Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2382 (RAJ)

Gyarsi Lal Sharma v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-09-07

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

body2022
JUDGMENT Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - Both the misc. appeals arise out of the common judgment and award, hence the same are being decided together. 2. Both the misc. appeals have been filed by the appellants claimants (for short 'the appellants') under Section 54 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 against the order dated 24.07.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Jaipur District, Jaipur in reference case No. 1/87 whereby the reference of the claimants was accepted and the amount of compensation was enhanced. 3. Facts of this case in brief are that a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1953 came to be issued on 30.04.1985 inter alia for acquisition of the land measuring 207 bigha and 17 biswa situtated at Village Damodarpura, Bhankri including the land of the Khatedar-Girdhari Lal. Thereafter, a survey report was summoned from the Tehsildar Bassi and subsequently a notification under Section 6 and 17(4) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition, Act of 1953 was issued and the possession of the land was taken. 4. After acquisition of the land, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 17.03.1986 and determined the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- per bigha for chahi land (irrigated land) and Rs. 9000/- per bigha for barani land (non-irrigated land). The appellant-Gyarsi Lal was not satisfied with the amount so determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, hence, he submitted a Reference under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act of 1953 before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Jaipur District, Jaipur (for short 'the Civil Court'). The said reference was partly allowed by the Civil Court vide judgment dated 24.07.1999 after hearing the arguments of both sides and it was held that the appellants would be entitled to get compensation @ of Rs. 15,000/- per bigha for 'chahi land' (irrigated land) and Rs. 14,000/- for 'barani land' (non-irrigated land) and apart from the above compensation for the trees was also ordered to be given and a cost of Rs. 2000/- was imposed upon the respondents. 5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the reference order dated 24.07.1999, passed by the Civil Court, the instant appeals have been preferred by the Khatedar as well as by the National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (for short, 'NTPC'). 2000/- was imposed upon the respondents. 5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the reference order dated 24.07.1999, passed by the Civil Court, the instant appeals have been preferred by the Khatedar as well as by the National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (for short, 'NTPC'). Counsel for the appellant-Gyarsi Lal submits that while deciding the similar reference, the learned Civil Court with regard to adjacent land observed that the Collector has determined the value of similarly situated land at Tonk Road as Rs. 25,000/- per bigha, so in the instant case also the compensation should have been awarded to the appellants @ of Rs. 25,000/- per bigha. Counsel submits that though the learned Civil Court determined the market value of the 'chahi land' (irrigated land) as Rs. 13,000/- per bigha and Rs. 12,000/- per bigha for 'barani land' (non-irrigated land). Counsel submits that the land of the appellants was situated at Damodarpura which is more precious and valuable to the land similarly situated at Tonk Road, so the matters require reconsideration by this Court and amount of award be enhanced accordingly. 6. Per contra, counsel for the NTPC opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellants and submits that with regard to the adjacent land near the land of the appellant-Gyarsi Lal, a reference has been decided by the learned Civil Court and while deciding the said reference the market value of the adjacent land has been determined as Rs. 13,000/- per bigha for 'chahi land' (irrigated land) and Rs. 12,000/- per bigha for 'barani land' (non-irrigated land). Thus, the impugned order passed by the Civil Court is liable to be quashed and an order be passed for reducing the amount of compensation. Counsel submits that similar reference order dated 03.12.1999 passed in the civil case was challenged by the NTPC before this Court by way of filing civil Misc. Appeal No. 1512/2000 and the same was dismissed on 26.09.2011. Counsel submits that in the light of the order dated 26.09.2011 passed by this Court in the case of NTPC v. Prem and Ors., the appeal filed by the NTPC be allowed and the order passed by the Civil Judge be quashed and set aside. 7. Heard. 8. Considered the arguments advanced by both the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. 7. Heard. 8. Considered the arguments advanced by both the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. Perusal of the record indicates that after acquisition of the land, the possession of the land of the appellants was taken and thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer while passing the award determined the compensation of the irrigated land of the appellant as Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 9,000/- for the non-irrigated land. 10. The appellant was not satisfied with the amount of compensation as determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. The appellant approached the Civil Court for enhancement of the amount of compensation by way of filing reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. After hearing both the sides, the learned Civil Judge allowed the reference and held that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 15,000/- per bigha for "Chahi" (irrigated) land and Rs. 14,000/- per bigha for "Barani" (non-irrigated) land. It was also directed that the claimants would be entitled for additional compensation @ 12% from the date of the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act till the date of taking over the possession under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. Solatium @ 30% was also granted to the appellant on the amount of compensation. It was held that the appellant would be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum from the date of taking over possession till one year and then 15% per annum till the date of deposition of the amount of compensation in Court and for trees also respective compensation was determined. 11. In the identical situation, similar orders were passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Civil Judge while determining the amount of compensation, in reference the amount of compensation was enhanced to Rs. 13000/- per Bigha for "Barani" land and Rs. 12,000/- per bigha for "Chahi" land vide order dated 03.12.1999. 12. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 03.12.1999, the National Thermal Power Corporation submitted S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1512/2000 before this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 26.09.2011 by observing as under:- "The Civil Judge looking to the over all circumstances determined the market value of the irrigated land as Rs. 13,000/- per bigha and for barani land as Rs. 12,000/- per bigha. Appeal No. 1512/2000 before this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 26.09.2011 by observing as under:- "The Civil Judge looking to the over all circumstances determined the market value of the irrigated land as Rs. 13,000/- per bigha and for barani land as Rs. 12,000/- per bigha. This market value determined by the Civil Judge looking to the over all circumstances cannot be said to be perverse. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the Civil Judge in relation to market value of the land. The Civil Judge rightly rejected the claim of the claimant in relation to structures, trees etc. standing on the land in question. I am also in agreement with the findings arrived at by the Civil Judge on this point. The other arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant are covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Sunder v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 211 , and now there is no need to make any further comments as per the law laid down by the Apex Court. Thus the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant being devoid of merit stand rejected. The findings of the Civil Judge are based on the basis of the rulings of the Apex Court mentioned above and hence stand confirmed. 9. For the reasons mentioned above, this misc. appeal filed by the appellant stands rejected. The order and decree dated 3.12.99 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Jaipur District Jaipur in Ref. Application No. 30/87 stands confirmed. The stay applications also stand rejected. The interim stay if any granted by this court stands vacated. The record of the case if received may be sent back to the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Jaipur District, Jaipur. The parties are directed to bear their own costs." 13. It is pertinent to mention here that the above order dated 26.09.2011 passed by this Court was not challenged further and the same has attained finality. 14. When with regard to same acquisition, the compensation has been determined and enhanced by the Civil Court in reference and the matter has been upheld upto this Court vide order dated 26.09.2011. This Court finds no reason to take a different view. 15. 14. When with regard to same acquisition, the compensation has been determined and enhanced by the Civil Court in reference and the matter has been upheld upto this Court vide order dated 26.09.2011. This Court finds no reason to take a different view. 15. The only distinction in this matter is that looking to the position of the land in question i.e. its being near to Krishi Upaj Mandi, the compensation of "Chahi" land was enhanced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per bigha and for Barani land it was enhanced from Rs. 9000/- to Rs. 14,000/- per bigha by the Civil Judge. The compensation so determined by the Civil Judge appears to be "Just and Proper" which needs no interference by this Court. There is no substance in the arguments of the counsel for the claimants that while enhancing the amount of compensation of the adjacent land, the Civil Judge held that the valuation of the land of the others acquired near Bassi was determined as Rs. 25,000/- per Bigha. Though each land has its own value and there cannot be any compensation between two different lands situated at two different villages. Even then the Civil Judge determined the valuation of the adjacent land of the present land in question as Rs. 13000/- per bigha for "Chahi" land and Rs. 12,000/- per bigha for "Barani" land and the judgment of reference of that matter was upheld by this Court vide order dated 26.09.2011. Looking to the value and location of the present land, the 'just, fair and reasonable compensation' has been determined by the Civil Judge while passing the impugned order dated 24.07.1999, which needs no interference by this Court. 16. The Supreme Court in Mahesh Dattatray Thirthakar v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2009 (11) SCC 141 has held that the burden of proof of the true value of the acquired property is on the State. With reference to any inconsistency or infirmity in the testimony of the witnesses, the burden of proof in civil cases is that of 'balance of probability' and not that of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. 17. In the case of the Land Acquisition Officer v. Govindhasamy and Ors. reported in 2010 (5) CTC 640 , the Madras High Court has held that attempt should not be made to reduce the compensation without there being any material before the Court. 17. In the case of the Land Acquisition Officer v. Govindhasamy and Ors. reported in 2010 (5) CTC 640 , the Madras High Court has held that attempt should not be made to reduce the compensation without there being any material before the Court. It has been held in para Nos. 11 and 12 held as under:- "11. Under the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment passed by the Reference Court only on the basis that there were some conflicting orders before the Court. The Reference Court while resisting the huge compensation claimed by the land owners kept in mind the orders passed by the Division Bench. It cannot be said that this Court, only on the basis of the subsequent orders, which incidentally the latest order is only the consent order, should attempt to reduce the compensation without there being any material before this Court. 12. Time and again, the Supreme Court has indicated that in the matter of land acquisition and the award of compensation, the Court has to go only on the basis of the relevant issues raised before the Reference Court. It has also been indicated by the Supreme Court that the Reference Court does not act like an Appellate Authority but as a original Court. Therefore, it is open to the parties to let in appropriate evidence to determine the correct market rate of the value of the land. In the present case, the evidence of the claimants was that it is already a developed land and several commercial establishments including the Government Offices are situated nearby and most of the witnesses deposed that the lands can be used for building houses and they are sold as house plots. If at all there would be any development charges, they should let in evidence that the land requires development and therefore certain percentage should be deducted. Since such a plea was not taken either by the acquiring authority or the requisition authority, this Court in an Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act cannot entertain such pleas." 18. Hence under the given facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that findings recorded by the Civil Court are perverse, illegal or erroneous. Consequently, both these misc. appeals filed by the appellants are dismissed. 19. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. 20. Hence under the given facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that findings recorded by the Civil Court are perverse, illegal or erroneous. Consequently, both these misc. appeals filed by the appellants are dismissed. 19. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. 20. Record of the case be sent back forthwith. 21. Registry is directed to place a copy of this judgment in connected case file.