Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2894 (RAJ)

State And Anr v. Nahar Singh

2019-11-22

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2019
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - These three appeals have been preferred by the appellant State against the common judgment and award dated 20.4.2006 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar allowing reference application filed by the land holders/respondents. 2. All the three appeals being against common judgment, the facts of Civil Misc. Appeal No.1026/2006 are noted herein. 3. A notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 16.3.1999 for the purpose of acquiring the land situated in Murabba No.33 of Chak No.33 GB, Tehsil Sri Vijaynagar. The said notification was published in Gazette on 24.3.1999 and as per this notification, land of the respondent situated in Khasra No.188/418 was to be acquired. A reply was submitted on 28.7.1999 by the landholder. Virtually, there was no objection for acquisition but in substance, according to the landholders, the compensation was required to be given at the rate of Rs.3 lakhs per bigha. Thereafter, final notice under Section 6 was issued on 18.12.1999 and award was determined on 9.10.2000. The Land Acquisition Officer allowed compensation at the rate of Rs.58,000/- per bigha. The landholders submitted an application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on 16.4.2001 which was decided by the learned Court below vide judgment dated 20.4.2006 while determining the compensation towards cost of land at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per bigha. 4. Learned AAG appearing on behalf of State submits that the DLC rate of the land in question was Rs.58,000/- at the relevant time and in an acquisition proceeding of nearby land which happened in 1996, compensation was given at the rate of Rs.75,000/- per bigha. Therefore, the learned Court below committed illegality in taking cost of land at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per bigha. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the submissions that cost of land of Rs.75,000/- per bigha was in 1996 where as the present acquisition proceedings are of 1999 and further there was quick escalation of land took place as the area had developed. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that since there was a categorical proof of sale deed of Rs.1,50,000/- per bigha, therefore, it was rightly considered by the learned Court below. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Valliyammal and Anr. Vs. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that since there was a categorical proof of sale deed of Rs.1,50,000/- per bigha, therefore, it was rightly considered by the learned Court below. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Valliyammal and Anr. Vs. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) and another, (2011) AIRSCW 4581 , relevant paras no.14, 15, 17 and 23 whereof read as follows:- "14. In Shaji Kuriakose v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (2001) 7 SCC 650 , this Court held: "It is no doubt true that courts adopt comparable sales method of valuation of land while fixing the market value of the acquired land. While fixing the market value of the acquired land, comparable sales method of valuation is preferred than other methods of valuation of land such as capitalisation of net income method or expert opinion method. Comparable sales method of valuation is preferred because it furnishes the evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land at which a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it had been sold in the open market at the time of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, comparable sales method of valuation of land for fixing the market value of the acquired land is not always conclusive. There are certain factors which are required to be fulfilled and on fulfilment of those factors the compensation can be awarded, according to the value of the land reflected in the sales. The factors laid down inter alia are: (1) the sale must be a genuine transaction, (2) that the sale deed must have been executed at the time proximate to the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act, (3) that the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land, (4) that the land covered by the sales must be similar to the acquired land, and (5) that the size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired. If all these factors are satisfied, then there is no reason why the sale value of the land covered by the sales be not given for the acquired land. If all these factors are satisfied, then there is no reason why the sale value of the land covered by the sales be not given for the acquired land. However, if there is a dissimilarity in regard to locality, shape, site or nature of land between land covered by sales and land acquired, it is open to the court to proportionately reduce the compensation for acquired land than what is reflected in the sales depending upon the disadvantages attached with the acquired land." (emphasis supplied) 15. In Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat (supra), this Court laid down the following principles for determination of market value of the acquired land: "Section 23 of the Act specifies the matters required to be considered in determining the compensation; the principal among which is the determination of the market value of the land on the date of the publication of the notification under sub- section (1) of Section 4. One of the principles for determination of the amount of compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefor. It is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a willing and informed buyer would offer would be different in the cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the cases where he is not. Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase. Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences have to be considered. The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis--vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis--vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. The positive and negative factors are as under: Positive factors Negative factors (i) smallness of size (i) largeness of area (ii) proximity to a road (ii) situation in the interior at a distance from the road (iii) frontage on a road (iii) narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth (iv) nearness to developed area (iv) lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up (v) regular shape (v) remoteness from developed locality (vi) level vis-a-vis land (vi) some special under acquisition disadvantageous factors which would deter a purchaser (vii) special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage Whereas a smaller plot may be within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed preparing a layout plan, carving out roads, leaving open spaces, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers and the hazards of an entrepreneur. Such development charges may range between 20% and 50% of the total price." 17. In fixing market value of the acquired land, which is undeveloped or under-developed, the Courts have generally approved deduction of 1/3rd of the market value towards development cost except when no development is required to be made for implementation of the public purpose for which land is acquired. In Kasturi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 354 , the Court held: "............It is well settled that in respect of agricultural land or undeveloped land which has potential value for housing or commercial purposes, normally 1/3rd amount of compensation has to be deducted out of the amount of compensation payable on the acquired land subject to certain variations depending on its nature, location, extent of expenditure involved for development and the area required for roads and other civic amenities to develop the land so as to make the plots for residential or commercial purposes. A land may be plain or uneven, the soil of the land may be soft or hard bearing on the foundation for the purpose of making construction; may be the land is situated in the midst of a developed area all around but that land may have a hillock or may be low-lying or may be having deep ditches. So the amount of expenses that may be incurred in developing the area also varies. A claimant who claims that his land is fully developed and nothing more is required to be done for developmental purposes, must show on the basis of evidence that it is such a land and it is so located. In the absence of such evidence, merely saying that the area adjoining his land is a developed area, is not enough particularly when the extent of the acquired land is large and even if a small portion of the land is abutting the main road in the developed area, does not give the land the character of a developed area. In 84 acres of land acquired even if one portion on one side abuts the main road, the remaining large area where planned development is required, needs laying of internal roads, drainage, sewer, water, electricity lines, providing civic amenities, etc. However, in cases of some land where there are certain advantages by virtue of the developed area around, it may help in reducing the percentage of cut to be applied, as the developmental charges required may be less on that account. There may be various factual factors which may have to be taken into consideration while applying the cut in payment of compensation towards developmental charges, may be in some cases it is more than 1/3rd and in some cases less than 1/3rd. It must be remembered that there is difference between a developed area and an area having potential value, which is yet to be developed. The fact that an area is developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto make every land situated in the area also developed to be valued as a building site or plot, particularly when vast tracts are acquired, as in this case, for development purpose." (emphasis supplied) 23. Though it may appear repetitive, we deem it necessary to mention that the acquired land is situated in the close vicinity of various residential colonies, educational institutions, hospitals etc. Though it may appear repetitive, we deem it necessary to mention that the acquired land is situated in the close vicinity of various residential colonies, educational institutions, hospitals etc. and is on the junction of two important roads. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the land is semi-urban and has huge potential for being developed as housing sites and the High Court should have added 10% per annum escalation in the price specified in the sale deeds relied upon for fixing market value of the acquired land." 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that even if the DLC rate at the time of the acquisition in question was Rs.58,000/- per bigha but it is an admitted position that the State itself in an acquisition proceedings in 1996, had paid Rs.75,000/- per bigha. Thus, it was imperative for the learned Court below to have given the compensation at the escalated cost. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Valliyammal's case (supra) has recorded a categorical finding that largeness of the area would be a negative factor and the size of the plot would be comparable to the land acquired whereas in the present case, comparison is with 100 x 125 feet plot with a chunk of land of 125 bighas belonging to different farmers. Thus, it is clear that size of land is of such variance that rate of sale deed on record cannot be accepted. However, simultaneously, the rate of Rs.75,000/- per bigha in 1996 as agreed by the State cannot be accepted in 1999 when considerable development has taken place. Thus, this Court adopts para 23 of the judgment of Valliyammal's case (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that 10% per annum escalation in the price should be taken. Thus, while ignoring the sale deed relied upon by the learned Court below, this Court takes the cost of land as Rs.75,000/- per bigha in 1996, as admitted by the State, and adding 10% per annum as escalation in price, the price would be come to around Rs.1 lakh per bigha in 1999 viz., 1996 Rs.75,000/- 1997 Rs.75,000/- + Rs.7,500/- = Rs.82,500/- 1998 Rs.82,500/- + Rs.8,250/- = Rs.90,750/- 1999 Rs.90,750/- + Rs.9,075/- = Rs.99,775/- 7. In light of the above, all the appeals are allowed, the impugned judgment is modified and the compensation shall be computed in the following terms :- (a) cost of land - Rs.1,00,000/- per bigha. (Modified) (b) Solatium under Section 23(2) @ 30%. As per (c) Interest under Section 23(1-A) @ 12%. impugned (d) Future interest @ 15%. judgment 8. The interim orders granted by this Court are vacated. All pending applications also stand disposed of. 9. Record be send back forthwith.