Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 559 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Shantaram Through L. Rs.

2019-08-01

VIVEK RUSIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Shri Pawan Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant/State. Shri J. B. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 5. 2. Heard. 3. The appellant/State has filed the present appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act,”) against the award dated 16-5-2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Barwah in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 15/1994. 4. The respondent/Shantaram (since died now represented through his legal representatives) was owner of the land Survey No. 647/1 area 0.65 acre situated in village Sanawad (hereinafter referred to as “acquired land”). 5. Government of Madhya Pradesh issued a notification under section 4(1) of the Act and published in Gazette dated 23-11-1990 for acquisition of the land for construction of Sanawad-Punasa bye-pass road. Thereafter, notification under section 6 of the Act was issued on 22-8-1991 and published on 22-11-1991 in the local news papers. The Land Acquisition Officer vide award dated 13-9-1993 assessed the compensation Rs. 20,383/- for the acquired land. The Land Acquisition Officer assessed the compensation treating the acquired land as the agricultural land. 6. The respondent/Shantaram being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation lodged the protest and sought the reference under section 18 of the Act. The aforesaid reference was sent to the ADJ for adjudication. The respondent sought the enhancement of compensation on the ground that at the time of acquisition, the acquired land was within the limits of Khargone City and at that time, the value of the land was Rs. 10/- per sqft., therefore, he is entitled for compensation @ Rs. 10/- per sqft. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance over the various sale deeds executed during the relevant period. 7. The learned reference Court after examining the evidence came on record, came to the conclusion that the respondent/land owner is entitled to get the compensation @ Rs. 5/- per sqft., and accordingly enhanced the compensation from Rs. 33,360/- to Rs. 2,00,752/- along with the statutory interest payable under section 23(1-A) and 23(2) of the Act. 8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the State Government has preferred this appeal along with the application for stay. 9. By order dated 13-12-2001, this Court has admitted the appeal, but declined to grant stay and granted two months time to deposit the amount of the award. 10. 8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the State Government has preferred this appeal along with the application for stay. 9. By order dated 13-12-2001, this Court has admitted the appeal, but declined to grant stay and granted two months time to deposit the amount of the award. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the record. 11. The Land Acquisition Officer had assessed the compensation of the acquired land treating as the agricultural land. The respondent/ land owner produced the copies of the sale deeds dated 9-11-1989 (Ex.A/3, Ex.P/4 and Ex.P/5) whereby the land of similar dimensions situated in the same village was sold in sqfts. The learned ADJ, in para No. 20 has held that from 9-11-1989 to 23-11-1990, as per the record of Dy. Registrar, the market rate of the land situated nearby the highway was Rs. 5/- per sqft., at the time of issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Though, the land owner/respondent claimed the compensation @ Rs. 10/- per sqft., but did not produce any material in support of the claim, therefore, the learned ADJ, on the basis of record of Collector of Stamps, has examined the value of the land at the time of issuance of notification under section 4(1) of the Act and rightly assessed the compensation @ Rs. 5/- per sqft. Even the daughter and son of the respondent purchased the land Survey No. 646 on 9-11-1989 @ Rs. 2/- per sqft. But, Collector of Stamp raised the objection that the value of the land is Rs. 5/- per sqft. at the relevant point of time. 12. Law in respect of just and proper compensation of acquisition of the land is well settled. That when the land owners have sought the reference for enhancement of compensation, then the burden lies on them to prove by adducing reliable evidence that the compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate and the lands are capable of fetching higher market value. In case of Basant Kumar vs. Union of India, (1996) 11 SCC 542 ; Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Karigowda, (2010) 5 SCC 708 and Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn. In case of Basant Kumar vs. Union of India, (1996) 11 SCC 542 ; Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Karigowda, (2010) 5 SCC 708 and Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn. vs. Sharadaben, (1996) 8 SCC 93 , the Apex Court has held that it is for the appellant to prove his case if he is claiming enhancement of a compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is the duty of the Court to scrutinize the evidence and apply the test of prudent and willing purchaser whether he would be willing to purchase in market the said very land. In the case of Hookiyar Singh vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (1996) 3 SCC 766 , it has been held that the Court must not indulge in the feats of imagination but consider the very fact that the prudent purchaser in open market is ready to purchase the said land at the rate claimed by the claimants. It has also been held by the Apex Court in the case of G. Narayan Rao vs. Land Acquisition Officer, (1996) 10 SCC 607 that the claimants must establish that at the time of date of notification under section 4 of the Act of 1984, any buyer or purchaser are available. 13. The similar view has been followed in the case of State of U. P. vs. Ram Kumari Devi, (1996) 8 SCC 577 . In the case of Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation vs. Narottambhai Morarbhai, (1996) 11 SCC 159 , the Apex Court has observed that the criteria and rate for sale of small piece of land and big area of the land are always different. The small plots are easily saleable at higher rate; whereas the large area of the plots do not get the higher rates. Therefore, while assessing the compensation the Court must keep in the mind that area of the land under acquisition. 14. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the first appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.