Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 227 (GAU)

KERAMUDDIN SHEIKH v. STATE OF ASSAM

2015-02-25

N.CHAUDHURY

body2015
ORDER (ORAL) The deemed decree dated 22.12.2004 passed by Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been brought under challenge in this first appeal by the claimant. The Collector assessed compensation of the acquired land at Rs. 16,000/- per katha which the learned Reference Court enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- on consideration of the evidence on record. Not satisfied with such enhancement, claimant has approached this Court by preferring this first appeal claiming that the market price at the relevant time was not less than Rs. 1,00,000/- per katha. 2. The Collector, Kamrup issued two notifications on 22.09.1994 and 22.11.1996 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for acquisition of a plot of land measuring 6 bigha 4 katha 3 lecha covered by Dag No. 84 of K.P. Patta No. 266 of village Betkuchi belonging to the claimant and others. L.A. Case No. 9/1993 was registered thereby and subsequently on 06.01.1997 notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued. In the mean time, Collector took over possession on 22.11.1996 from the occupants. This acquisition of land was for the public purpose of Indian Oil Corporation. A proceeding under Section 9 was thereafter followed and the Collector basing on a sale deed of the year 1989-90 assessed the market price of the land at Rs. 15,603.92 per katha. However, he invited the owners to collect the compensation assessed at Rs. 16,000/- per katha by rounding off the figure. The present appellant accepted the amount with protest and prayed that the matter be referred to the Collector under Section 18 of the Act for proper assessment of compensation. It is on such prayer of the claimant, Misc. (Ref.) Case No. 103/2000 was registered before adhoc Additional District Judge at Kamrup. 3. Upon pleadings of both sides, the learned Reference Court framed as many as 4 issues which are quoted below: i) Whether the compensation assessed by the Collector for acquired land and jirat, was fair and adequate if not what should be the fair and adequate compensation payable to the claimant? ii) Whether the claimant is entitled to get additional compensation U/S 23 of the Act, as amended on the amount fixed? iii) Whether the claimant is entitled to get interest on the unpaid amount from the date of award till the date of payment? ii) Whether the claimant is entitled to get additional compensation U/S 23 of the Act, as amended on the amount fixed? iii) Whether the claimant is entitled to get interest on the unpaid amount from the date of award till the date of payment? iv) To what relief or reliefs the claimant is entitled to? 4. The claimant examined 3 (three) witnesses and adduced documentary evidence including a certified copy of sale deed of the year 2000 to show that the value of the land soared as high as Rs. 1,40,000/- per katha by that time. 5. The PW 2 was the claimant himself and he stated that he owned entire land measuring 6 bigha 4 katha 3 lecha described above and that he was growing paddy on the land. After the land has been acquired for use by the Indian Oil Corporation, he has been deprived from the means of livelihood. According to him, assessment of valuation by the Collector at Rs. 15,603.92 per katha is much below the market price. He proved the sale statement as Ext. 4, two notifications under Section 4 as Exts. 1 & 2 and notification under Section 6 as Ext. 3. He stated that the acquired land is situated near National Highway No. 37 and it is within the municipal area. He claimed further that at the time of acquisition of land, the value was between Rs. 80,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- per katha but the Collector assessed the same at as low price as Rs. 15,603.92 without any basis. He exhibited Ext. 7 sale deed dated 23.06.1999 to show that a plot of land measuring 3 katha 15 lecha covered by Dag No. 397 and 398 of Patta No. 187 was sold to one Sri Kripal Singh at a total consideration of Rs. 3,75,000/- which means that the price per katha was about Rs. 95,000/-. Similarly, he proved certified copy of sale deed dated 10.10.2000 as Ext. 8 which shows that 2 kathas of land covered by Dag No. 988 of Patta No. 215 of the same locality was sold at a total consideration of Rs. 2,80,000/-. This means that by that time, the price soared as high as Rs. 1,40,000/- per katha. 95,000/-. Similarly, he proved certified copy of sale deed dated 10.10.2000 as Ext. 8 which shows that 2 kathas of land covered by Dag No. 988 of Patta No. 215 of the same locality was sold at a total consideration of Rs. 2,80,000/-. This means that by that time, the price soared as high as Rs. 1,40,000/- per katha. PW 1, Sri Surya Kanta Kalita who is the Senior Assistant in the L.A. Bench of Office of the Deputy Commissioner, supported PW 2 claimant by saying that the acquired land along with other lands is situated in village Betkuchi and it was acquired for the purpose of Indian Oil Corporation vide Ext. 1, 2 and 3, referred to above. He proved these exhibits by producing the gazettes. He also stated that Ext. 4 was the sale statement prepared on the basis of some registered sale deed of the year 1989-90 and this is how the market price of the land was assessed at Rs. 15,603.92 and by rounding off the figure, compensation was assessed at Rs. 16,000/- per katha. In addition to this the statutory entitlement of the claimant under Section 23(1A) and Section 28 of the L.A. Act was also provided to the claimant. PW 3, Rajen Basumatary, is none other than the vendee in Ext. 3 sale deed. He claimed that he had purchased the land at aforesaid price and the land is in the same locality as that of the acquired land. Although there was no sale deed of the recent past and the sale deed produced before the Collector was of the year 1989-90, the claimant could produce the certified copy of the sale deed of the year 1999-2000 only. This being the position, the learned Reference Court appears to have applied guess work and ultimately arrived at the finding that in the fitness of things it would be proper to presume that market price of the acquired land would be at Rs. 50,000/- per katha as on the date of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. It is true no doubt that market price cannot be ascertained with arithmetical precision. It is this judgment and deemed decree which has been brought under challenge in the present appeal. 6. I have heard Mr. S Ali, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. It is true no doubt that market price cannot be ascertained with arithmetical precision. It is this judgment and deemed decree which has been brought under challenge in the present appeal. 6. I have heard Mr. S Ali, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. G Sarma, learned Government Advocate on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. I have perused the evidence of the parties including the exhibits. 7. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is based on the doctrine of Eminent Domain which provides that property of a private person can be acquired by the State provided there is public purpose and interest. But this can be done only against just compensation to the original owner. What shall be just and fair compensation, may baffle an authority and imagination and gross guess work may take place of assessment. This is why statute has laid down self guiding principles under Section 23 of the Act for arriving at just and fair compensation. Section 23 lays down six guidelines which are broad guiding principles. Section 23 is quoted below: “23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation. This is why statute has laid down self guiding principles under Section 23 of the Act for arriving at just and fair compensation. Section 23 lays down six guidelines which are broad guiding principles. Section 23 is quoted below: “23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation. – (1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration- First, the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1); Secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector’s taking possession thereof; Thirdly, the damage (if any), sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector’s taking possession of the land, by reason of severing such land from his other land; Fourthly, the damage (if any), sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector’s taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings; Fifthly, if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change; and Sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under section 6 and the time of the Collector’s taking possession of the land. (1A) In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market-value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. Explanation. – In computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any Court shall be excluded. Explanation. – In computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any Court shall be excluded. (2) In addition to the market-value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of thirty per centum on such market-value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. 8. Section 23 makes it clear that market value of the land should be the first principle to determine the amount of compensation. The relevant date of ascertainment of market value has been indicated in the first clause of Section 23. The market value prevailing at the time of issuance of notification under section 4 is the relevant date for determining compensation against land acquisition. Although in the case in hand, possession was taken in the month of November, 1996 but notification under Section 4 was issued on 22.09.1994 and 06.01.1997 respectively. These dates, therefore, shall be the relevant dates for the land covered by exhibits 1 and 2 as the case may be. The other principle except the principle of ascertainment of market value is that if a certified copy of sale deed of or around the date of notification under Section 4 is not available, in that event such a sale deed of the recent past has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of ascertaining the market value. Here in this case, the Collector has relied on a sale deed of the year 1989-90. None of the PWs could bring forward any document of the recent past. Ext. 7 and 8 are the sale deeds on prospective dates. Ext. 7 is of the year 1999 whereas Ext. 8 is of the year 2000. Because of such big time gap, the learned Reference Court appears to have made an assessment by comparing these values and fixed the same at Rs. 50,000/- per katha. Now, the question arises whether such fixation of the market price at Rs. 50,000/- is far from reality. Some amount of guess work is always necessary for the purpose of ascertaining the real value but such guess work has to be made on some rational basis or principle. 50,000/- per katha. Now, the question arises whether such fixation of the market price at Rs. 50,000/- is far from reality. Some amount of guess work is always necessary for the purpose of ascertaining the real value but such guess work has to be made on some rational basis or principle. Here no such principle appears to have been followed as nothing to that effect has been mentioned in the judgment. This Court, therefore, proceeded to make the assessment afresh depending upon two indices. One followed by the Collector is on the basis of the sale deed of the year 1989-90 and the other index is on the basis of two sale deeds of the year 1999-2000. Taking the price on the higher side Ext. 8 indicates market price of the land in the locality was Rs. 1,40,000/- per katha in the year 2000. On the other hand, market price of the land in the same locality in the past 1989-90 was Rs. 15,603.92. This means that in a span of 10 (ten) years, land valuation of the area soared as high as Rs. 1,34,000/- per katha. Although, it is true that every year the rate of hike was not the same and this Court was not provided with the materials as to what was the rate of hike in price in each year or in a block of year. This being the position, it becomes safe and comparatively optimum to divide the total sum of Rs. 1,34,000/- in ten parts to find out equated annual rate of hike of the land price in the locality. If Rs. 15,603.92 was the rate in 1989-90 then the hike in 4 years becomes about Rs. 56,000/-. This along with original price of Rs. 15,603.92 shows the market price in 1993 when notification under Section 4 was issued, was likely to be around Rs. 70,000/-. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that market value of the land per katha as on the date of notification should be Rs. 70,000/- and not Rs. 50,000/- per katha. Accordingly, the appeal stands partly allowed. The Collector shall make necessary calculation by permitting 30% and 12% of hike under Section 23(1A) of the Act. If the amount is not paid within a period of 1 (one) year, it will further accrue interest under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 at the rate of 9% per annum. 9. 50,000/- per katha. Accordingly, the appeal stands partly allowed. The Collector shall make necessary calculation by permitting 30% and 12% of hike under Section 23(1A) of the Act. If the amount is not paid within a period of 1 (one) year, it will further accrue interest under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 at the rate of 9% per annum. 9. No order as to costs. 10. Send down the L.C.Rs. 11. Interim order, if any, stands automatically vacated.