Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 208 (MP)

MST. SHYAM SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2017-02-08

J.P.GUPTA

body2017
JUDGMENT : J.P. GUPTA, J. 1. This judgment shall govern the disposal of both the aforesaid First Appeals, as both arise against the same judgment. 2. Both the aforesaid First Appeals, i.e. F.A. No. 728/2000 and F.A. No. 761/2000, have been filed against the judgment dated 26.6.2000 passed by I Addl. District Judge, Sidhi, in Land Acquisition Case No. 7/82, on the reference made by the appellants/claimants of F.A. No. 728/2000 under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the award dated 29.8.1980 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 17/A-82/1978-79, for the land bearing survey no.479, 481, 482, 483, 488, 489, 494, 495 and 478, total 9 khasras ad measuring 6.91 acres situated at village Karondiya, South Tola, Sidhi, Tahsil Gopadbanas, District Sidhi, which were of the joint ownership of the appellants/claimants, and were acquired vide notification dated 14.3.1979 issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of construction of the dam. 3. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award dated 29.8.1980 whereby total market value of the land on the date of acquisition was determined to the tune of Rs. 6,979.10/-, i.e. at the rate of Rs. 1,010/- per acre and with other statutory benefits, total compensation was determined to the tune of Rs. 8,026/-. Against the aforesaid award, an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was submitted by the appellants before the Land Acquisition Officer, which was referred to the District Court, Sidhi. In the application appellants claimed that the market value of the land fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is very meager and not actual. It ought to have been fixed at the rate of Rs. 2/- per sqft., as the acquired land had a potential for the purpose of construction of houses, as the land was situated in the midst of the residential area. Apart from it, for Medh and extra soil put in the land for enhancement of productivity Rs. 50,000/- be determined as the market price of Medh and soil and with other statutory benefits compensation to be determined. 4. On behalf of the respondent-State before the Reference court no written objection was filed. Learned Reference court, after recording of the evidence and having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, determined the market price of the acquired land Rs. 4. On behalf of the respondent-State before the Reference court no written objection was filed. Learned Reference court, after recording of the evidence and having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, determined the market price of the acquired land Rs. 12,000/- per acre and the cost of expenditure of construction of Medh and excess soil Rs. 25,000/-. Accordingly, compensation was determined along with all statutory benefits and on enhanced amount, interest was awarded as per section 28 of the Act. 5. Against the aforesaid impugned judgment of the Reference Court, both the parties have filed appeals. First Appeal No. 728/2000 has been filed on behalf of the claimants on the ground that the finding of the learned lower court is contrary to law, facts and evidence. The ad joining land was acquired for the same purpose by the respondent in the year 1979 and the market value was evaluated at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per acre, therefore, appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation accordingly. In addition, cost of construction of Medh and improvement in soil ought to have been determined to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. It is further submitted that as per the provision of section 23(1-A) of the Act, 12% interest and as per the provision of section 23(2) of the Act, 30% solacium be also awarded. It is further submitted that the learned court below has committed error in refusing to grant the aforesaid benefit on the ground that in this regard amendment has been incorporated in the Act later on, on the date of notification of the acquisition. 6. Contrary to the aforesaid appeal, State has filed F.A. 761/2000 challenging the judgment of the Reference court on the ground that the enhancement of compensation by the learned Reference Court is contrary to law. The order of enhancement of the learned lower court is not based on any cogent, sufficient and plausible reason. It is settled law that while determining the rates of the land under the Land Acquisition Act, the rates prevalent in the adjacent area on the date of notification under section 4(1) of the Act shall be taken into consideration. In this case, learned Reference Court has taken several extraneous consideration while fixing the rate at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per acre. Similarly, without any evidence on record fixed Rs. In this case, learned Reference Court has taken several extraneous consideration while fixing the rate at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per acre. Similarly, without any evidence on record fixed Rs. 25,000/- as cost of construction of Medh and improvement in soil. The compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer was in accordance with law. The finding and order of enhancement of compensation being arbitrary and illegal, is required to be set aside. 7. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, following questions arise for determination of this appeal :- (i) Whether the market value of the acquired land determined by the learned Reference court is incorrect and require any interference ? If yes, then what would be the appropriate market value of the acquired land ? (ii) Whether the interest and solacium ought to have been calculated as per the amended provision w.e.f. 24.9.1984 ? (iii) Whether the market value determined for Medh and soil are correct or require any change ? If yes, then to what extent ? (iv) Relief and cost ? 8. Question No.1 : On perusal of the record the appellants claimants for the purpose of determination of the market value of the acquired land, have produced sale-deed for applying comparison method, in which sale-deeds Ex.P/1 dated 22.11.1979 and Ex.P/2 dated 15.12.1980 have been executed after the acquisition of the land. Sale-deed Ex.P/3 dated 1.6.1978 and Ex.P/4 dated 16.11.1978 were executed before the date of acquisition of the acquired land and they belong to the same village. Therefore, they are much relevant and can be considered for determination of market value of the acquired land. As per sale-deed, Ex.P/3, Rs. 10,000/- sqft. land have been sold for a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. Accordingly, per sqft. rate comes to 0.20 Paisa per sqft. In other words, per acre rate will be Rs. 8,712/-. By sale-deed Ex.P/4, 27.4 x 70 sqft. land was sold for Rs. 4,000/-. In other words, near-about Rs. 2 per sqft. Therefore, it appears that the land of the same village during the very short span were sold on the very different rates having a vast difference in the rates, i.e. Rs. 0.20/- to Rs. 2/- and there is no evidence on record to show that the aforesaid land was situated near the acquired land. 2 per sqft. Therefore, it appears that the land of the same village during the very short span were sold on the very different rates having a vast difference in the rates, i.e. Rs. 0.20/- to Rs. 2/- and there is no evidence on record to show that the aforesaid land was situated near the acquired land. Similarly, the aforesaid sale-deeds are related to small plot for construction of the houses and the acquired land is very big area and accordingly the rate is required to be fixed. There is no evidence to establish the fact that the acquired lands were the potential for the use of construction of the house. In this regard, statement of only the applicant Makardhawaj Singh, PW1 is on record, which cannot be believed without corroboration with other independent evidence, as ordinarily the claimants have the tendency to narrate the facts in exaggeration with a view to get higher compensation. 9. The learned Reference Court ignoring the aforesaid evidence has determined the market value of the land on the basis of the judgment of this Court passed in First Appeal No. 111/1996, parties being M.P. Grih Nirman Mandal v. Smt. Meera Singh and others, decided on 5.8.1999, in which about the lands situated in Municipal area Sidhi and acquired on 4.10.1990, market value of the land was fixed at the rate of Rs. 24,000/- per acre. As the lands in the present case are also situated in the Municipal area of Sidhi and both the lands have the same quality, and the land in the aforesaid judgment was acquired on 4.10.1990 and the land in the present case was acquired on 14.3.1979, i.e. near about 12 years before, therefore, taking into consideration the fact of escalation of price, i.e. near about 8% per year and determined the market value of the land in the present case Rs. 12,000/- per acre on 14.3.1979. It is a matter of common knowledge that before 1990, rate of escalation of price of the land was not more than 6 to 9%. Later on, the rate of escalation of price has increased, therefore, learned court below has rightly considered the rate of escalation and the approach of the learned court below is apparently appropriate and legal. It is a matter of common knowledge that before 1990, rate of escalation of price of the land was not more than 6 to 9%. Later on, the rate of escalation of price has increased, therefore, learned court below has rightly considered the rate of escalation and the approach of the learned court below is apparently appropriate and legal. On perusal of the judgment of this Court passed in the aforesaid F.A., and for the purpose of determination of market value, no relevant material is available and this Court has determined the market value of the similarly situated lands than the judicial notice of the judgment can be taken and considering the judgment market value may be determined. Therefore, the learned court below has not committed any error in considering the aforesaid judgment in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record. 10. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is held that determination of market value by the learned Reference court at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per acre is neither meager nor excessive. 11. Question No. 2 : In this case, benefit of section 23(1-A) of the Act has not been granted on the ground that this provision has been inserted in the Statute w.e.f. 24.9.1984 and the notification for acquisition was issued on 14.3.1979. Similarly, as per the provision of section 23(2) of the Act, in place of 30%, 15% solacium has been awarded on the same ground. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has contended that the Reference Court has passed the judgment on 26.6.2000 and the reference proceedings was pending since 5.2.1982. The Apex Court has laid down the law in the case of Pannalal Ghosh and others v. Land Acquisition Collector and others, reported in (2004)1 SCC 467 , that in the aforesaid circumstances, the Reference Court will grant compensation, considering the amended provision of the Act, the aforesaid contention has a substance and learned court below has not considered the aforesaid position of law. The reference court is duty bound to grant interest and solatium as per amended provision in the cases which are decided on 24.9.1984 or afterwards as there is no provision of exclusion of applicability of amended provision on such cases. The reference court is duty bound to grant interest and solatium as per amended provision in the cases which are decided on 24.9.1984 or afterwards as there is no provision of exclusion of applicability of amended provision on such cases. In view of the above, it is held that the appellant/claimants are entitled to get benefit of section 23(1-A) and 23(2) of the Act regarding interest and solatium. In other words, the appellants are entitled on the market value of the land, 12% interest from the date of publication of notification under section 4(1) of the Act, i.e. 14.3.1979 to the date of award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier and is also entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% in place of 15%. 13. Question No. 3 : So far as other claims of the appellants/claimants are concerned, there is no clear and sufficient evidence to hold that the amount of Rs. 25,000/- is meager or not proper. Learned counsel for the appellant claimant has relied on the order-sheets of the Land Acquisition Officer dated 17.7.1979 in which it has been mentioned that Irrigation Department submitted report and according to the report Rs. 48,000/- compensation was proposed in the aforesaid head; but the proposal has been turned down by the Additional Collector. In the aforesaid circumstances, on the basis of Ex.P/1, compensation cannot be determined under the aforesaid head. However, in Ex.P/1, the estimation was based on the basis of opinion of the Panch. In the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be said that the determination of compensation in the aforesaid head is without any basis or no compensation can be granted, hence in this regard objection of the respondent/State is not considerable. The amount of Rs. 25,000/- is not unreasonable or excessive. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that the market value of the acquired land determined by the learned Reference Court is proper and does not require any interference. Therefore, the compensation determined by the Reference Court is held to be appropriate compensation. 15. The amount of Rs. 25,000/- is not unreasonable or excessive. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that the market value of the acquired land determined by the learned Reference Court is proper and does not require any interference. Therefore, the compensation determined by the Reference Court is held to be appropriate compensation. 15. Relief and cost : In the result, First appeal No. 761/2000 filed by the State have no substance, hence it is dismissed and First Appeal No. 728/2000 filed by the appellant claimants is partly allowed and accordingly impugned judgment is modified to the extent that the appellants/claimants be also paid interest at the rate of 12% on the market value of the land as per provision of section 23(1-A) and solacium be paid at the rate of 30% in place of 15% and compensation be calculated accordingly and thereafter on the enhanced amount interest be paid as per the provision of section 28 of the Act. 16. Accordingly, both the appeals are disposed of with no order as to cost.