Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. & Others vs Ram Bharosey Lal (Since Deceased) & ... on 3 January, 2017
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal, Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Court No. - 34 Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 35 of 2010 Appellant :- State Of U.P. & Others Respondent :- Ram Bharosey Lal (Since Deceased) & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Addl. C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Rajesh Kumar Pandey, Sanjai Srivastava, V.S. Sisodia Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard learned Standing counsel appearing for appellants. None appeared on behalf of respondents though names of Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, Sri Sanjai Srivastava and Sri V.S. Sisodia, Advocates have shown as counsel for respondents and the case has been called in revised. Hence, we proceed to decide this matter ex parte, after hearing learned Standing counsel for appellants.
2. This appeal under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1894") has arisen from judgment and award dated 04.11.1995 passed by Sri V.K. Jain, District and Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in Land Acquisition Reference (hereinafter referred to as "LAR") No. 41 of 1988 awarding market value of acquired land for the purpose of compensation at the rate of Rs. 225/- per square yard, besides solatium at the rate of 30% on enhanced amount and additional compensation, etc.
3. Acquisition proceedings were initiated by issuing Notification under Section 4 of Act, 1894 on 17.09.1986 proposing to acquire 9 Bigha 15 Biswa 5 Biswansi land at Village-Baran, Pargana Baran, District Bulandshahar. Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as "SLAO") vide award dated 29.06.1987 determined market value at the rate of Rs. 2,72,250/- per bigha (Rs. 87/- per square yards). Dissatisfied therewith, claimants-respondents submitted application under Section 18 before District Magistrate, Bulandshahr for making Reference to District Judge for determining market value and pursuant thereto impugned judgment and award has been passed by District Judge enhancing compensation to Rs. 225/- per square yard.
4. Court below formulated following four issues:-
"1- D;k lUnHkZdrkZx.k dks mldh vftZr dh x;h tehu dk izfrdj de fn;k x;k gSA ;fn gkW rks mfpr izfrdj D;k ns; gksxk\
1. Whether tenure holders have been awarded lessor compensation of his acquired land? If yes, what would the appropriate compensation payable?
2- D;k vftZr Hkwfe 'kgj dh vkcknh o ekdZsV ls feyh gqbZ gS vkSj lM+d ls feyh gqbZ gS\
2. Whether acquired land is adjacent to Abadi, market and road?
3- D;k lUnHkZ dky ckf/kr gSA ;fn gkW rks D;k nsjh {kek ;ksX; gS\
3. Whether reference is barred by time? If yes, whether delay is condonable?
4- vuqrks"k\
4. Relief?"
(English Translation by Court)
5. While answering issues-1 and 2 together, it has referred to claim of land owners who sought compensation at the rate of Rs. 300/- per square yard and placed reliance on sale deeds showing transfer by sale of land at the rate of Rs. 410/-, 425/- and 550/- per bigha. Thereafter, Court below has referred to various judgments, i.e., Smt. Kasturi Vs. Collector Nainital, AIR 1987 Allahabad 338; Mahabir Prasad Santuka and others Vs. Collector, 1987 LACC 77; Mehta Ravindrarai Ajit Rai Vs. State of Gujarat, 1989 LACC 536; Major Dhian Singh Vs. Union of India, AIR 1992 (SC) 475; Krishna Yachendra Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore, AIR 1979 (SC) 869 and then in single paragraph, it has recorded its conclusion that compensation must be awarded at the rate of Rs. 225/- per square yard.
6. Learned Standing counsel contended that impugned award is totally non-speaking, unreasoned and nothing has been discussed as to how market value at the rate of Rs. 225/- was arrived at by Court below, therefore, impugned award is patently illegal and liable to be set aside.
7. Only point raised in this appeal for deciding is "whether Court below has given any reason or discussed any material so as to arrive at an inference that market value for the purpose of compensation should be assessed at the rate of Rs. 225/- per square yard?"
8. In order to answer aforesaid question, we find it appropriate to refer to entire discussion made by Court below in respect of issues No. 1, 2 and 4 which reads as under:-
"Issues Nos. 1, 2 and 4.
11. In the reference as also in the statements of the P.ws, it has been alleged that very less compensation has been paid to the claimants. It has been further alleged that the land of plot no. 1404 which has been made the basis of compensation, is situated ahead the acquired land, away from abadi, having no rasta and possibility of future building site while near the plot no. 1326 (acquired land) there is installed a tubewell, hydel colony is mend milan, railway station is very near it, dabar road goes upto the land of the claimant. This plot is within municipal limits. The claimants have claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 300/- per sq. yard in addition to compensation for sheesham trees amounting to Rs. 45,000/-.
In the written statement, it has been pleaded that compensation has been assessed in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to the claimants of hearing and adducing evidence, as per quality, utility, potentiality and geographical situation of the land. Solatium etc. have also been paid.
The claimants have filed copies of sale deeds executed at the rates of Rs. 410/-, 425/- and 550/- per bigha, in support of their claim.
Learned counsel for the claimants has placed reliance on AIR 1987 Allahabad-338 "Smt. Kasturi Vs. Collector Nainital":
"Market value of the land in dispute is to be determined in the background of the principles laid down by the Privy Council and the Supreme Court. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the land is situated within the municipal limit. It abuts on the main road of the town of Kashipur. Exhibit 1 is the site plan prepared by Roopchand, Pw-1. On a perusal of the same we find that on the south of the land, there are a number of shops which face station road. On its west there is a road and across the road, there is the vegetable market of Kashipur and thereafter there is a dharamshala. The evidence on record clearly shows that the land is situated in the heart of the city in commercial area, having potential of building site. In fact, the appellants had already submitted plan for construction of shops for letting out on rent. There is no escape from the conclusion that the land in dispute was a potential building site."
Learned counsel for the claimants has further placed reliance on:
1987 LACC-77 "Mahabir Prasad Santuka and others Vs. Collector" wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held:
"It is well settled that the owner of the acquired land is entitled to compensation on the basis of its market value. Sec. 23 of the Act lays down principles for determining compensation according to which the owner is entitled to receive market value of the land. Market value means what a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property having regard to the advantage available and the development activities which may be going on in the vicinity and the potentiality of the land. On evidence on record, it is apparent that the land in dispute is adjacent to the industrial area where a larger number of factories are situated."
In the present case, the acquired land is surrounded by abadi all around it, near it there are residential colonies like hydel colony, railway station and colleges. On byepass record, there are a number of shops.
Reliance has also been placed on 1989 LACC-536, Supreme Court of India, "Mehta Ravindrarai Ajit Rai Vs. State of Gujarat":
"The market value of the piece of property for purpose of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act is stated to be the price of which the property changes hands from a willing seller to a willing, but not too anxious a buyer, dealing at arms length. Prices fetched for similar lands with similar advantages and potentialities under bonafide transactions of sale at or about the time of the preliminary notification are the usual and, indeed the best, evidence of market value...."
The claimants have filed copies of sale deeds and have claimed compensation on their basis by relying on AIR 1992 Supreme Court-475 "Major Dhian Singh Vs. Union of India":
"Comparable land valued in earlier case at certain rate- But claimant was awarded lesser amount-Valuation as made in earlier case will have to be followed and not the rate actually awarded in that case."
The Court has to see that legitimate claim of a citizen be not put to jeopardise and fiscal rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India, be saved. Reliance has to be placed on AIR 1979 Supreme Court-869 "Krishna Yachendra Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore":
"We are conscious that this process of determination of market value adopted by us may savour of conjecture or guess, but the estimate of market value in many cases must depend largely on evaluation of many imponderables and hence it must necessarily to be some extent a matter of conjecture or guess."
Taking into consideration the facts on record, statements of the witnesses and the citations referred to above, I am of the opinion that it would meet the ends of justice if compensation to the claimants is awarded at the rate of Rs. 225.00 per sq. yard for their acquired land.
(emphasis added)
9. Thereafter, the operative part of the order reads as under:-
"The reference is hereby allowed. The claimants are awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 225/- per sq. yard for their acquired land. The claimants are further entitled to solatium at the rate of 30 percent on enhanced amount. They are also entitled to receive additional amount at 12 percent per annum from the date of notification to the dates of possession on the enhanced amount. The claimants are further entitled to receive amount at 9 percent per annum from the date of possession for a period of one year and thereafter they shall receive interest at 15 percent per annum till the date of payment on enhanced amount of compensation strictly as per mandatory rules.
Costs easy."
10. Neither sale deed exemplars relied by claimants-respondents have been referred to and discussed nor details thereof are given. On the contrary, rates in the sale deeds are mentioned as Rs. 410/-, 425/- and 550/- and, that too, per bigha, which is apparently erroneous and incorrect. There is no discussion, whatsoever, as to in what manner and how Court below determined market value at the rate of Rs. 225/- per square yard. Impugned award in this regard is totally non-speaking and manifestly illegal.
11. In the result, appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and award dated 04.11.1995 in LAR No. 41 of 1988 is hereby set aside. Matter is remanded to Court below to decide aforesaid LAR afresh in accordance with law.
12. Since it is an old matter, Court below is directed to decide the same within 6 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before it, subject to other business of the Court.
Order Date :- 3.1.2017 Shubham