Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 486 (GUJ)

General Manager v. Patel Jayantibhai Bechardas

2012-07-02

C.L.SONI, JAYANT PATEL

body2012
Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—As all the appeals arise from the common judgment and award of the Reference Court, they are being considered simultaneously. 2. The short facts are that for the project of ONGC, the lands at Village Limbodara were to be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short). The Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 15.12.1993 and 17.12.1993. The Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 7.4.1994. Thereafter, the award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 22.10.1995 and he granted compensation at Rs. 6/- per sq. mtrs. As the claimants were not satisfied with the award, they raised the dispute under Section 18 of the Act, which ultimately came to be referred to the Reference Court for adjudication being Land Reference Case No. 24/98 to 30/98 and thereafter, they were renumbered as Land Reference Case No. 516/2006 to 522/2006. The present appeals are pertaining to the Land Acquisition Cases arising from L.R. No. 518 to 522 of 2006. The Reference Court, at the conclusion of the reference, passed the judgement and award, whereby the Reference Court assessed the market value at Rs. 235/- per sq. mtrs., and since the amount of Rs. 6/- per sq. mtrs., was already awarded as compensation by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the net amount of Rs. 229/- per sq. mtrs., was awarded as additional compensation. The Reference Court has further granted solatium under Section 23(2) of the Act, increase in the market value under Section 23(1A) of the Act and interest under Section 28 of the Act. It is under these circumstances, the present appeals are before this Court. 3. We have heard Mr. Valmik Vyas, learned Counsel for Mr. Ajay Mehta for the appellant and Mr. Dharmesh Gurjar for the claimants in the present group of appeals. We have considered the Record and Proceedings and we have also considered the judgement and reasons recorded by the Reference Court. 4 It appears from the perusal of the judgement and more particularly the reasons recorded by the Reference Court that the Reference Court has not accepted the claim made by the claimants on the basis of yield method, on the ground that the proof of the agricultural produce was not produced and only bare statement has been made for the purpose of stating that Rs. 70,000/- per vigha was the net agricultural income. The second aspect considered by the Reference Court was that for the acquisition of the land at Mansa in the year 1999 the compensation was awarded by the Reference Court at Rs. 294/- per sq. mtrs., in Land Reference Case No. 171 of 2005 and a copy of the judgement was produced at Exh. 19. The Reference Court thereafter based on the said judgement deducted 20% towards development of the land under acquisition at Village Limbodara, but found that the valuation will not be less than the rate at Mansa and, therefore, ultimately assessed the market value at Rs. 235/- per sq. mtrs. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant raised the first contention that the sale instances of the sale deeds have not been considered by the Reference Court, though certified copies of the sale deeds were produced. In furtherance to his submission, he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Cement Corporation of India Limited vs. Purya & Ors., reported in (2004) 8 SCC 270 and submitted that as the documents were part of the record, the Reference Court could not discard the same. He submitted that if those sale instances are considered, the compensation would be on a much lower side. 6. Even if the certified copies of the sale deeds are produced, the reliability and the evidentiary value is an aspect to be finalized by the Court. Therefore, mere production of certified copies, in our view, is not sufficient to compel the Court to consider the same. As per the above referred decision of the Apex Court in case of Cement Corporation of India Limited (Supra), even if the contention that contents of the documents produced is to be permitted to be raised, reliability is to be considered by the Court, keeping in view the award passed in respect of other land of the nearby area, more particularly when the willing buyer or willing purchaser was not examined. No evidence is brought to our notice showing the circumstances under which the sale was effected. As against the same, the Reference Court had the evidence, which was produced on behalf of the claimants for the market value assessed and the compensation awarded for the acquisition of the land at Mansa. No evidence is brought to our notice showing the circumstances under which the sale was effected. As against the same, the Reference Court had the evidence, which was produced on behalf of the claimants for the market value assessed and the compensation awarded for the acquisition of the land at Mansa. Under these circumstances, we find that if the Reference Court has not considered the sale deeds, such approach cannot be said to be erroneous. 7. The learned Counsel next contended that the acquisition of the land was in the year 1999 for Mansa, and the valuation of the land at Village Limbodara could not be the same and he submitted that such will be in addition to the difference in the development of Mansa and Village Limbodara. However, the learned Counsel did submit that the Village Limbodara and the land under acquisition are in the periphery of Mansa, but the method applied and the valuation assessed by the Reference Court is erroneous. 8. Whereas, Mr. Gurjar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the development in Village Limbodara could not be lesser than Mansa, because, in his submission, there were school facilities and other basic facilities available at the said village also and the distance between Mansa and Village Limbodara is only about two kms and, therefore, it was submitted that the assessment made of the value of the land may not be interfered with. 9. It does appear from the evidence Exh. 19 for acquisition of the land at Mansa, that the compensation was awarded at Rs. 294/- per sq. mtrs., but was for the land in which the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published i.e. on 13.10.1999, whereas the Notification under Section 4 in the present case is on 15.12.1993 and 17.12.1993. Therefore, roughly there is a difference of about six years in the Notification of both the cases. It is hardly required to be stated that for awarding of compensation for Mansa, the valuation of the land is assessed for the year 1999, naturally, there would not be the same valuation of the land at Mansa or even of the peripheral area, in the year 1993 but is bound to be less. It is hardly required to be stated that for awarding of compensation for Mansa, the valuation of the land is assessed for the year 1999, naturally, there would not be the same valuation of the land at Mansa or even of the peripheral area, in the year 1993 but is bound to be less. In normal circumstances, the appreciation is to be considered at the rate of 10% per annum and similarly for the purpose of reduction in the market value the principles of 10% per annum could be considered on the basis of reducing balance method inasmuch as on the basis of the figure arriving therefrom. Accordingly if the value is reduced from Rs. 294/- on the basis of 10% per annum on reducing balance method, it would come to Rs. 173.70 for the year 1993, and the aforesaid figure can be rounded off to Rs. 175/- per sq. mtrs. 10. Therefore, we find that if the award of the Reference Court is only to be taken into consideration for acquisition of the land at Mansa, the valuation even for the land at Mansa for the year 1993 would be Rs. 175/- per sq. mtrs., and not Rs. 294/- per sq. mtrs., as considered by the Reference Court. 11. Further aspects of difference in the valuation on account of the development of Mansa being Taluka Town and Limbodara being an adjoining village would also be required to be taken into consideration. 12. It appears from the judgment of the Reference Court that the Reference Court has considered 20% deduction from the compensation fixed for land at Mansa, but, the pertinent aspect is that market value of the land was assessed at Rs. 235/- Per Square Meter taking base of Rs. 294/- Per Square Meter for the acquisition of the land at Mansa. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant did contend that the said deduction of 20% is required even in the market value of Rs. 175/- for the land at village-Limbodara, whereas, learned counsel Mr. Gurjar for the respondent-claimant submitted that village-Limbodara is on the highway and is in peripheral area of Mansa. It is submitted that the distance between village-Limbodara and Mansa is only 2 kms., and there is only one village i.e. Rajpur and there is common Gram Panchayat between village-Limbodara and village-Rajpur. 175/- for the land at village-Limbodara, whereas, learned counsel Mr. Gurjar for the respondent-claimant submitted that village-Limbodara is on the highway and is in peripheral area of Mansa. It is submitted that the distance between village-Limbodara and Mansa is only 2 kms., and there is only one village i.e. Rajpur and there is common Gram Panchayat between village-Limbodara and village-Rajpur. He has also submitted that all the facilities which are available in Mansa, are available in village-Limbodara and, therefore, no deduction should be made. 14. Consideration of the case for deduction in the year 1999, might stand on a different footing, but, we have to see the difference of development of Mansa in the year 1993, since, the valuation is to be considered for the year 1993. Keeping in view that there is common Gram Panchayat and the land is also located on the highway, we find it appropriate to deduct 10%, then the valuation could be arrived at Rs. 175/- Per Square Meter for Mansa in the year 1993. Consequently, the net amount would come to Rs. 157.50 Per Square Meter and if rounded off, it can be considered as Rs. 158/- Per Square Meter of the land in question in the year 1993. When the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published, the amount of Rs. 6/- Per Square Meter has also been awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, and hence, the original claimants would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs. 152/- Per Square Meter. Under the circumstances, the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court for awarding the additional compensation of Rs. 229/- Per Square Meter deserves to be modified. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that other benefits as considered by the Reference Court deserves to be reduced. The other benefits granted by the Reference Court are for increase in the market value under Section 23(1A) of the Act and solatium under Section 23(2) of the Act, which are by way of statutory consequence and therefore, we do not find that any interference is called for. The other benefits granted by the Reference Court are for increase in the market value under Section 23(1A) of the Act and solatium under Section 23(2) of the Act, which are by way of statutory consequence and therefore, we do not find that any interference is called for. On the aspect of awarding any interest under Section 28 of the Act is concerned, the claimants, in any case, would be entitled for interest under Section 28 of the Act at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of taking over the possession, for the first year and at the rate of 15% p.a., for the subsequent period, until the amount is actually deposited in the Court or is paid. 16. However, learned counsel for the appellant raised the contention that the claimants could not have been awarded interest at the rate of 15% p.a., prior to the award and in his submission, the Court has power to award interest, only after the date of the award and not prior thereto. He submitted that possession has been taken over on 14.12.1995, whereas, the award has been passed on 22.10.1996 and therefore, it was submitted that this Court may award interest under Section 28 of the Act only after the date of the award and not from the date from which possession was taken over i.e. 14.12.1995. 17. We cannot countenance the submission, because once the land owner/ claimant is deprived from the possession, the liability to pay the compensation would not only accrue, but, it will be for acquiring body or the authority to compensate the land owner for the deprivation of the possession until the award is passed. The said aspect is well considered by the Apex Court in case of Madishetti Bala Ramul (D) By LRs. vs. The Land Acquisition Officer, reported in Judgment Today 2007(8) SC 180 and ultimately, in the said case, the Court permitted the interest at the rate of 15% p.a. on the awarded amount, for the period from the year 1979 to 1991, since the possession was taken long back earlier. vs. The Land Acquisition Officer, reported in Judgment Today 2007(8) SC 180 and ultimately, in the said case, the Court permitted the interest at the rate of 15% p.a. on the awarded amount, for the period from the year 1979 to 1991, since the possession was taken long back earlier. In the present case, there is a difference of only one year and therefore, if the interest is awarded at the rate of 15% p.a., the said amount may be higher than the amount of interest, which claimants would be entitle for the interest at the rate of 9% p.a., if the relevant date is considered from the date of taking over the possession. 18. Under this circumstances, even if amount of interest is calculated at the rate of 9 % p.a. for the first year and interest at the rate of 15% p.a. for the subsequent year on the amount of compensation with the increase in market price and solatium, under Sections 23(1A) and 23(2) of the Act, the same would take care of appropriate compensation to the land owner for deprivation of the possession, prior to the award i.e. from 14.12.1995 onwards. Therefore, keeping in view the said aspect, we find that the order passed by the Reference Court for awarding the interest under Section 28 of the Act at the rate of 9% p.a. for the first year and interest at the rate of 15% p.a. for the subsequent year, until the amount is actually paid or deposited with the Court does not deserve interference, as no useful purpose shall be served thereby. 19. In view of aforesaid observation and direction, it is held that original claimants shall be entitled to additional compensation of Rs. 152/- Per Square Meter of the land in question. They shall also be entitled to the benefits of increase in the price/valuation under Section 23(1A) of the Act and solatium under Section 23(2) of the Act. They shall also be entitled to the interest under Section 28 of the Act from the date of taking over the possession. However, the observations made by the Reference Court for entitlement of the interest from the date of notification, which is of the year 1993, under Section 4 of the Act is concerned, more particularly the words ‘whichever is earlier’, the said part of the order is set aside. However, the observations made by the Reference Court for entitlement of the interest from the date of notification, which is of the year 1993, under Section 4 of the Act is concerned, more particularly the words ‘whichever is earlier’, the said part of the order is set aside. Consequently, it is held that the claimants will be entitled to the interest under Section 28 of the Act from the date of taking over the possession of the land i.e. 14.12.1995 onwards. 20. The appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. The award shall stand modified accordingly. Considering the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.