Jharkhand High Court
Nirmalendu Roy vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 February, 2020
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1 F.A. No.30 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
F.A. No.30 of 2013
---
1.Nirmalendu Roy
2.Parimalendu Roy Both sons of Kalyani Roy, resident of village, PO and PS Chandil, District -Seraikella Kharsawan
3.(i)Anindra Roy @ Ripen 3(ii)Achinta Roy Both father's name Amlendu Roy. Both are resident of Village, PO and PS Chandil, District Serakella Kharsawan 3(iii)Anindita Sinha, W/o Soubik Sinha, D/o late Amalendu, At Vijoy Nagar, PO , PS and District Katihar, Bihar .... Appellants
--Versus--
State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Appellants : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate For the State : Mr. Gautam Kumar, SC (Mines)-I 29/ Dated : 06th February, 2020 Heard Mr. P.A.S. Pati, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Gautam Kumar, the learned SC (Mines)-I appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.
2. The appellants have preferred this First Appeal for setting aside the impugned Award passed in L.A. Case No.238(240)/88 dated 26.07.2012 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-II, Seraikella Kharswan.
3. The appellants have received a notice under section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act intimating them that a sum of Rs.86,477.21 paise has been awarded as compensation for the lands belonging to them. In view of the matter as the appellants were not satisfied with the award in question, they raised a dispute before the competent authority under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the said dispute was referred to the competent court and registered as L.A.Case No.238(240)/88. The 2 F.A. No.30 of 2013 said Reference was sent by the District Land Acquisition Officer on 12.10.1988 for final disposal of Award No.12 under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act with regard to the land situated at Mauza Chaulibasa, Thana Chandil No.170, District Seraikella Kharswan. The notice under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 17.01.1987 and a declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of such acquisition was published on 16.11.1987 and the appellants were served with a notice under section 9 of the said Act for filing objection by 25.02.1988. Under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the following lands of the appellants were proposed to be acquired:
Khata No. Plot No. Area (in Acres)
9 643 7.97
10 566 1.20
10 567 0.67
11 657 0.70
11 695 0.54
11.08
4. The appellants have filed objection before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Swarn Rekha Project, Chandil claiming a sum of Rs.13,38,000/- as compensation for the land. It was contended that though the objection received on 25.02.1988 but no opportunity was granted to the appellants of being heard in the matter. Thereafter, the appellants were served notice under section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act in Case No.1/86-87 notifying them that award of Rs.86,477.21 paisa has been prepared in their favour in respect of acquired land and they have been informed that the said awarded amount will be paid to them on 12.07.1988. In this background, section 18 petition was filed by the appellants before the competent authority. On reference, the Court came to the conclusion that a reasonable compensation will be Rs.20,000/- per 3 F.A. No.30 of 2013 acre for acquired purani parti land measuring 9.88 acres and rest Rs.50,000/- per acre for 1.2 acres (Gora II) Nai Parti land as mentioned in award no.12 and it was also directed by the court below that the appellants shall be entitled for solatium at the rate of 30% in respect of enhanced amount and on such excess interest @ 9 % for the first year for passing of this judgment and further expiry of one year rate of 15% per annum on the same or part thereof.
5. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the amount in question awarded by the judgment dated 26.07.2012 has already been received by the appellants. Mr. Pati, the learned counsel assailed the impugned judgment only on the ground that the exhibit before the court below was not taken into consideration in its right perspective. He further submits that there is no calculation as to how that figure has been reached by the court below. He submits that in that view of the matter, the calculation is not correct. To buttress his argument, he relied in the case of "Chandra Bhan v. Ghaziabad Development Authority" reported in (2015) 15 SCC 343.
21. Under the circumstances, the Reference Court was justified in relying upon the two sale deeds executed before the last date of publication under Section 4 of the Act, that is, 1-10-1988. As mentioned above, Ext. 16-A was executed on 11-7-1988 and Ext. 18-C was executed on 23-8-1988 well before the last date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. In our opinion, the High Court erroneously took the view that reliance should not be placed on these sale deeds since they had come into existence either just before the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act or soon after the issuance of that notification insinuating thereby that the sale deeds did not reflect the true market price of the land that was sold through those sale deeds.
4 F.A. No.30 of 2013
22. The High Court was also in error in coming to the conclusion that because the two sale deeds Ext. 16-A and Ext. 18-C relate to small parcels of land (150 sq yd and 57 sq yd respectively) they could not be used as exemplars for determining the market value of the acquired land. It is true that the sale deeds pertain to small parcels of land but it is not usual to find sale transactions of large tracts of land that could give some indication of the market value of the acquired land. In fact, in Land Acquisition Officer v. M.K. Rafiq Saheb7 it was observed that in the normal course it is hardly possible for a claimant to produce sale instances of large tracts of land. In para 24 of the Report it was held as follows: (SCC p. 720).
"24. It may also be noticed that in the normal course of events, it is hardly possible for a claimant to produce sale instances of large tracts of land. The sale of land containing large tracts are generally very far and few. Normally, the sale instances would relate to small pieces of land. This limitation of sale transaction cannot operate to the disadvantage of the claimants. Thus, the court should look into sale instances of smaller pieces of land while applying reasonable element of deduction."
23. A useful discussion on the subject is to be found in a recent decision of this Court in Nirmal Singh v. State of Haryana8. It is for this reason of inexactitude that there is a constant search for an appropriate method for calculating the market value of the acquired land and one of the methods that is accepted is the comparable sales method of valuation of land.
24. In Printers House (P) Ltd. v. Saiyadan9 it was held that this method generally holds good for determination of the market value of several acquired plots of land and it is preferred to other known methods of valuation of land since the variety of factors appertaining to the land, which require adjustment by the court as the valuer in determining the market value of the acquired land, would be the least. This is not to suggest that this method has to be invariably accepted since there are factors that may still require to be considered as laid down in a recent decision of this Court in Kapil Mehra v. Union of India10 which contains a useful discussion on the subject.
5 F.A. No.30 of 2013
25. Broadly speaking, as long as the sale is an arm's length transaction it would merit consideration by the authorities under the Act for the purposes of determining the market value of the acquired land. That being so, and given the facts of the case, the Reference Court was not in error in adopting the comparable sales method of valuation of land.
26. The High Court has noted, and it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the State/GDA that SLAO had before him 66 comparable sale deeds for Village Harsaon, 48 comparable sale deeds for Village Dasna and 105 comparable sale deeds for Village Sadarpur but these were overlooked. However, we have noticed from the decision rendered by the Reference Court that these sale deeds were not admissible in evidence and in fact the only sale deeds that were admissible and which were taken into account were those mentioned by the High Court, namely:
Sl. No.Paper No. Date Vendor Vendee Khasra No. Area in sq yd Rate (per square yard)
1. 10-A 8-5-1989 Smt Sarita Chauhan Tahir Ali 696/1 186 170
2. 11-A 8-5-1989 Narendra Singh Tahir Ali 694/1 84 170
3. 13-A 31-12-1987 Ratan Singh Bramh Dutt 693/2 581. 100
4. 16-A 7-9-1988 Bramh Dutt Jai Prakash Sharma 693 150 160
5. 17-A 4-11-1988/26-11-1988 Bramh Dutt Har Vilas 693 130 125
6. 18-C 23-8-1988 Kisan Gopal (Claimant in LAr No. 328/92) Charan Singh 298/1 57 298
27. As mentioned above, out of the above sale deeds, only the sale deeds at Ext. 16-A and Ext. 18-C were relevant and these were rightly taken into account for consideration by the Reference Court in granting compensation at Rs 163 per square yard for the land in all the three villages. These were sales pertaining to small parcels of land but were accepted by the Reference Court to be arm's length sales for the purposes of applying the comparable sales method of valuation of land. Nothing to the contrary has come in evidence.
6. He submits that the trial court was required to consider the exhibits 2/b, 2/c and 2/d which are dated 07.01.85, 20.10.87 and 04.10.85 respectively which were prior to notification under section 4 dated 17.01.1987. The trial court was required to look into the 6 F.A. No.30 of 2013 transaction of those sale deeds and thereafter to calculate the amount in question which has not been done in the present case and the land losers have been deprived of the actual amount to be paid. He further relied in the case of "Gujarat Mineral Development Corpn. v. Ram Sang Bhailalbhai" reported in (2015) 11 SCC 483.
5. In the impugned order3 the learned Division Bench has noted that Village Rajpardi and Village Madhavpara are adjacent to each other and are also covered under the same Group Gram Panchayat. In doing so it also took into account the fact that there was no evidence showing any distinguishing feature of the lands between these two villages.
We have also perused the map in question and we note that the two villages are contiguous to each other, having common boundaries. We may clarify that the compensation payable was computed on the basis of the sale deed concerned with Village Madhavpara. We also take note that there is no evidence to show that any injustice or any illogical conclusion was arrived at in following the compensation rate applicable to Village Madhavpara.
7. Per contra, Mr. Gautam Kumar, SC(Mines)-I appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that the trial court has considered those exhibits and has rightly come to that conclusion. By way of referring to paragraph no.22 of the impugned Award he submits that exhibits 2/b and 2/d have been considered by the trial court and the solatium has also been provided in terms of that judgment. Thus there is no illegality in the impugned judgment. He further submits that the appellants have already received the amount in question which has been awarded in terms of the judgment dated 26.07.2012.
8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, this court perused the judgment of the trial court and finds that although there is reference of exhibits 2/b and 2/d in paragraph no.22 of the said 7 F.A. No.30 of 2013 judgment but from the judgment it is not reflected as to how the trial court has come to the figure of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Chandra Bhan"(supra) it needs to be reconsidered by the trial court by way of formula which was adopted for calculating in the case under the Land Acquisition Act.
9. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment dated 26.07.2012 is quashed.
10. The matter is remitted back to the Civil Judge, Sr. Division-II, Civil Court, Seraikella Kharsawan to decide afresh in the light of the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of "Chandra Bhan" (supra) after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties. It is made clear that the amount which has already been paid to the appellants shall not be recovered from the appellants.
11. If on de novo calculation the trial court comes to the conclusion that the certain amounts are enhanced that shall be paid after deducting the amount which has already been paid to the appellants. The appeal stands allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
12. Office is directed to send back the L.C.R. to the court below along with the judgment of this Court forthwith.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) SI/,