Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Deced. Hariram Thru. Lrs. Jhalibai on 28 February, 2020
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
-1- FA No.404/2016
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT INDORE
FA NO.404/2016
(State of M.P & another vs. Jhalibai & others)
28.02.2020: (INDORE):
Shri V.J.Hardia, learned Govt. Advocate for the
appellant/State.
Heard on IA No.1250/2020 & IA No.1251/2020.
On due consideration, the applications are allowed.
Let the necessary amendment be incorporated during the
course of the day.
Heard on the question of admission.
The issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered
by the order dated 19.03.2019 passed in F.A.No.1511/2018
which is reproduced below:
The State of M. P. has filed the present appeal
under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act [in brief "the
Act"] by which the amount of compensation vide award
dated 23.9.2017 has been enhanced by Rs.73,272/-.
Accordingly, the appellants valued this appeal.
2. The State Government issued a Notification under
Section 4 (1) of the Act on 20.6.2003 for acquisition of
certain land of Village Labriya coming into submergence
in a Mahi Dam Project. At the time of acquisition, certain
temporary houses were there over the land. The
respondent was in possession in one of the house which
was acquired and compensation was assessed. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded the less amount of compensation. The land owner/respondent claimed the compensation @ Rs.3,000/- per sq.ft. for 10 x 10 sq.ft. of house along with interest @ 12% and solatium @ 30%. Being dissatisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the land owner/respondent sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act. Before the Reference Court, the respondent/land owner submitted a -2- FA No.404/2016 certified copy of the guidelines issued by the Deputy Registrar, Sardarpur of the year 2003-2004. Copy of sale- deed dated 29.03.1999 and copy of the award passed in one of the Land Acquisition Case were filed by the respondent. After assessment of the evidence, the learned Reference Court has held that the house was constructed over 30.53 Sq.mtr. of land and as per the Collector's guidelines, the rate of land was Rs.600/- per Sq.mtr. hence value comes to Rs.18,318/-. Accordingly, the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation of Rs.73,272/- along with interest under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act and the solatium.
3. The Reference Court after assessing the evidence and verifying the report submitted by the Engineer and the guidelines of the Collector has rightly assessed the cost of the construction of Rs.54,954/- and value of land Rs.18,318/-. Para 53 and 54 of the Award of Reference Court are reproduced below :-
53- vukosnd }kjk izLrqr nLrkost ds vk/kkj ij vkosnd dk fufeZr Hkou 7-30 x 4-30 = 30-53 oxZ ehVj gS] ftlesa 30-53 oxZ ehVj dk IykWV ,oa ml ij brus gh {ks= esa Hkou fufeZr gSA Hkou dk Lo:i dPpk gksus ls dysDVj }kjk nh xbZ xkbZM ykbZu ds vuqlkj 600 :i;s izfroxZ ehVj IykWV dh dher ,oa izn'kZ Mh&5 ds vuqlkj vkosnd dk edku dPpk gksdj ml ij bafxy'k dosyw mYysf[kr gksus ls izn'kZ ih&2 dh xkbZM ykbZu vuqlkj :i;s 1]800 izfroxZ ehVj nh xbZ gS] ftls fu/kkZfjr fd;k tkrk gS] ftlds vuqlkj vkosnd fuEukuqlkj enksa esa jkf'k ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS %& IykWV ds {ks=Qy ds fy;s 30-53x600= 18]318@& ml ij cus Hkou ds fy;s 30-53x1]800 = 54]954@& dqy ;ksx :i;s& 73]272@& ¼frgksRrj gtkj nkS lkS cgksRrj :-½ 54- vr% mijksDr vk/kkj ij vkosnd dh vf/kx`fgr dPps edku ds fy;s IykWV {ks=Qy gsrq 600@& :i;s izfroxZ QhV ,oa ml ij cus edku ds fy;s 1]800@& izfroxZ QhV ds vuqlkj vkosnd] vukosndx.k ls :i;s 73]272@& ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS ,oa vkosnd mijksDr fu/kkZfjr ewY; ij vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 23¼2½ ds vUrxZr 30 izfr'kr dh nj ls rks"k.k jkf'k rFkk /kkjk 23¼1&,½ ds vUrxZr vf/klwpuk fnukad&20-06-2003 ls Hkw&vtZu vf/kdkjh }kjk ikfjr vokMZ fnukad& 29-10-2004 rd dh vof/k ds fy, mijksDr fu/kkZfjr cktkj ewY; ij 12 izfr'kr izfr o"kZ dh nj ls vfrfjDr o`f) Hkh izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSaA"
4. That the respondent sought the reference for enhancement of compensation, then the burden was upon him to prove his case by adducing reliable evidence and also to establish 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 v/s Union of India : (1996) 11 SCC 542; Special -3- FA No.404/2016 Land Acquisition Officer v/s Karigowda : (2010) 5 SCC 708 and Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn. v/s 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 v/s 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 v/s 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 were available. The similar view has been followed in the case of State of U.P. v/s Ram Kumari Devi : (1996) 8 SCC 577. In the case of Gujrat Industrial Development Corporation v/s 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 Reference Court has applied mind and rightly enhanced the compensation.
5. For the purpose of calculation of compensation and to arrive fair market value of agricultural land various facts and circumstances of the case are liable to be consider by the court. The Court must exercise its discretion by adopting different methods; like (a) Sales statistics method; (b) Capitalisation of net income method; and (c) Agricultural yield basis method as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer v/s Karigowda : (2010) 5 SCC 708.
6. The learned reference Court did not committed any illegality in enhancing the amount of compensation in light of the above judgement passed by the Apex Court.
7. I do not find any perversity in the Award passed by the Reference Court. It is also important to mention that the State ought not to have filed the appeal for the amount of Rs.73,272/- when residence house of the respondent has gone into submergence.
-4- FA No.404/2016The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
In view of the above, the present appeal is also dismissed. The order dated 19.03.2019 passed in F.A.No.1511/2018 shall apply mutatis mutandis in this appeal.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
Digitally signed by Hari Kumar
Nair
hk/ Date: 2020.03.02 17:05:52 +05'30'