Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 144 (MP)

Chairman, M. P. Electricity Board v. Roshanlal

2015-02-03

ALOK ARADHE

body2015
Judgment Alok Aradhe, J. 1. In this batch of appeals preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the appellant has assailed the validity of the common judgment dated 9-8-2010 passed by the Trial Court in various reference cases. Facts giving rise to filing of these appeals briefly stated are that the appellant namely Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board took up the project known as "Tones Hydel Project" for the purpose of construction of canal and for the said purpose, the land admeasuring 21.473 hectares situated in Villages Sahijana, Amliki and Sukwar in Huzur, District Rewa were sought to be acquired. The process of acquisition of land for the purpose of construction of canal for Tones was set in motion by issuance of notification under Section 4 (1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on 24-6-1986 by which the lands situated at Villages Sahijana, Bhatlo, Dihiya, Silpara and Amliki were sought to be acquired. The notification was published in daily, newspaper circulated in the locality on 11-7-1986 and on 12-7-1986. Thereafter, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in different newspaper on 1-8-1986, 2-8-1986 and 8-8-1986. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Gazette on 30-7-1986. The Land Acquisition Officer thereafter, passed an award on 23-12-1987. Being aggrieved, the respondents filed an application under Section 18 of the Act to the Collector. The Collector thereupon referred the disputes for adjudication to the Court. The Reference Court by common judgment dated 9-8-2010 assessed the market value of the land in question at Rs. 25,000/- per acre and awarded solatium and statutory interest payable under the provisions of the Act, to the respondents. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant while inviting the attention of this Court to reply to the application under Section 18 of the Act submitted that even though an objection was raised on behalf of the appellant that though the application preferred by the respondent under Section 18 of the Act filed on 5-2-1988 is barred by limitation, as the same ought to have been filed on or before 3-2-1988, yet, the Reference Court did not adjudicate the objection preferred by the appellant. It was further submitted that there is no material on record to show the distances between the villages, the lands of which were acquired by the appellant. It was further submitted that there is no material on record to show the distances between the villages, the lands of which were acquired by the appellant. It was also urged that the award is cryptic in nature and the Reference Court by relying on the market value of the lands in adjacent villages, which were acquired by the appellant for the purposes of project, has determined the market value without adverting to the evidence adduced by the parties. Lastly, it was contended that the lands situated in adjoining villages were irrigated lands whereas, the lands in question are un-irrigated. 3. On the other hand; learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the appellant has failed to adduce any evidence that the application preferred by the respondent under Section 18 of the Act was barred by limitation. It was also urged that the lands situated in adjoining villages a distance of 1 to 2 kms., were acquired by the appellant for the purpose of same project and for the same purpose in respect of which the market value was assessed at Rs. 25,000/- per acre by the Reference Court, which was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 696/05. Learned Counsel for the respondent has invited the attention of this Court to the evidence of the respondents and has stated that the respondents have clearly stated in their evidence that the lands held by them are irrigated lands and the distances between the villages is 1-2 kilometers. 4. I have considered the respective submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Before proceeding with rival submissions made at the Bar, I deem it appropriate to deal with the objection raised by the appellant that the application filed by the respondent under Section 18 of the Act, was barred by limitation. Section 18(2) of the Act provides that an application seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation shall be made to the Collector in case where the person was present before the Collector at the time when the award was passed within six weeks from the date of the award passed by the Collector and in other cases, within six weeks from the receipt of notice from the Collector under Section 12 (2) or within six months from the date of the Collector's award whichever, period shall expire first. The plea of limitation is mixed question of law and fact. In the instant case, in Para 5 of the reply to the application under Section 18 of the Act, the appellant has stated that since respondent was represented in the proceeding before the Land Acquisition Officer, therefore, the application ought to have been filed within the period of six weeks from the date of the award. It is also averred that the aforesaid period expired on 3-2-1988 whereas, the application under Section 18 of the Act was filed on 5-2-1988. However, it is pertinent to mention here that in the proceeding before the Reference Court, the appellant had produced one M.L. Ahirwar, Executive Engineer as its sole witness. From perusal of his evidence, it is axiomatic that he has not asserted the fact that the application filed by the respondent is barred by limitation. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the appellant has failed to prove the plea that the application filed by the respondents under Section 18 of the Act was barred by limitation. 5. It is well-settled in law that price fetched for lands similar to acquired lands with similar advantages and potentialities at or about the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, constitute the best evidence. The fair and reasonable market value of land is always a question of fact depending on the nature of evidence, circumstances and probabilities in each case. When the Courts are called upon to fix the market value of the lands in compulsory acquisition, the best evidence of the value of property is the sale of the acquired land to which the claimant himself is a party, in its absence the sales of the neighbouring lands. See : Administrator Genl. of West Bengal Vs. Collector, Varanasi, AIR 1988 SC 943 and Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala, (1991) 4 SCC 195 . In the case of Premvati Vs. Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 57 , it has been held that market value of the land can be determined on the basis of value of adjoining land. 6. Collector, Varanasi, AIR 1988 SC 943 and Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala, (1991) 4 SCC 195 . In the case of Premvati Vs. Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 57 , it has been held that market value of the land can be determined on the basis of value of adjoining land. 6. In the instant case, from the perusal of the evidence of the respondents, it is evident that they have stated that the lands situated in adjoining Villages Sahijana, Bhatlo, Dihiya, Silpara and Amliki are situated adjacent to each other and the lands situated in the aforesaid villages were acquired for the purpose of construction of canal of Tones Hydel Project by the appellant. The respondents have further stated that the lands held by them are irrigated lands and yield two crops in a year and is situated adjacent to limits of Municipal Corporation, Rewa. The respondents have further stated that the lands are situated within the vicinity of 2-3 kms. The sole witness examined on behalf of the appellant namely, M.L. Ahirwar, Executive Engineer has admitted in his evidence that lands of adjoining villages namely Sahijana, Bhatlo, Dihiya, Silpara and Amliki were acquired for Tones Hydel Project for same purpose. He has further stated that he is unable to state the distance between various villages. The lands situated in Villages Sahijana, Bhatlo, Dihiya, Silpara and Amliki are situated within the vicinity of 2-3 kms. It is not in dispute that an award was passed on 3-9-1999 in Land Acquisition Case No. 33/07 and on 26-2-1999, 18 Land Acquisition Cases were decided in which the market value of the land situated in aforesaid villages was assessed at Rs. 25,000/- per acre. It is also not in dispute that a judgment was passed on 15-3-2005 in respect of 9 Land Acquisition Cases by the Reference Court, which was challenged by the appellant in First Appeal No. 696/05 and Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 8-12-2005 by the placing reliance on previous judgment dated 26-2-1999 passed by the Reference Court and taking into account the fact that land situated in Villages Kathulia, Silpara, Bathlo, Sahijana are situated adjacent to the limits of Municipal Corporation, Rewa as well as the fact that in respect of lands situated within the periphery of two kilometers, the market value of the land was determined at Rs. 25,000/- per acre upheld the finding with regard to market value of the land and held that the market value of the land in question is Rs. 25,000/- per acre. 7. From the evidence on record, it is axiomatic that the lands held by the respondents are situated within the close proximity of the lands, which were acquired by the appellants for the purposes of construction of canal for Tones Hydel Project and in respect of which the market value was determined at Rs. 25,000/- per acre. From the evidence on record, it is evident that the lands of the respondents are irrigated lands and yield two crops in a year and are situated adjacent to the limits of Municipal Corporation, Rewa. Therefore, in the state of evidence on record and specially taking into account the principle of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Premvati (supra), and the reasons assigned in judgment dated 8-12-2005 passed in First Appeal No. 695/05 by the Division Bench of this Court by which market value of the land in respect of the adjoining lands has been held to be Rs. 25,000/- per acre, there appears to be no plausible reason to take a different view in the matter. The market value of the land in the state of evidence on record as well as taking into account the market value of adjoining lands has rightly been assessed at Rs. 25,000/- acre and the Reference Court has awarded solatium and interest accordingly. In view of preceding analysis, I do not find any merit in the appeals. The same fail and are hereby dismissed with costs.