Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 172 (UTT)

Union Of India v. Keemat Lal Basu Dev

2021-03-17

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA

body2021
JUDGMENT Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - This First Appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, has been preferred by the Union of India, through its Commanding Officer, DET C Vikas, Establishment No. 22 C/O 56 APO, where the appellant herein, had put a challenge to the judgement and award, which was rendered by the learned District Judge, Dehradun in a Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 100 of 2000, Keemat Lal and others Vs. State and another, allowing the Section 18 reference of the Land Acquisition Act, which was arising out of an award which was rendered by the Land Acquisition Officer dated 10.04.2020, as rendered in Land Acquisition Case No. 1 of 1995-96, Keemat Lal and others Vs. State of U.P. through Collector, Dehradun and another. 2. Before I venture to meet the arguments which has been extended by the learned counsel for the appellant herein, it would not be out of context to refer that the learned District Judge, Dehradun, has decided the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, by the impugned judgement which is under challenge in the Appeal i.e. dated 27.11.2008, and as would be apparent therein from the cause title of the judgement that two land acquisition cases, being Land Acquisition Case No. 99 of 2000, Smt. Krishna Kochhar Vs. State and another and Land Acquisition Case No. 100 of 2000, Sh. Keemat Lal and others Vs. State and another, had been decided together by the common judgement, of the reference proceedings. 3. The appellant therein, as against the judgement, which was rendered in relation to the Acquisition Reference No. 99 of 2000, had preferred a First Appeal No. 63 of 2009, Union of India Vs. Smt. Krishna Kochhar and Another, which came up for consideration before the coordinate Bench of this Court and the coordinate Bench of this Court, vide its judgement dated 27.12.2016, had dismissed the said Appeal and the point of determination about the proportionality of the amount of compensation payable, and which was awarded by the Reference Court and the entitlement for the award of compensation, was decided in favour of the land looser i.e. the applicant to the reference proceedings, therein in Land Acquisition Case No. 99 of 2000. 4. 4. For the purposes of convenience the records of the First Appeal No. 63 of 2009, was summoned by this Court, from the Registry and on the perusal of the record, it has revealed that being aggrieved against the judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court, which was rendered on 27.12.2016, a Special Leave Petition (Civil) 37016 of 2017, was preferred by the appellant before the Hon'ble Apex Court, and the same has been dismissed by the judgement dated 05.01.2018. 5. The brief case, which engages consideration in the present First Appeal are that, a land acquisition proceedings, was initiated by issuance of a Notification No.3560 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was published on 17.01.1997, and was also simultaneously published in the two local newspapers on 07.03.1997. Subsequent thereto, a Notification no. 3001 under Section 6 of the Act was also published on 18.11.1997, and it was also simultaneously published in the local newspapers on 21.01.1998 and 22.01.1998. 6. Subsequent to the publication of the aforesaid Notification No. 3001 under Section 6 of the Act, there was an amended notification No. 3037, which was notified by the State which was issued under Section 4(1) on 20.11.2000, and the fact of the possession of the land having been taken over on 19.01.2020, and the award having been rendered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 10.04.2000, are the facts which are not disputed. 7. In the Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 100 of 2000, Keemat Lal and others Vs. State and another, with which we are concerned, in the present Appeal, the contention of the respondents/claimants, was that the amount of compensation, as has been determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 10.04.2000, is too inadequate and he contended that the entire land, which was acquired, which was measuring 0.34 acres, he would be entitled for the enhanced rate of compensation, based on the circle rate, which has been notified by the Collector under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and prayed that accordingly the compensation, as has been determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, may be enhanced based on the notified circle rates of the Collector. 8. In the Land Acquisition Case No. 100 of 2000, Keemat Lal and others Vs. 8. In the Land Acquisition Case No. 100 of 2000, Keemat Lal and others Vs. State and another, the respondent/State, had taken a stand that the compensation as has been determined by the SLAO, was an adequate compensation, which, in fact, has already been paid to the land owners and the future potentiality of the land, which has been acquired cannot be exclusively taken as to be a basis to determine the compensation. 9. It further goes without saying that under Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act, the provisions of the CPC, had been made applicable over the proceedings under the Act, and by an application of the provisions of the CPC, the provisions of Order 14 Rule 3 and 4, would also be attracted. In that eventuality, if the appellant or even the respondent, ever had a stand before the Reference Court that the aspect of potentiality or a probable use of the land after the culmination of acquisition proceedings cannot be taken into consideration, as to be the basis of determination for compensation under Section 11 of the Act, they ought to have called upon the Reference Court by way of pleading and evidence to have ventured into that aspect for the purposes of determination of an adequacy of compensation based on probable potentiality, but as per the points, which were formulated to be decided by the Reference Court, the aspect pertaining to the potentiality and future use of land, which has been argued by the appellant before this Court was not a question, which was ever sought to be formulated to be argued and to be answered by the Reference Court, as the issue only was confined to be considered was to the following effect:- "The following issues were framed: 1. Whether the compensation paid to the land owners is inadequate? 2. Relief? 10. While dealing with the Land Acquisition Case No. 100 of 2000, Keemat Lal and others Vs. State and another, the evidences were led by the respective parties to the proceedings, and particularly, if the statement in examination-in-chief, which was on record as paper No. 31(Ka) itself is taken into consideration, there was no evidence whatsoever which was filed by the appellant / or any party to the reference proceedings herein except that of leading of oral testimony of PW1 Mr. S.K. Gupta, whose evidence was recorded, as a leading evidence in the reference proceedings. Accordingly, the learned Reference Court, while answering issue No. 1, the solitary question, which was framed, to be determined had decided; the reference Court while answering issue No. 1, in favour of the respondents in the following manner:- "In L.A. Case No. 100 of 2000, a total sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- has been claimed as cost of the land measuring 0.34 acre. If we convert this demand in terms of rate per sq. mt., it comes to Rs. 2,180/- per sq. mt., whereas the rate as per the circle rate of land having commercial potentiality is Rs. 1,100/- per sq. mt. As per the evidence on record, it is admitted that the land situate in between Hotel Viceroy and Showroom of OCM on main Delhi-Saharanpur Road opposite Mandi Samiti, therefore, it had commercial potentiality and the compensation as per the commercial potentiality, is admissible to the applicants. Therefore the applicants are entitled to compensation @ Rs. 1,100/- per sq. mt., which is in accordance with the circle rate at the relevant time, whereas the fact remains that compensation @ Rs. 17,98,124.94/- per acre has been paid to the applicants, which is grossly inadequate. Issue No. 1 is, therefore, decided accordingly." 11. One distinguishable fact in the present Appeal, which is to be taken into consideration is that, if the stand, which was taken by the applicants to the Reference Case No. 99 of 2000, which stood adjudicated in the First Appeal No. 63 of 2009, the claimants therein themselves have confined their claim of compensation, which was claimed @ Rs. 600/- per sq. mt. In that eventuality, it is a settled law that in the matters of determination of compensation, under the Land Acquisition Act, the Special Land Acquisition Officer or for that matter also the reference Court under Section 18, cannot or principally should not, award a compensation, higher to the amount, which has been claimed by the claimants in the reference proceedings. Hence, the defence, which has been argued by the appellant Counsel that in the connected Appeal, the coordinate Bench of this Court has determined the compensation @ Rs. Hence, the defence, which has been argued by the appellant Counsel that in the connected Appeal, the coordinate Bench of this Court has determined the compensation @ Rs. 600/- and that has to be taken as to be one of the parameters and the basis to decide the present First Appeal, would not be applicable under the circumstances of the present case, for the reason being that the finding which had been recorded therein, the claim was never agitated by the land loosers on the basis of circle rates which was then notified by the Collector under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act. Hence, the parameters for determination of compensation payable in this First Appeal would be quite distinct, to the one based on the First Appeal No. 63 of 2009, which has been decided by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 29.12.2016, and, in particular, if the finding which had been recorded while deciding the issue No. 1 itself, is taken into consideration, and which is also not disputed as per the finding which had been recorded therein, that at the time of issuance of notification under Section 6 on 07.01.1997, the circle rates, which was notified by the Collector under the Indian Stamp Act, the land in question was held to be carrying a circle rate of Rs. 1100/- per sq. mt. In that eventuality, I am of the view that the argument pertaining to the probable potentiality of a land, will not have a predominant role for the purposes of determining the compensation payable to the claimants, because it is the circle rate which has been notified by the Collector, which will be the determining factor to be considered to decide the compensation and the amount payable, as it was the case which was specifically agitated by the respondents herein in the Reference proceedings, which was decided accordingly in their favour by determining their compensation @ Rs. 1100/- per sq. mt. and computing it to be @ Rs. 17,98,124.94 per acres which was foundationed on the circle rate which was fixed by the collector. 12. 1100/- per sq. mt. and computing it to be @ Rs. 17,98,124.94 per acres which was foundationed on the circle rate which was fixed by the collector. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant, had argued that the Reference Court and for that matter even the Appellate Court under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, was required to consider the aspect of the probable deductions to be made towards the development charges to the extent of 1/3rd share, which was the maximum limit which had been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various proceedings. 13. This Court, is of the opinion, that with regard to the aspect of deduction of probable development charges, cannot be taken into consideration in the instant case for the reason being that, it was not a question, which was ever pressed by the appellant before the Reference Court, to be decided, claiming deduction of the development charges from the amount of compensation which was made payable to the respondents/claimants. Apart from it, even this aspect is not a ground, which has been raised in the present First Appeal and hence, in the absence of a specific ground being taken, it would amount to that the claimants/respondents were not noticed with regard to venturing of such a ground for dealing with the judgment of the award from that perspective, of probable deduction of the development charges. 14. Besides that, the principle of deduction of development charges, would definitely be a common principle, which would be applicable irrespective of the nature of acquisition or the purpose of acquisition and this principle of deduction of development charges would be similarly made applicable and it ought to have been made applicable in both the References, which have been put to challenge before this Court on 27.11.2008. But to the unfortunate destiny of the appellant, the issue of deduction of development charges was yet again not a ground which was ever agitated by them in the earlier Appeal, which was decided by this Court on 29.12.2016, being First Appeal No. 63 of 2009, the judgement of which later also stood affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment dated 05.01.2018, hence that liberty cannot be availed by the appellant at this stage of the appeal, particularly when the same is arising out of a common judgement which was decided by the Reference Court. 15. 15. At this stage carving out a case, beyond the pleadings is not contemplated under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act and even in view of the principles, laid down by Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act, where the CPC has been made applicable, over the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. Even at this stage of Appeal also, no such effort was ever made by the appellant for making necessary amendments in the Memo of Appeal, raising a ground for claim of deduction of development charges. Hence, this contention of claiming a deduction of the appellants is declined to be accepted by this Court. 16. There cannot be any parity now for determination of compensation, with regard to the quantification of compensation in relation to the two references which were commonly decided by the Court, for the reason being that, it was a choice of the claimants therein in the respective case to have laid down the foundation of their claim and if the claimants of Reference Case No. 99 of 2000, had confined their relief for claiming a compensation @ Rs. 600/-, which is much lesser the rate than what has been notified by the Collector, no parity can be claimed by them as far as the compensation of Case No. 100 of 2000, Keemat Lal and others Vs. State and another, in relation to the claimants/respondents herein, particularly, when they themselves before the Reference Court, had specifically come out with a case of raising a claim based on the circle rates, which was notified by the Collector under the Indian Stamp Act, on the basis of which the award was rendered, and the said principle that the amount of compensation to be awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, to the claimants, cannot be lesser than the amount, which was notified by the Collector under the Indian Stamp Act is a principle which has already been settled by the Division Bench of this Court in the matters of Bhopendra Singh s case, 2005 2 UD 295 , Bhopendra Singh and others Vs. Awas Vikas Parishad and others, where the Division Bench of this Court, has quite elaborately dealt with the impact of Section 47A, as made applicable to the State of Uttarakhand, and principles has been laid down as that the circle rates payable under the Land Acquisition Act under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, cannot be lesser than the amount, which has been determined by the Collector. Para 12 and 13 of the said judgment reads as under:- "12. The market value determined for the circle, is the minimum statutory market value, in accordance with the statutory rules framed under the Stamp Act, as amended by the U.P. Act, OR the basis of which, stamp duty is paid as per schedule appended to Section 3 and sale deed is to be entertained only after the payment of the stamp duty paid on the said minimum market value and if in the opinion of the Registering Authority the value of the property is more than the minimum value determined as per the rules, he may refer the matter to the Authority who may further proceed to require the vendee to pay more stamp duty. And if not paid they may impound the sale deed. Thus the basis of exercise of power, is the minimum market value determined according to rule. If for the augmentation of the revenue, government fixes the market value of the property in a circle why that not be taken as minimum market value of the property for the purpose of Land Acquisition Act. The procedure of determination of market value provided under Section 23 of Land Acquisition Act is para materia to the rules framed under the Stamp Act. Therefore, we hold that while avoiding compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, the compensation cannot be paid at a lesser rate than that of market value determined for the purpose of payment of stamp duty under the Stamp Act. 13. This Court in First Appeal No. 175 of 2001 (Old No. 504 of 1990), M/s Singh & Company versus Collector, Nainital, decided on 8th July, 2005* held that the circle rates are merely guide lines relying on the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan (supra). 13. This Court in First Appeal No. 175 of 2001 (Old No. 504 of 1990), M/s Singh & Company versus Collector, Nainital, decided on 8th July, 2005* held that the circle rates are merely guide lines relying on the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan (supra). In case of Ramesh Chand Bansal (Supra) as well as State of Punjab (Supra), Jawajee Nagnatham (supra) and Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan (supra) the Court has dealt the guide lines as to be the parameters to determine either preparation or Circulation, alteration or enhancement is an indicative price for registration of an instrument. In the aforesaid judgements the price were fixed under the guide lines whereas the rules read with Section 47-A as applicable in U.P. itself regulates the very basis for the registration of an instrument presented for registration, which provides to determine the true value as per the rules framed under the Act by the State Government under Sec. 75 of Stamp Act. It is because of this reason that when the registering authority finds the stamp paid on an instrument has to compare the value under Rules framed under the Stamp Act. Since the rules itself govern the exercise of powers for registration under Sec. 47-A, empowering the power of refusal to register a document presented for registration under Sec. 52 of Registration Act renders the rules framed by State of U.P. under Section 75 of Stamp Act as to be mandatory, in the absence of rules the purpose of Sec. 47- A itself is defeated and is rendered a nonest provision, thus these rules framed under the Stamp Act are mandatory. This could be visualized on a comparative reading of Sec. 47-A as applicable in different States, to which the aforesaid judgements pertain, the rules have not played the pivotal role for the exercise of powers under Section 47-A." 17. Hence, in view of the principles which had been laid down in paras 12 and 13 of the said judgment, the claimants would be entitled for the determination of compensation at the rate, which has been notified by the Collector and the amount of compensation cannot be lesser than that. 18. Accordingly, the First Appeal lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.