayers and objections will be considered in this judgment at a later stage. 4. Before coming to the merit of the appeals, it is also apposite to mention here that the appellants had also raised a technical objection about the maintainability of the reference applications, pleading that reference applications under section 18(2) of the Act were filed beyond the statutory period and as such the impugned judgment of the reference court is liable to be set aside on this count alone. The said issue was decided by me in favour of the respondents and against the appellants vide order dated 23.9.2009, holding that reference applications were filed within time. 5. The respondents are the legal heirs of late Ramsajiban Das. The original pattadars of the land was one Gunabhiram Chaudhury. The land owner authorized late Ramsajiban Das to look after the same and on the basis of this authority late Ramsajiban Das occupied the land since 1960 and cultivated vegetables and other crops. Since 1979 the respondents' father late Ramsajiban Das started paying land revenue and in the year 199192 brother of Gunabiram Choudhury sold 3 bighas, 3 kathas, 18 lechas of land to late Ramsajiban Das and also separately sold out 3 kathas, 8 lechas to the respondent Lal Babu Das and 1 katha, 5 lechas to the respondent Sri Uday Kr. Das. All these plots of land are part of acquisition and as such three separate reference applications were filed. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents late Ramsajiban Das died on 6.8.1984 and as such the respondents No.1 are representing him as legal heirs being the wife and sons. It may also be mentioned here that the respondent Sri Uday Kr. Das was authorized to give evidence on behalf of the claimants. 6. While the lands in question were under the occupation of the respondents and their father late Ramsajiban Das the Government acquired an area of 44 bighas, 17 lechas of patta land situated at village Birkucrn, Mauza Beltola in the District of Kamrup, Assam for the purpose of expansion of industrial area and construction of office building of OIL. It may also be mentioned here that OIL was already having their depot at the same place and additional land was required for expansion of their depot and administrative building etc. It may also be mentioned here that OIL was already having their depot at the same place and additional land was required for expansion of their depot and administrative building etc. Initially, Notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 29.5.1993. After publication of the Notification the respondents and other land owners filed their objections under section 5A of the Act and as such final declaration under section 6 of the Act could not be published within the statutory period of one year. Accordingly, a fresh Notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 10.3.1995. It was followed by rejection of the objections and declaration under section 6 of the Act. A sale statement was prepared by the Land Acquisition Mandal fixing Rs.39,667.75 per katha, being the market price of the land. However, taking a liberal view the Collector of Kamrup fixed the value of the land at Rs.50,000 per katha vide order dated 11.10.1995. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 1,75,21,462,00, including the statutory interest etc., was deposited by the appellants and the compensation money was also disbursed to the land owners. Some of the land owners did not challenge the award. However, being unsatisfied with the amount of compensation, the respondents herein submitted their reference applications on 16.4.1997, but the same were forwarded to the reference court only on 16.6.2003. 7. In order to establish claim of Rs.2 lakhs per katha, five witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellants. As noted earlier Sri Uday Kr. Das represented the claimants-respondents as PW/1. PW/2, 3 and 4 are the vendors and purchasers of land from adjacent villages. PW 5 is a senior Assistant of L.A. Branch, who has spoken about the issuance of Notification, preparation of Sale statement and about filing and forwarding of reference applications. 7.1. On the other hand the appellants also examined three witnesses. DW1 is an employee of OIL and this witness has also deposed that the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents, Late Ra; sajiban Das, had purchased 3 bighas land at a total consideration of Rs. 30,000 and also sold out 1 bighas, 3 katha and 5 lechas of land to several persons and one of the sale deeds has been exhibited under Ext. E. DW1 has further deposed that the persons, who had purchased land from Ramsajiban Das, had already received compensation. 30,000 and also sold out 1 bighas, 3 katha and 5 lechas of land to several persons and one of the sale deeds has been exhibited under Ext. E. DW1 has further deposed that the persons, who had purchased land from Ramsajiban Das, had already received compensation. This witness has further deposed that the acquired land was low cultivable land without any approach road and as such, the claim of the respondents at Rs. 2 lakh per katha was without any justification. DW1 has further deposed that one plot of land measuring 4 kathas, situated in village Birkuchi was sold by one Gunabala Bungrung and his sons to one Rajendra Daimary for Rs. 1,30,000, i.e., @ Rs.32,500 per katha. This sale deed has been proved as Ext. R. The remaining part of the deposition of DW1 pertains to issuance of Notifications, declaration, taking over possession of acquired land, etc. DW2 is also an employee of OIL. DW2 has corroborated the testimony of DW 1 stating that he, along with his mother Gunabala Bungrung, had sold 4 kathas of land situated at village Birkuchi on 27.12.1995 at a total consideration of Rs. 1,30,000, i.e., @ Rs.32,500 per katha. According to this witness the value of land of the respondents would be around 10,000 to 15,000 per katha. DW3 has deposed that he was serving in the Civil Engineering Department of OIL. According to this witness an estimate was prepared for development of the acquired land that included construction of boundary wall. DW3 has further deposed that the acquired land was low lying and waterlogged and there was no approach road from any public road. Hence, as deposed by DW3, the OIL had to pay extra money to the contractor to carry construction materials to the site manually since there was no approach road. 7.2 It may be mentioned here that in order of defend the Collector's award neither any written statement was filed nor any oral evidence was tendered on behalf of the State. It is very unhealthy trend on the part of the Government to shift the onus upon the beneficiary department alone to defend the award. 7.2 It may be mentioned here that in order of defend the Collector's award neither any written statement was filed nor any oral evidence was tendered on behalf of the State. It is very unhealthy trend on the part of the Government to shift the onus upon the beneficiary department alone to defend the award. In my considered opinion it is the primary responsibility of the Government to defend the award and they are in a better position to do so because they are not only the custodian of the acquisition proceeding records but also the revenue records in general. Under such adverse circumstance, the OIL is challenging the impugned reference courts judgment and award. 8. On the basis of rival contentions the reference court has relied upon the sale transactions of PWs 2, 3 and 4 and at the same time he has discarded the testimony of DW2 about sale of a plot of land at the rate of Rs.32,500 per katha for not producing a copy of the sale deed. No reason has been assigned as to why the sale transaction under Ext. R. Similarly the Sale Deeds, which were considered by the Collector were also not relied upon on the ground that the Sale Deeds were executed prior to the acquisition proceeding. Above all, the reference court took a view that since the acquired land was brought under GMC in the year 1993, there was spurt in the market value of the land. Relevant observations of the reference court in this regard are extracted below : "From the evidence of DW3 it is elicited that the acquired land was incorporated within the Guwahati Municipality Corporation ("the GMC") since 1993. Obviously, a tremendous change in valuation of land would take place after 1993." 9. The appellants have assailed the impugned judgment basically on the ground that when there were instances of purchase and sale of lands from the acquired land, the reference court ought not to have traveled and searched for comparable transactions. Sri Pathak, learned senior counsel for the appellants laid a bedroll of authorities from the hon'ble Supreme Court to buttress the point that there is no need to take into consideration transaction of lands from adjacent villages if Sale Deeds from acquired land itself at or about the time of acquisition are available. Sri Pathak, learned senior counsel for the appellants laid a bedroll of authorities from the hon'ble Supreme Court to buttress the point that there is no need to take into consideration transaction of lands from adjacent villages if Sale Deeds from acquired land itself at or about the time of acquisition are available. Sri Pathak also submitted that Sale deeds of adjacent land to determine the market value of the acquired land would arise only when there is no evidence of sale of any land, out of the acquired land, is available. However, in the present case the claimants themselves had purchased the land only in the year 1992 and sold out some portions of that land in the same year 1992 and some lands in 1993 and these transactions ought to have been made the basis for assessment of the market value of the land. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the reference court has superficially discarded the Sale Deeds considered by the Collector in passing the award and on the other hand, has relied upon the sale and purchase of the land from different villages on the basis of the claimants' witnesses. It was also contended that having regard to the price at which the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents had purchased the acquired land, the amount of Rs.50,000 per katha, assessed by the Collector, was more than sufficient and there was no scope of reassessment of the same. 10. Per contra, Sri R. De, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the 'market value' means what a willing purchaser would pay to the willful seller of the property, having regard to the advantages available to the land and the development activities in the vicinity and other potentiality of the land. Citing a host of authorities, the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants submitted that if a land is sold out in distress such transaction can not be termed as normal market transaction. According to the learned counsel for the claimants, the price of the land paid by their father, late Ramsajiban Das in the year 1992, cannot be considered as the prevailing market rate inasmuch as, the original pattadar had virtually donated the land to their father having regard to their long possession since 1960 and also considering the fact that they were also paying land revenue since 1979 and cultivating the same. Sri De also submitted that Sale Deeds of late Ramsajiban Das to three different persons in the last part of 1992 and in 1993 also cannot be made the basis for assessment of market rate inasmuch as the lands were sold in distress and those were not voluntary transactions. Sri De, learned counsel also defended the impugned judgment submitting that the reference court has rightly held that the sale statement was prepared by the land acquisition officer on the basis of sales that took place much prior to the date of acquisition, whereas, the Sale Deeds proved by PWs 2, 3 and 4 were more close to the date of Notification under section 4 of the Act. The learned counsel also submitted that in view of the testimony of PWs 2, 3 and 4 the adjacent areas of the land were developing and becoming industrial areas and since it was surrounded by roads and industrial units the acquired land had tremendous potentiality and as such the price fixed by the reference court cannot be said to be on the higher side. 11. As noted earlier, learned counsel for the appellants have cited good number of authorities to argue that the assessment of compensation ought to have been based on the sale transactions from the acquired land itself. In this regard, I may refer to a few judgments of the hon'ble Supreme Court. In the case of Bangaru Narasingha Rao Naidu, etc. v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram, (1980) 1 SCC 575 , the Apex Court has held that "there cannot be any doubt that the best evidence of the market value of the acquired land is afforded by transaction "of s sale in respect of the very acquired land, provided of course there is nothing to doubt the authenticity of the transactions". 12. In the case of Shakuntalabai (Smt.) v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 2 SCC 152 , the hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the aforesaid view in the following words : "............It is seen that at if there is evidence or admission on behalf of the claimants as to the market value commanded by the acquired land itself, the need to travel beyond the boundary of the acquired land is obviated. The need to take into consideration the value of the lands adjacent to the acquired land or near about the area which possessed same potentiality to work out the prices fetched therein for determination of market value of the acquired land would arise only when there is no evidence of the value of the acquired land. In a case where evidence of the value of the acquired land itself is available on record, it is unnecessary to travel beyond that evidence and consider the market value prevailing in the adjacent lands............." 13. In the case of Special Duty Collector v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao, (1997) 7 SCC 41 , the hon'ble Supreme Court has again laid down the law as to under what circumstances the sale transactions can be considered and what should be the features of sale transaction of land in the vicinity. The relevant observations of the hon'ble Supreme Court are reproduced below for ready reference : "8. The best evidence of the value of property are the sale transactions in respect of the acquired land to which the claimant himself is a party; the time at which the property comes to be sold; the purpose for which it is sold; nature of the consideration; and the manner in which the transaction came to be brought out. They are all relevant factors. In the absence of such a sale deed relating to the acquired land, the sale transactions relating to the neighbouring lands in the vicinity of the acquired land. In that case, the features required to be present are: it must be within a reasonable time of the date of the Notification; it must be a bona fide transaction; it should be a sale of land similar to the land acquired or land adjacent to the land acquired; and it should possess similar advantageous features. These are relevant features to be taken into consideration to prove the market value of the acquired land as on the date of Notification published under section 4(1) of the Act................" 14. The judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samity, Sahaswan District Badaun v. Bipin Kumar and Ors., (2004) 2 SCC 283 is another judgment in line to hold that the purchase price of the claimant himself can be considered as the basis for assessing market value of the land. The judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samity, Sahaswan District Badaun v. Bipin Kumar and Ors., (2004) 2 SCC 283 is another judgment in line to hold that the purchase price of the claimant himself can be considered as the basis for assessing market value of the land. In this case the claimant had purchased the land @ Rs. 15.40 per sq. yard in January, 1984 and the land was acquired in the month of July, 1988. The reference court fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.150 per sq. yard. On appeal, the High Court further enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.170 per sq. yard and this assessment, both by the reference court and the High Court, was made after giving 15% escalation per annum on the purchase price of the land by the claimant. Since the land was acquired after four years of purchase by the landowner the hon'ble Supreme Court restricted the escalation to 60% and the valuation was brought down to Rs.24.64 per sq. yard. However, in the case of Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer v. Shaik Azam Saheb, (2009) 4 SCC 395 , the hon'ble Supreme Court assessed the value of land giving 10% escalation to the Sale Deed that was executed seven years prior to the date of Notification but, at the same time also directed deduction of 30% towards development charges. 15. In the case of Land Acquisition Officer v. B. Vijender Reddy, (2001) 10 SCC 669 , the Apex Court has held that sale of acquired land three years prior to the Notification under section 4 of the L.A. Act by the claimant can be taken into consideration for ascertaining the market value. 16. As a whole, the thrust of the court should be to ascertain the market value of the land at the or about the time of acquisition, having regard to various transactions of the acquired land and, alternatively, in the vicinity. Even in various judgments, relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, it has been held that the sale transactions arising out of the acquired land would form the correct basis. Even in various judgments, relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, it has been held that the sale transactions arising out of the acquired land would form the correct basis. In the case of Special Tehsildar Land Acquisition Vishqkapatnam v. Smt. A. Mangala Gowri, AIR 1992 SC 666 , the hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the price paid in sale or purchase of the land acquired within a reasonable time from the date of acquisition of the land in question would be the best price of evidence. In this cited case, the claimants themselves had purchased the acquired land in the year 1961 and sold out one parcel of land in the month of January, 1963 @ Rs.5 per sq. yard. The land was acquired in November, 1963 and on the basis of some other judgment the trial court and the High Court had fixed the price of the acquired land @ Rs. 10 per sq. yard. Having regard to the sale of land at the rate of Rs.5.00 per sq. yard about 10 months prior to acquisition at the rate of Rs.5.00 per sq. yard, the hon'ble Supreme Court hold that the prevailing market value land could be taken at Rs.6.00 per sq. yard. In a nutshell, the purchase and sale transactions by the claimants themselves were considered to be the best price of evidence. 17. In the case of Lal Chand v. UOI, (2009) 15 SCC 769 , relied upon by the respondents, the Apex Court has observed that there is a disturbing trend to accept the contentions of the claimants that there is a general tendency of the members of public not to show the real value, but show a lesser value to avoid tax, stamp duty and, therefore, the sale deeds produced and relied upon by the claimants should be assumed to be undervalued. Their lordships have held that in computing the market value on such assumption is impermissible and the law does not permit addition of some percentage to offset undervaluation. 18. Apparently no straight jacket formula has been prescribed in the Land Acquisition Act for determining compensation. Section 23 of the Act gives certain broad guidelines for determining compensation. Under this provision certain factors have been enumerated for assessing compensation of the acquired land. However, the law has not spelt out any formula to ascertain the 'market value' of the land. Apparently no straight jacket formula has been prescribed in the Land Acquisition Act for determining compensation. Section 23 of the Act gives certain broad guidelines for determining compensation. Under this provision certain factors have been enumerated for assessing compensation of the acquired land. However, the law has not spelt out any formula to ascertain the 'market value' of the land. This shortcoming in the law has been filledup by judicial pronouncements. At the same time section 24 has given a list of factors that have to be statutorily neglected in the exercise of computation of compensation. In other words Section 23 is inclusive and section 24 is exclusive in nature. Except these few Yes' and 'No' the rest of the authority has been reposed upon the Collector in his capacity as the acquiring officer and the same authority is commanded by the courts, while reviewing or examining the awards passed by the Collector. In the case of Land Acquisition Officer v. Jashi Rohini, AIR 1995 SCW 823 the hon'ble Supreme Court of India has made the following thought provoking observations : "The question of fixation of market value is a paradox which lies at the heart of the law of compulsory purchase of land. The paradox lies in the facts that the market value concept is purely a phenomenon evolved by the courts to fix the price of land arrived at between the hypothetical willing buyer and willing seller bargaining as prudent persons without a modicum of constraints or without any extraordinary circumstances". 19. Since the owner of the land has no fundamental right over the property his claim for compensation is based on the maxim of "damnum absque injuria". In the case of Ravinder Narain v. UOI, (2003) 4 SCC 481 it has been held that since lands are acquired for public good and not for fascinating a particular individual and this being the motto for acquiring a parcel of land the aggrieved person should be awarded only just compensation and the claimant should not be allowed to take undue advantage of the situation. 20. Method for determining compensation for acquisition of land and awarding compensation on tort based claims for loss of lives in motor vehicle accidents are to some extent identical and akin inasmuch as in both the cases some amount of conjectures and hypothetical assumptions are involved. 20. Method for determining compensation for acquisition of land and awarding compensation on tort based claims for loss of lives in motor vehicle accidents are to some extent identical and akin inasmuch as in both the cases some amount of conjectures and hypothetical assumptions are involved. In the later case also there is no fixed criterion for assessing compensation. Of late, an attempt has been made to give a ready formula by inserting a schedule through section 163A in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This formula was also not found exhaustive to meet all the situations. However, the Judiciary has come to the rescue of Legislature by devising certain formulae for determining just and fair compensation. Considering various uncertainties in the life and other hypothesis, the hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swarnalata Das, AIR 1993 SC 1259 : AIR 1993 SCW 245, has given a word of caution that the amount of compensation should be crosschecked with other methods of capitalization of the loss. On the same analogy, rationalization of assessment of land acquisition compensation on the basis of scientific formula is necessary. In my opinion, it is easier to quantify the market value of land than to assess pecuniary loss on the death a person. Basically, introduction of some statutory guidelines in the law for determination of the 'market value' of acquired lands has become obligatory so that compensations are not awarded on impermissible assumptions, conjectures, and imaginations at the whims of Collectors and courts. Scientific guidelines in relation to the factors to be considered and not to be considered (sections 23 and 24) are necessary to bring uniformity in the assessment of compensation. Until sections 23 and 24 of the L.A. Act are suitably amended the following factors should be taken into consideration for computing 'market value' of the land and granting fair and reasonable compensation to the land owners : (i) While determining the market value on the basis of comparable sale transactions preference and priority should be given to the sale transactions from the acquired land itself. However, 'distress sales' and purchase of land at throwaway price or freak transactions may be excluded from consideration. (ii) Market value of the land may also be assessed on the basis of the price of the land, paid by the claimants, with 10% to 15% escalation per annum. However, 'distress sales' and purchase of land at throwaway price or freak transactions may be excluded from consideration. (ii) Market value of the land may also be assessed on the basis of the price of the land, paid by the claimants, with 10% to 15% escalation per annum. However, this option should be availed only if the land has been purchased within 5(five) years of preliminary Notification under section 4 of the Act. In case of old purchases the market value may be assessed on the basis of comparable sale transactions. (iii) In the absence of sale transactions from the acquired land, sale deeds of adjacent lands within 5 years preceding the Notification under section 4 may be considered. To offset the price escalation, 10% to 15% per annum may be added after taking the average of three or more comparable sales. (iv) If sufficient numbers of sale deeds of preceding 5 years, from the acquired land, are not available then bona fide and genuine sale deeds of lands from the vicinity/adjacent lands within next one year of initial Notification may also be considered. However, consideration of post Notification transactions should be only in exceptional cases. In the event of consideration of post Notification contemporaneous sale deeds the benefit of price escalation, as mentioned in clause (iii) above, will not be available. (v) In the event the market value is assessed on the basis of sale transactions of adjacent lands the acquiring authority would be competent to analyze the special advantages and disadvantages of such lands from the acquired land to add or deduct reasonable percentage with the average market price. (vi) If market price has to be ascertained on the basis of sale transactions of undeveloped small plots, against acquisition of large tracts of land, the Collector would be entitled to deduct certain percentage on account of development charges. (vii) Ordinarily the market value of tangible property, particularly landed property, depends upon likely appreciation of the property in near future in view of ongoing developmental activities, locational advantage, availability of amenities like water, electricity, access to the land, potential use of the land, and several other factors. Hence, it is not advisable to take into consideration any factor, other than the principles formulated under clauses (i) to (v) hereinabove. Hence, it is not advisable to take into consideration any factor, other than the principles formulated under clauses (i) to (v) hereinabove. However, it is made clear that the landowners would be entitled to best price derived under any one of the aforesaid formula. 21. Truly, speaking the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants that the market value of the acquired land should ordinarily be assessed on the basis of sale transactions, arising out of the sameland, could not be controverted by the learned counsel for the claimants/respondents. In view of the various authorities from the hon'ble Supreme Court I also find no hesitation to hold that this is the law as on today. The learned counsel for the claimants could not advance any counter proposition of law. In the appeals under consideration the claimants had purchased their lands vide Exts. J, N and B respectively. Under Ext. the claimant Sri Lal Babu had purchased 3 katha, 8 lecha at Rs.20,000 on 9.9.1992 @ Rs.5,882 per katha. The claimant Sri Uday Das (PW1) purchased 1 katha, 5 lechas of land on 27.5.1992 at a total consideration of Rs.2,000, i.e., @ Rs. 1,600 per katha. Under Ext. B late Ramsajiban Das had purchased 3 bigha, 3 katha, 18 lechas of land on 9.9.1992 at a total consideration of Rs.30,000, i.e., @ Rs.1,587 per katha. Out of his purchased land late Ramsajiban Das had at least sold out 1 bigha, 2 katha, 15 lechas of land to various persons beat by beat. One such Sale Deed was brought on record vide Ext. E. Under this Sale Deed 2 katha, 10 lechas of land was sold to one Nabin Ch. Kalita at Rs.25,000 on 5.3.1993, i.e., @ Rs. 10,000 per katha. 22. By filing an application under order 41, rule 27, CPC the appellants intended to bring on record the remaining Sale Deeds executed by late Ramsajiban Das as additional evidence. While filing objection to the said application the claimants have annexed the remaining three Sale Deeds of late Ramsajiban Das, wherefrom it is gathered that one plot of land covering 1 katha, 5 lecha was sold on 24.12.1992 at Rs. 10,000; another plot of 2 katha of land on the same date was sold at Rs. 10,000 and another plot of 2 katha was sold on 9.9.1992 at Rs.20,000, i.e., @ Rs. 10,000 per katha. 23. 10,000; another plot of 2 katha of land on the same date was sold at Rs. 10,000 and another plot of 2 katha was sold on 9.9.1992 at Rs.20,000, i.e., @ Rs. 10,000 per katha. 23. Sri De, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents submitted that appellants' have made the prayer for additional evidence with mala fide intention only to fillup the lacuna in their case. However, this submission is not tenable inasmuch as I find from the record that PW 1 was cross-examined about sale of some portion of land by his father late Ramsajiban Das and at least one such Sale Deed, was brought on record vide Ext. E. Be that as it may, since the respondents themselves have submitted copies of the Sale Deeds of their predecessor-in-interest along with an affidavit, I find no difficulty to consider the same in exercise of powers conferred under section 51A of the Act. The average rate of purchase and sale transactions by the claimants/respondents is definitely less than Rs. 10,000 per katha, during the year 1992-93. M 15% per annum is also added, under the head of price escalation for three years even then the value of the land would work out to less than Rs. 15,000 per katha. 24. Sri De, learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that claimants were sold the land below market rate by the original pattai in view of their long possession and paying land revenue and as such the price for the land mentioned in Exts. J, N and B should not be considered for assessing the market value of the acquired land. The learned counsel also submitted that similarly some area of the land was sold by the father of the respondents late Ramsajiban Das at lows rate in view of the urgent need of money and, as such, the price quote in the Sale Deeds should also be left out of consideration on the theory of "distress sale". Even for a moment it is presumed that the original pattadar sold the land to the respondents at a confessional rate, because of their long possession, etc., at least four sale deeds executed by ladle Ramsajiban Das pertaining to the land under acquisition can not bf left out of consideration. Even for a moment it is presumed that the original pattadar sold the land to the respondents at a confessional rate, because of their long possession, etc., at least four sale deeds executed by ladle Ramsajiban Das pertaining to the land under acquisition can not bf left out of consideration. It is true that in the Sale Deeds it has beer recited that the vendor was in urgent need of money but this recital is a general one. PW1 has nowhere stated in his evidence that his father late Ramsajiban Das had sold out 1 bigha, 2 katha, 15 lechas of land, under four Sale Deeds, due to acute financial hardship. On the other hand respondents had also purchased the land on 9.9.1992 and 25.7.1992 and sold out approximately half of the said land within a period of less than one year. Had there been financial hardship the respondents would not have insisted the original pattadar to execute the sale deeds and instead they could have waited till the return of financial soundness. 25. Coming to the sale deeds produced and proved by the claimants through PWs 2, 3 and 4 under Exts. 1, 2 and 13, I find that all these lands are situated in different villages. It may be mentioned here that the acquired land falls under village Birkuchi whereas the lands sold out by PWs 2, 3 and 4 falls under Village Satgaon and Maharaja. Besides this, PW 2 has admitted in the cross-examination that his land was situated by the side of 22 feet Satgaon main road and the land was high basti land. PW 3 has also admitted in the cross-examination that his land was situated near Noonmati Refinery and his land is also basti and high land. PW 3 had further admitted in the cross-examination that the acquired land is situated in the interior place, nearly one KM. away from the main road. PW 4 has also admitted that his land is also situated by the side of PWD road. On the other hand, PW 1 (claimant) has admitted in the Chief examination itself that the land was used for growing vegetable and other agricultural products. In the cross-examination PW 1 further admitted that his land was low lying and there was no house over it. On the other hand, PW 1 (claimant) has admitted in the Chief examination itself that the land was used for growing vegetable and other agricultural products. In the cross-examination PW 1 further admitted that his land was low lying and there was no house over it. For these reasons land sold and purchased by PWs 2, 3 and 4 cannot be termed as comparable sale transactions with that of acquired land. 26. Be that as it may, while preparing the sale statement, the land acquisition branch fixed the average market price at Rs.39,667.75 per katha. The said statement has been marked as Ext.22. From this statement I also find that the land value was assessed on the basis of sale deeds from neighboring village/areas and not on the basis of sale deeds from the acquired land. The reference court has not given due consideration to the Sale Deeds considered by the Collector holding that those transactions took place prior to the date of Notification. I have already mentioned at the outset of this judgment that the Notification under section 4 of the Act was initially issued on 29.5.1993 and due to lapse of the said Notification another Notification under section 4 was issued on 10.3.1995. In this way the acquisition process had actually begun in the month of May 1993 and, as such, the sale transactions that took place within three years of the Notification cannot be said to be termed as stale and outdated. In some of the judgments, referred in this judgment, the hon'ble Supreme Court had also considered 3 to 6 years old transactions to arrive at the market value of the land. Be that as it may, at least one of the sale deeds, relied upon by the Collector, is from Village Birkuchi and the sale price of the said sale deed is fully substantiated by the sale deed dated 27.11.1995, proved through DWs 1 and 2 vide Ext. R. However, this sale deed has been totally ignored by the reference court. 27. For the reasons assigned herein above, I hold that the Collector had assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.50,000 per katha, taking a lenient view. R. However, this sale deed has been totally ignored by the reference court. 27. For the reasons assigned herein above, I hold that the Collector had assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.50,000 per katha, taking a lenient view. On the other hand, the reference court has enhanced the compensation overlooking the price paid by the claimants for purchasing the land within a period of less than three years of acquisition and also the price of the land sold by them. Besides this, the reference court appears to have enhanced the compensation taking a view that the acquired land was included in the Guwahati Municipal Corporation in the year 1993, whereas, no witness had stated so. What the witnesses stated before the court was that the acquired land, which fell in Ward No.34 in the year 1993, now falls in Ward No.52. Be that as it may, the appellants have clarified this factual incongruity by filing applications under order 41, rule 27, CPC stating that the entire acquired land had come under the Corporation area way back in the year 1976. The claimants-respondents have not disputed this fact in their written objection. In this way, the reference court was influenced and persuaded to enhance the compensation on a wrong assumption and as such the judgment is also liable to be interfered with on this count. 28. In the result, all the appeals stand allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 23.10.2006, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge (FTC) Kamrup, Guwahati in Misc. (Reference) Case No.7/8/9 of 2003, arising out of Land Acquisition Case No. 12 of 1992, is hereby set aside. The award passed by the Collector of Kamrup fixing the market value of the land at Rs.50,000 per katha is hereby maintained. This amount shall carry statutory solatium and interest. 29. While admitting the appeals this court had stayed the execution of the award, prepared on the basis of the judgment of the Reference Court, subject to the condition that the appellants (OIL) shall deposit 50% of the enhanced award, i.e., 50% of Rs.70,000 per katha. Learned counsel for the appellants stated that they have already deposited the said money and the claimants have also withdrawn the money from the court. If that be so, the claimants/respondents are directed to refund the excess amount of money to the OIL. Learned counsel for the appellants stated that they have already deposited the said money and the claimants have also withdrawn the money from the court. If that be so, the claimants/respondents are directed to refund the excess amount of money to the OIL. Precisely, the claimants shall deposit the excess amount in the court of learned Addl. District Judge (FTC) Kamrup, Guwahati with interest @ Rs.9% per annum, from the date of receiving the payment till the date of deposit. On such deposit, the money shall be refunded to OIL. The claimants/respondents are given 3 (three) months time to deposit the money in the court. However, both parties shall bear their respective cost of appeal.