Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Manikanta Bai on 3 November, 2023
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
FIRST APPEAL No. 215 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
COLLECTOR DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF M.P. THR. BHU ARJAN ADHIKARI
DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI VAIBHAV BHAGWAT, G.A.)
AND
MANIKANTA BAI W/O SURESHCHANDRA DASAI
TEH. SARDARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ANUJ BHARGAVA, ADVOCATE)
FIRST APPEAL No. 216 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
COLLECTOR DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF M.P. THR. BHU ARJAN ADHIKARI
DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI VAIBHAV BHAGWAT, G.A.)
AND
LAXMINARAYAN S/O SHANKARLAL DASAI,
TEHSIL SARDARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ANUJ BHARGAVA, ADVOCATE)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA
Signing time: 04-11-2023
16:40:36
2
FIRST APPEAL No. 230 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
COLLECTOR/ LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH SASAN DWARA BHU
ARJAN ADHIKARI DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI VAIBHAV BHAGWAT, G.A.)
AND
BHAGIRATH S/O BALARAM UTWANI, TEHSIL
SARDARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ANUJ BHARGAVA, ADVOCATE)
FIRST APPEAL No. 231 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH COLLECTOR/ LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH SASAN DWARA BHU
ARJAN ADHIKARI DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI VAIBHAV BHAGWAT, G.A.)
AND
KAILASH S/O MANGILAL SEMALKHEDI,
TEHSIL SARDARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ANUJ BHARGAVA, ADVOCATE)
FIRST APPEAL No. 232 of 2021
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA
Signing time: 04-11-2023
16:40:36
3
BETWEEN:-
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH COLLECTOR/ LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH SASAN DWARA BHU
ARJAN ADHIKARI DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI VAIBHAV BHAGWAT, G.A.)
AND
SHAMBHU S/O NARAYAN SEMALKHEDI,
TEHSIL SARDARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ANUJ BHARGAVA, ADVOCATE)
FIRST APPEAL No. 233 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
COLLECTOR/LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
DIST. DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI VAIBHAV BHAGWAT, G.A.)
AND
SHIVNARAYAN S/O BALARAM UTWANI,
TEHSIL SARDARPUR, DIST. DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ANUJ BHARGAVA, ADVOCATE)
FIRST APPEAL No. 234 of 2021
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA
Signing time: 04-11-2023
16:40:36
4
BETWEEN:-
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
COLLECTOR DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH SASAN DWARA BHU
ARJAN ADHIKARI DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI VAIBHAV BHAGWAT, G.A.)
AND
AMRIT S/O BALARAM UTVANI, TEH.
SARDARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ANUJ BHARGAVA, ADVOCATE)
FIRST APPEAL No. 235 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH COLLECTOR/ LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH SASAN DWARA BHU
ARJAN ADHIKARI DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI VAIBHAV BHAGWAT, G.A.)
AND
NARENDRA KUMAR S/O MADANLAL
MAHAJAN DASAI, TEHSIL SARDARPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ANUJ BHARGAVA, ADVOCATE)
FIRST APPEAL No. 237 of 2021
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA
Signing time: 04-11-2023
16:40:36
5
BETWEEN:-
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
COLLECTOR DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH SASAN DWARA BHU
ARJAN ADHIKARI DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI VAIBHAV BHAGWAT, G.A.)
AND
CHAGAN S/O RAMA SEMALKHEDI, TEHSIL
SARDARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ANUJ BHARGAVA, ADVOCATE)
FIRST APPEAL No. 238 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH COLLECTOR/ LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH SASAN DWARA BHU
ARJAN ADHIKARI DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI VAIBHAV BHAGWAT, G.A.)
AND
RAMCHANDRA S/O GOBAJI DASAI, TEHSIL
SARDARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ANUJ BHARGAVA, ADVOCATE)
FIRST APPEAL No. 239 of 2021
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA
Signing time: 04-11-2023
16:40:36
6
BETWEEN:-
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
COLLECTOR/ LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER DIST. DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI VAIBHAV BHAGWAT, G.A.)
AND
NARSINGH S/O KALU DASAI, TEH.
SARDARPUR, DIST. DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ANUJ BHARGAVA, ADVOCATE)
FIRST APPEAL No. 240 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
COLLECTOR DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH SASAN DWARA BHU
ARJAN ADHIKARI DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI VAIBHAV BHAGWAT, G.A.)
AND
SHANKER S/O POONA DASAI, TEHSIL
SARDARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ANUJ BHARGAVA, ADVOCATE)
FIRST APPEAL No. 248 of 2021
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA
Signing time: 04-11-2023
16:40:36
7
BETWEEN:-
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH COLLECTOR/ LAND
AQUISITION OFFICER DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH SASAN DWARA BHU
ARJAN ADHIKARI DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI VAIBHAV BHAGWAT, G.A.)
AND
ASHOK S/O GOBAJI DASAI, TEHSIL
SARDARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ANUJ BHARGAVA, ADVOCATE)
FIRST APPEAL No. 249 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
COLLECTOR/ LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER DIST. DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH SASAN DWARA BHU
ARJAN ADHIKARI DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI VAIBHAV BHAGWAT, G.A.)
AND
1. DECED. GOPAL S/O DAYARAM THRU. LRS.
BHAGWANTA W/O GOPAL, AGED ABOUT
45 YEARS, DASAI, TEH. SARDARPUR, DIST.
DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DHARMENDRA S/O GOPAL, AGED ABOUT
24 YEARS, DASAI, TEHSIL SARDARPUR
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA
Signing time: 04-11-2023
16:40:36
8
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. KRISHNA S/O GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 20
YEARS, DASAI, TEHSIL SARDARPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ANUJ BHARGAVA, ADVOCATE)
FIRST APPEAL No. 250 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
COLLECTOR DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF M.P. THR. BHU ARJAN
ADHIKARI DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI VAIBHAV BHAGWAT, G.A.)
AND
1. JAMNA W/O KACHRIYA SEMALKHEDI,
TEHSIL SARDARPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. GULAB BAI D/O KACHRIYA
SEMALKHEDI TEHSIL SARDARPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. GHEETA BAI D/O KACHRIYA
SEMALKHEDI TEHSIL SARDARPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ANUJ BHARGAVA, ADVOCATE)
FIRST APPEAL No. 252 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
COLLECTOR/LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER DIST. DHAR (MADHYA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA
Signing time: 04-11-2023
16:40:36
9
PRADESH)
2. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH LAND
ACQUITION OFFICER DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI VAIBHAV BHAGWAT, G.A.)
AND
GOPAL S/O BABU DASAI, TEH.
SARDARPUR, DIST. DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ANUJ BHARGAVA, ADVOCATE)
FIRST APPEAL No. 253 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH COLLECTOR/ LAND
AQUISITION OFFICER DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. STATE OF M.P. THR. BHU ARJAN
ADHIKARI DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI VAIBHAV BHAGWAT, G.A.)
AND
RAMESH S/O RAMKISHAN DASAI, TEHSIL
SARDARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ANUJ BHARGAVA, ADVOCATE)
FIRST APPEAL No. 277 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA
Signing time: 04-11-2023
16:40:36
10
COLLECTOR/LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER DIST. DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. STATE OF M.P. THR. BHU ARJAN
ADHIKARI DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI VAIBHAV BHAGWAT, G.A.)
AND
VIMALKUMAR @ SURESHCHANDRA S/O
MAGANLAL DASAI, TEHSIL SARDARPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ANUJ BHARGAVA, ADVOCATE)
FIRST APPEAL No. 279 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
COLLECTOR / LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF M.P. THR BHU ARJAN
ADHIKARI DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI VAIBHAV BHAGWAT, G.A.)
AND
KAMLA BAI W/O RAM KISHAN DASAI,
TEHSIL SARDARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ANUJ BHARGAVA, ADVOCATE)
FIRST APPEAL No. 280 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
COLLECTOR/LAND ACQUISITION
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA
Signing time: 04-11-2023
16:40:36
11
OFFICER DIST. DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. STATE OF M.P. THR. BHU ARJAN
ADHIKAR DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI VAIBHAV BHAGWAT, G.A.)
AND
1. VIMALKUMAR @ SURESHCHANDRA S/O
MAGANLAL DASAI TEH. SARDARPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MANIBAI W/O NARAYAN CASTE KULMI
DASAI. TEH. SARDARPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ANUJ BHARGAVA, ADVOCATE)
FIRST APPEAL No. 281 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
COLLECTOR / LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF M.P. THR BHU ARJAN
ADHIKARI DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI VAIBHAV BHAGWAT, G.A.)
AND
ANANDI BAI W/O NAR SINGH MARU
DASAI, TEHSIL SARDARPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ANUJ BHARGAVA, ADVOCATE)
...............................................................................................................
Reserved on : 31.08.2023
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA
Signing time: 04-11-2023
16:40:36
12
Pronounced on : 03.11.2023
...........................................................................................................
These appeals having been heard and reserved for orders,
coming on for pronouncement this day, the court passed the
following:
JUDGEMENT
Heard finally, with the consent of the parties. 2] This order shall also govern the disposal of all the aforementioned First Appeals, regard being had to the common issue of valuation of land, in the land acquisition proceedings relating to village Semalkheri, District Dhar under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1894'). In all the appeals, the appellants have also filed their respective cross-objections being aggrieved of the inadequacy of the value assessed by the reference court. For the sake of convenience, the facts as narrated in F.A. No.215/2021 are being taken into consideration.
3] This appeal has been preferred under Section 54 of the Act of 1894 against the award dated 17.03.2020, passed in Land Acquisition Case No.36/2018 by First Additional District Judge, Sardarpur, District Dhar.
4] In brief, the facts of the case are that the respondent Manikantabai owns a land at village Semalkheri, District Dhar. It is undisputed that the State Government wanted to construct a pond at village Bamankheri, known as Bamankheri Pond, for which certain Signature Not Verified Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA Signing time: 04-11-2023 16:40:36 13 lands were acquired of village Semalkheri, Tehsil Sardarpur of various survey numbers, ad-measuring 40.835 hectares. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 was issued on 31.08.2007. Thereafter, on 05.01.2009, the Land Acquisition Officer passed the award assessing the value of the land to be Rs.1,09,810/- for unirrigated land, and Rs.1,64,715/- for irrigated land. Being aggrieved, a reference was made by the respondent in the Reference Court i.e. First Additional District Judge, Sardarpur, District Dhar, who, vide its order dated 17.03.2017, has passed the final award, and has assessed the value for unirrigated land to be Rs.3,32,000/- per hectare with interest as provided therein. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid award, the State has filed these appeals whereas, the respondents have filed cross objections.
5] Shri Vaibhav Bhagwat, learned counsel for the appellant State has submitted that the Reference Court has relied upon only one document produced by the respondents, which was the sale deed (Ex.P/1) dated 15.05.2006, in respect of a land ad-measuring 0.041 hectare situated at adjacent village Dasai, which was sold for a sum of Rs.1,77,000/- although its market value is stated to be Rs.3,32,000/-. Counsel has submitted that the aforesaid sale deed could not have been relied upon for the purpose of adjudicating the rate of the land firstly, as the sale deed is in respect of some other village, and secondly, the land area in the sale deed is only around 4413 sq.ft. (0.041 hectare), and the value of a small piece of land could not have been taken into account to assess the compensation to be paid to the respondents who have held large pieces of land.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA Signing time: 04-11-2023 16:40:36 146] In support of his submission, Shri Bhagwat has also relied upon a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. M/s Nemichand Damodardas & Anr. passed in Civil Appeal No.3478/2022 dated 11.07.2022. 7] The prayer is opposed by Shri Anuj Bhargava, the counsel for the respondent who has also filed a cross objection, and it is submitted, that no case for reduction of award is made out as claimed by the State, and on the contrary, the compensation needs to be enhanced for the reasons that the Reference Court has erred in considering the value of the land to be Rs.3,32,000/- for 1 hectare, despite the fact that the sale deed which has been proved as Ex.P/1 by the respondent clearly states that the market value of the land is Rs.3,32,000/- for 0.041 hectare, whereas, the sale deed was executed for a sum of Rs.1,77,000/- for 0.041 hectare and not for 1 hectare. Thus, it is submitted that applying the rate the appropriate calculation in respect of the proper value of the land would be Rs.43,17,073/- as per the sale value for unirrigated land. Thus, it is submitted that the amount of Rs.3,32,000/- is on lower side and needs to be enhanced appropriately and so far as the compensation in respect of irrigated land is concerned, it should be 1.5 times the value of the land assessed.
8] Counsel for the respondent has also submitted that despite adequate opportunity availed by the appellant/State, no material has been produced by them to substantiate that the value of the land is less than the value as is proposed by the respondent through Ex.P/1. It is also submitted that the sale deed itself was executed in the year Signature Not Verified Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA Signing time: 04-11-2023 16:40:36 15 2006 and thus, it is not a case where the sale deed was executed between the parties only with a view to inflate the rate of the land as the notification u/s.4(1) was issued on 31.08.2007, whereas the sale deed was executed on 15.05.2006.
9] Counsel for the respondents has relied upon certain decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported as (1988) 3 SCC 751; Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Nookala Rajamallu reported as (2003) 12 SCC 334; Trishala Jain Vs. State of Uttaranchal reported as (2011) 6 SCC 47; A.P. Housing Board Vs. K. Manohar Reddy, reported as (2010) 12 SCC 707; Ravinder Kumar Goel Vs. State of Haryana reported as 2023 SCC OnLine SC 147, C.R. Nagaraja Shetty (2) Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and Estate Officer reported as (2009) 11 SCC 75; Bhikulal Kedarmal Goenka Vs. State of Maharashtra reported as (2016) 14 SCC 279; Ambya Kalya Mhatre Vs. State of Maharashtra reported as (2011) 9 SCC 325; Chandrashekhar Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, reported as (2009) 14 SCC 441; Maharunnisa Vs. Commr & LAO, reported as (2009) 9 SCC 750. 10] Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11] So far as the points which are to be considered while assessing the value of a land are concerned, the Supreme Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Sidappa Omanna Tumari, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 168 has held as under:-
"4. Since the decisions in these appeals require our consideration of four important points affecting valuation of land to be made by a court on a reference made to it under Signature Not Verified Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA Signing time: 04-11-2023 16:40:36 16 Section 18 of the LA Act, those points which need such consideration in the light of the aforesaid contentions urged for the contesting parties in these appeals, would be the following:
(i) Where a court is required to determine compensation for a land on a reference made to it under Section 18 of the LA Act at the instance of a claimant who has not accepted the award made under Section 11 of the LA Act, can it determine the amount of compensation payable for the land exceeding the amount of compensation determined as payable for the same land in the award under Section 11 of the LA Act, without recording its finding on the inadequacy of the amount of compensation determined in such award on consideration of relevant material therein?
(ii) Where for certain lands covered by a notification published under Section 4(1) of the LA Act or a corresponding provision in any other Act providing for acquisition, an award is made under Section 11 of that Act as to the amount of compensation payable for such lands to the claimants on the basis of agreement reached between them and the Collector (LAO) under sub-section (2) thereof or a corresponding provision in any other Act providing for payment of the amount of compensation by agreement between the claimants and the Collector or Government, can the amount of compensation payable under the award of the Collector made according to such agreement, be ignored by the court in determining the amount of compensation payable for other lands covered by the same notification.
(iii) Where a sale deed or an agreement to sell relating to a small extent of land is produced by the claimant in the enquiry held for determination of the amount of compensation payable for his land, is the court bound to determine the market price of the large extent of acquired land, based on the price fetched or to be fetched by small extent of land covered by such sale deed or agreement to sell?
(iv) When report of an expert is got produced by a claimant before a court giving the market value of the concerned acquired land, is the court bound to act upon such report in determining the amount of compensation payable for the acquired land?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Signature Not Verified Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA Signing time: 04-11-2023 16:40:36 17
13. Where the court has to determine the market value of large extents of acquired agricultural lands, it may not be desirable to be guided by the price fetched by sale of small extents of agricultural lands as the possibility of genuine agriculturists buying such small extents for their cultivation purposes is rather remote and it may also not be desirable to determine the market value of the acquired agricultural lands on the basis of the value fetched by sales of small extents of agricultural land even if they had been purchased for building purposes, for that would involve the consideration of too many imponderables. However, if sale deed or agreement to sell relating to the small extent of land on the basis of which the market value of the large extent of the agricultural land has to be determined is a portion of the acquired agricultural land itself or other land in its close proximity, it may be made the basis for determining the market value of the acquired large extent of agricultural land but has to be done when there is satisfactory evidence of the absence of sales or agreements to sell off bigger extents of land pertaining to the acquired land or other lands in the vicinity of the acquired land. Even when the price fetched or to be fetched by such small extents of land has to be made the basis for determining the market value of the larger extents of acquired agricultural lands, all material factors which would reduce the value of the larger extents of acquired land as on the date it was notified for acquisition must necessarily be taken into account, for it is well-known as is held by this Court in Collector of Lakhimpur v. Bhuban Chandra Dutta [(1972) 4 SCC 236] that when a large area of land under acquisition is the subject-matter, it cannot fetch the price at the rate at which smaller plot or plots are sold. One aspect, which however, should weigh is that determination of the value of large extents of acquired lands on the basis of the prices fetched by smaller plots must be a matter of last resort and should be adopted when there is no possibility of determining the market value of acquired lands on the basis of comparable transactions of larger extents.
14. Therefore, where a sale deed or an agreement to sell relating to a small extent of land is produced by the claimant, in the enquiry held for determination of compensation payable for his large extent of land, the court is not always bound to determine the market price of such large extent of acquired land on the basis of the price fetched or to be fetched by small extent of land covered by such sale deed or agreement to sell."
(Emphasis supplied) Signature Not Verified Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA Signing time: 04-11-2023 16:40:36 18 12] From the record, this Court finds that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 was issued on 31.08.2007, for acquisition of the land for the purposes of construction of Bamankheri pond at Gram Semalkheri, for which the private lands at village Semalkheri ad-measuring 40.835 hectares were acquired. For the assessment of the true value of the land, the Land Acquisition Officer has relied upon the guideline value of the land in respect of village Semalkheri from the year 31.08.2004 to the year 31.08.2007, and in the last three years, from 31.08.2004 till 31.08.2007, five sale deeds have been registered in respect of unirrigated land ad-measuring 2.691 hectares for a consideration of Rs.2,95,500/-, and since during this period, irrigated land has not been sold, hence, as per the value of the unirrigated land per hectare (Rs.1,09,810/-), the irrigated land's value has been considered 1.5 times the value of the unirrigated land, which would come to Rs.1,64,715/- per hectare. Thus, the Land Acquisition Officer has held the value of the unirrigated land to be Rs.1,09,810/- per hectare whereas, Rs.1,64,715/- for the irrigated land. 13] Whereas, the Reference Court, vide its order dated 17.03.2020, has relied upon the sale deed produced by the respondent Ex.P/1 dated 15.05.2006, in which the unirrigated land at the adjacent Gram Dasai ad-measuring 0.041 hectare was sold for Rs.1,77,000/- and its market value has been stated to be Rs.3,32,000/-. Thus, the Court has held that the respondents shall be entitled to compensation for their land at the rate of Rs.3,32,000/- per hectare for irrigated land.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA Signing time: 04-11-2023 16:40:36 1914] It is also found that before the reference court, the appellant State has not produced any evidence, whereas, the respondent land owner has produced certified copy of the sale deed dated 15.05.2006 proved as Ex.P/1 as also Ex.P/5 which is the original sale deed of the land purchased by respondent Manikanta Bai on 10.05.1999.
15] On a close scrutiny of Ex.P/1, it reveals that so far as the sale value of the land ad-measuring 0.041 hectare is concerned, it is stated to be Rs.1,77,000/- whereas, the market value of the said land is stated to be Rs.3,32,000/- i.e., for the land ad-measuring 0.041 hectare, and not for 1 hectare, thus, the learned Judge of the Reference Court has clearly misread the aforesaid document to hold that one hectare of unirrigated land in the nearby Gram Dasai fetched Rs.3,32,000/-. In such circumstances, this Court is again left with the question as to how much the respondents would be entitled to receive, as the contention of the appellant/State is that the aforesaid sale deed Ex.P/1 cannot be taken into account for the purposes of assessment of the compensation.
16] Record also reveals that so far as the land of the respondent is concerned, which has been acquired, it was purchased from Sumitra Bai, on 07.05.1999, for a consideration of Rs.75,000/-, the market value of which was Rs.82,000/-, for the land admeasuring 1.031 hectare, comprising of 0.857 hectare of irrigated land at Survey No.9/1, and 0.174 hectares at Survey No.27/1 at Gram Semalkheda. Thus, this Court is required to assess as to how much value the land purchased at Gram Semalkheri in the year 1999 would fetch within Signature Not Verified Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA Signing time: 04-11-2023 16:40:36 20 about 8 years, as on 31.08.2007, i.e., the date of issuance of Notification u/s.4 of the Act of 1894.
17] It is found that the sale deed Ex.P/1 on which the respondent has relied upon, was executed on 15.05.2006, and given the market value of the land ad-measuring 0.041 hectare for Rs.1,77,000/-, the market value of 1 hectare of land would come to Rs.43,17,073/-, which is 5756% or 57.56 times the original value of the land in the year 1999 which was purchased for Rs.75000/- per hectare. This assessment, as proposed by the respondent does not appear to be justified in any manner, it is inconceivable that a land ad-measuring 1.031 hectares purchased by the respondent for a sum of Rs.75,000/- would fetch Rs.43 lakhs in seven years, i.e., around 57 times the original value of the land, which appears to be an absurdity in itself, and no prudent person would arrive at such unrealistic figure while assessing the value of the land as proposed by the respondent/land owners. It is also apparent the sale deed relied upon by the respondent Ex.P/1 is for a small piece of irrigated land i.e., 0.014 hectare, and there is nothing on record to suggest about the proximity of the said plot from the disputed lands, what is stated is that the said plot is in the adjacent village. There is also no evidence produced on record by the respondents that what are the other benefits which have occurred to their lands resulting in such high valuation.
18] From the order of the Land Acquisition Officer it is found that reliance has been placed upon the five sale deeds of the unirrigated land of 2.691 hectares executed between 2004 to 2007 which were Signature Not Verified Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA Signing time: 04-11-2023 16:40:36 21 worth Rs.2,95,500/-, and thus, the Land Acquisition Officer has held that according to the said five sale deeds, the average value of the unirrigated land would come to Rs.1,09,810/- per hectare and the value of the irrigated land would be 1.5 times the said value, which would be Rs.1,64,715/- per hectare.
19] Thus, there is no concrete evidence available on record on the basis of which the fair value of the land can be determined. The Supreme Court, in a recent decent decision rendered in the case of Central Warehousing Corpn. v. Thakur Dwa Kalan ul-Maruf Baraglan Wala (Dead) and Others ..., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1361. Decided on October 19, 2023, has held as under:-
"14. It is an admitted position that there is no material in the form of exemplars of the relevant time that is the date of the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act so as to facilitate determination of the market value. Whatever sale deeds have been referred by the appellant, cannot be taken as exemplars to determine the market value for which the reasons given by the High Court are reasonable and we have no reason to interfere with the same. Thus, we have to fall back upon the order of the Reference Court dated 30.08.2000 which related to an acquisition of the year 1989. This Reference Court order of 30.08.2000 has been relied upon by the Reference Court and the High Court in the present case. The question to be determined would be as to at what rate the annual increase be applied? The Reference Court applied 12% flat rate increase, whereas High Court applied 15% cumulative.
15. The law on the point of annual increase whether on cumulative basis or non-cumulative basis and the rate of annual increase to be applied are thus to be considered. Based upon the same a balance and equitable compensation needs to be determined in the present case.
16. The following cases have been relied upon by the parties with respect to determining the just compensation.
i) General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (supra),
ii) Ashrafi v. State of Haryana, Signature Not Verified Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA Signing time: 04-11-2023 16:40:36 22
iii) Narbadi Devi v. State of Haryana,
iv) Ramrao Shankar Tapase v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation,
v) State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander
17. The case which was referred to by the High Court was Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (supra). It no doubt referred to determining compensation on the basis of annual increase with cumulative effect, but at the same time it had put a caution that such annual increase can be taken only for 4-5 years as beyond that it would be unsafe to uniformly apply the same rate for increase and that too with cumulative effect.
Paragraph 15 of the said judgment may be reproduced here which mentions the reasons where the gap is of several years, such standards may not be reliable rather the same maybe unsafe.
"15. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisitions), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the relied- on sale transactions/acquisitions precede the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is, up to four to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is of only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example, for determining the market value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the "rate" of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase."
18. In the said case, after laying down the caution, this Court awarded cumulative annual increase at the rate of 7.5% for a period of five years.
19. In the case of Ashrafi (supra), this Court amongst many Signature Not Verified Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA Signing time: 04-11-2023 16:40:36 23 issues, considered the issue of applying annual increase cumulatively for determining just compensation. It also considered the law laid down in the case of Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (supra) and many other judgments on the said point. It applied formula of 12% annual increase cumulatively for a period of five years. The base rate being of the year 1987 whereas the acquisition in question being of 1993.
20. We will also refer to order dated 22.08.2014 in the case of Narbadi Devi (supra) which relied upon the judgment in the case of Ashrafi (supra) and accepted the annual increase of 12% cumulatively. The High Court in the said case had although followed the dictum in the judgment of Ashrafi (supra), however, the annual increase of 12% was granted at a flat rate by the High Court and not cumulatively. This Court accordingly had modified the order of the High Court to the aforesaid extent that 12% annual increase would be cumulative.
21. Recently, in the year 2022, this Court in the case of Ramrao Shankar Tapase (supra) citing the judgment in the case of Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (supra) and other similar matters, awarded annual increase cumulatively at the rate of 12% for a period of three years. The High Court in the said case had applied annual increase cumulatively at the rate of 10%.
22. The latest judgment is of 2023 in the case of Subhash Chander (supra). In this case, the Court held that rate of annual increase could vary from 8% to 15% per year. However, considering the facts of the said case, this Court had awarded 10% annual increase cumulatively for a period of two years only.
23. From the above, we notice that the consistent view taken by this Court for awarding annual increase to determine the just compensation varies from case to case and the period to be applied is a major factor to be considered. In the present case, the period is 11 years which is pretty large as compared to the time period considered in the cases referred to above.
24. Taking an overall view in the matter and the consistent view of this Court, the fair and reasonable compensation in the present case would be best determined if we apply 8% annual increase with cumulative effect. This is for the reason that the gap is huge i.e. 11 years. For shorter period of 3-5 years, it could have been 10% or 12%. But in no case 15% would be justified for a period of 11 years as awarded by the High Court in the impugned order. In the present case, given the 11 years gap, 8% would be considered just and proper.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA Signing time: 04-11-2023 16:40:36 2425. On rough assessment, the compensation would be equivalent to compensation awarded by the Reference Court. The High Court fell in error in enhancing the compensation by applying the cumulative annual increase of 15%.
26. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 01.06.2016 is set aside. The Land Acquisition Collector to calculate the compensation at the rate as determined above."
(Emphasis supplied) 20] So far as the present case is concerned, the land in question was to be acquired for the purposes of a pond only and as such no further development of the land was to be carried out by the State, there is also nothing on record to suggest as to what was the annual procurement of the land or what other benefits occurred to the land owner out of the said land. In such circumstances, it can be presumed that the value of the land was not going to be increased exponentially by many folds in the coming years. 21] On perusal of the aforesaid judgement of the Supreme Court, it clearly reveals that when the fair value of the land acquired under the Act of 1894 cannot be ascertained, the Court is required to assess the value by applying the method of annual increase in the value of the property either at the flat or cumulatively rate. In the present case, the land in question, a total of 1.021 hectare, comprising of 0.857 hectare of irrigated land and 0.174 hectares of unirrigated land at Survey No.27/1 was purchased by the respondent on 07.05.1999 for a consideration of Rs.75,000/-, the market value of which was Rs.82,000/- for the purpose of stamp duty. Thus, presuming the value of the irrigated land to be Rs.82,000/- per hectare as the base value in the year 1999, and the acquisition of the land on 31.08.2007, the value Signature Not Verified Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA Signing time: 04-11-2023 16:40:36 25 can be assessed for the period of 9 years (as the total period comes to 8 years and 3 months and 24 days to be exact), and in the facts and circumstances of the case,, 12% cumulative increase per annum in the value of the land appears just and proper looking to the fact that in the later years the land prices have risen at a higher rate. This court also finds that any other lower amount as the base value and lesser rate of interest would fetch either lesser or almost around the same price as is determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, which would not be in consonance with s.25 of the Act of 1894 which provides that the amount of compensation awarded by the court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under s.11. 22] Thus, the appeals are partly allowed, and the impugned judgement passed by the Reference Court dated 17.03.2017 is hereby set aside, and the Land Acquisition Officer is directed to calculate the compensation at the rate determined above and proceed further in accordance with law.
23] Accordingly, all the appeals filed by the State are hereby partly allowed with the result that the cross objections filed by the respondents are hereby rejected. The Land Acquisition Officer is directed to calculate the compensation at the rate determined above and proceed further in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
Appeals stand disposed of.
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE Bahar Signature Not Verified Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA Signing time: 04-11-2023 16:40:36