Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 615 (MP)

Ujjain Development Authority v. Shantabai

2012-06-27

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2012
ORDER 1. This order shall govern disposal of other connected first appeals No.355 to 359 of 2005. 2. All these six appeal involve common questions of law and facts and they arise out of the same acquisition proceedings. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from First Appeal No.499/2005. 3. This appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (For short, the Act) is arising out of the award dated 25.07.2005 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Ujjain (In short, the Reference Court) in MJC No.17/2002. 4. Briefly stated, the State Government in exercise of its powers under section 4 of the Act issued a notification under section 4 (1) of the Act published in gazette on 01.05.1998 for acquisition of the land situated at villages Malanvasa and Shakarvasa, Tahsil Ujjain for the purpose of Housing Scheme of the appellant – Ujjain Development Authority. 5. The respondents submitted their objection to the said acquisition. The Land Acquisition Officer (For short, the LAO) after considering the objections, determined the compensation and vide award dated 12.04.2001 awarded compensation to the land owners at the rate of Rs.3,60,584/- per hectare (Rs.72,116/- per bigha) for village Malanvasa for the agricultural land. 6. Aggrieved by the determination of the compensation by the LAO, the respondents – land owners sought reference, invoking provisions of Section 18 of the Act. The prayer was accepted by the Collector and in all the cases reference was made as prayed for by the land owners and the matter was referred to the Reference Court. The Reference Court vide impugned award dated 25.07.2005 enhanced the compensation by partly allowing the claim of the land owners by determining the market value of the land in question at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per bigha for village Malanvasa. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the determination of the compensation by the Reference Court, the appellant – Ujjain Development Authority has filed this appeal. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Shri M.L. Pathak and Shri D.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant- UDA argued that the Reference Court while determining the amount of compensation has committed error in placing reliance on the sale-deeds Ex.P/1 to P/4. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Shri M.L. Pathak and Shri D.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant- UDA argued that the Reference Court while determining the amount of compensation has committed error in placing reliance on the sale-deeds Ex.P/1 to P/4. According to the appellant, the said sale-deeds are relating to the land situated near the main road and were acquired for the purposes of road and on the basis of those sale-deeds, the determination of the compensation is illegal. Learned counsel for the appellant further urged that the Reference Court has misinterpreted the documents Ex.D/1 to D/3 submitted by the appellant and further erred in enhancing the compensation exorbitantly. 10. Shri R.S. Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents – land owners, on the other hand, supported the impugned award passed by the Reference Court, by arguing that the Reference Court has rightly placed reliance on the sale-deeds Ex.P/1 to P/4 submitted by the respondents and the reasons assigned by the Reference Court for discarding the appellant’s evidence is legal and proper and needs no interference. 11. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned award, we find that the learned Reference Court has considered the maps Ex.P/6, P/8 and P/9 and recorded a finding that adjacent to village Malanvasa, village Nagjhiri is situated and thereafter village Sakarvasa and thereafter village Goyalakhurd is situated. Having held so, the learned Reference Court has held that the sale-deed Ex.D/1 & Ex.D/3 relating to village Shakarvasa and and sale-deed Ex.D/2 relating to Goyalakhurd would not be relevant whereas the relevant sale-deed would be of village Malanvasa and Nagjhiri. We find that in view of the fact that the village Nagjhiri is adjacent to village Malanvasa as per the maps village Shakarvasa and Goyalakhurd are behind village Nagjhiri, the reliance on the sale-deed of the villages Malanvasa and Nagjhiri is relevant and the reference Court has rightly done so. We find that in view of the fact that the village Nagjhiri is adjacent to village Malanvasa as per the maps village Shakarvasa and Goyalakhurd are behind village Nagjhiri, the reliance on the sale-deed of the villages Malanvasa and Nagjhiri is relevant and the reference Court has rightly done so. The reference Court, after giving close scrutiny to the sale-deeds, has noticed that the sale-deed Ex.P/3 is of date 27.02.1991 by which 5 bighas of land was sold for Rs.6,50,000/-, held that during the period of seven years from the date of sale-deed till the date of notification, there must be increase in the price, which must have been increased from Rs.1,30,000/- per bigha as per the said sale-deed to Rs.1,75,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- per bighas. The reference Court also appreciated the sale-deed Ex.P/4 executed on 23.02.1994 for the land situated at Nagjhiri by which 0.140 hectare land was sold at Rs.1,50,000/- and also considering the fact that maps, the said land of Nagjhiri at Survey No.192/2 is situated near the land of respondents in the adjacent village and taking into consideration the increase of price from 23.02.1994 till the date of notification rightly discarded the appellant’s sale-deeds Ex.D/1 to D/3 which were relating to Shakarvasa and Goyalakhurd villages. 12. We find that for assessing and determining the just compensation, the reference Court has committed no error in holding that the market price of the acquired land deserves to be assessed between Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- per bigha, in view of increase in the prices from the year 1991 and 1994 up to the date of notification under section 4 (1) of the Act. Having recorded this finding, the reference Court has assessed the market value of the land of Malanvasa to be Rs.1,50,000/- per bigha. 13. Thus, in our considered view, there is no infirmity what-so-ever in the assessment of compensation made by the reference Court. The determination of the market value on the basis of sale-deeds produced on record pertaining to the adjacent village and to the village in question by taking into account reasonable enhancement of the price between the execution of the said sale-deeds and the date of notification cannot be said to be illegal. No case is made out to interfere into the impugned award passed by the Reference Court. 14. No case is made out to interfere into the impugned award passed by the Reference Court. 14. We accordingly affirm the finding recorded by the Reference Court and dismiss all these appeals with costs.