Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Riico Through Sr Dy G M Riico Ltd And Anr vs M/S Ginni International Ltd on 20 October, 2022
Author: Anoop Kumar Dhand
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3104/2015
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment
Corporation Limited, through Senior Deputy General
Manager, RIICO Limited, Shahjahanpur, Alwar
2. Land Acquisition Officer, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Udyog
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur
----Appellants
Versus
M/s Ginni International Ltd., SP2-(1A)2, RIICO Industrial Area,
Neemrana, District Alwar (Rajasthan)
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ajeet Bhandari, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Jitendra Mishra
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Nath with
Mr. Aksh Shrivastava
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Judgment
Reserved on ... 29.09.2022
Pronounced on ... 20.10.2022
Reportable
Invoking the appellate jurisdiction of this Court
contained under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(for short 'the Act of 1894'), this appeal has been submitted
against the judgment dated 23.04.2015 passed by the Court
of Senior Civil Judge, Alwar (hereinafter referred as
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:47:45 AM)
(2 of 40) [CMA-3104/2015]
'Reference Court') by which the Reference Petition
No.101/2006, filed by the respondent has been allowed.
The land of the respondent was acquired by the
State Government vide Notification dated 12.9.2005. The
total land ad-measuring 431.82 hectare situated in Village
Janaksinghpura, Madhosinghpura, Kali Pahadi and Majra
Kaath, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar was acquired for extension
of Industrial Area. A Notification under section 6 of the Act of
1894 was issued on 02.02.2006. Total 0.83 hectare land of
the respondent from Khasra No.35 situated in Village Majra
Kaath was acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an
award on 10.04.2006 and total compensation was determined
as Rs.51,26,766/- including interest under Section 23(1A) of
the Act with 30% solatium.
Feeling dissatisfied by the award dated 10.04.2006,
the respondent submitted a reference petition under section
18 of the Act of 1894 for enhancement of compensation for
treating the land as residential and not agricultural. Learned
Senior Civil Judge allowed the reference vide judgment dated
06.03.2013 and held that the respondent was entitled to get
compensation @ 1600/- per sq. feet along-with interest @
12% from the date of publication of the Notification under
Section 4 of the Act of 1894 dated 12.9.2005 and also
entitled for 30% solatium.
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:47:45 AM)
(3 of 40) [CMA-3104/2015]
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated
06.03.2013, the appellants i.e. Rajasthan State Industrial
Development & Investment Corporation Ltd. (for short 'the
RIICO') submitted S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1889/2013,
before this Court which was allowed vide judgment dated
14.02.2014 with the following observations and directions:-
"As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ramanlal Deochand Shah (Supra), proceedings
under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 are in the nature
of an original suit and as in a original suit the burden
lies on the plaintiff to prove the case set up before
the court for enhancement of compensation by
adducing positive and concrete evidence in support
of the compensation claimed. Oddly in the instant
case, a bare look at issue No.1 framed by the court
below indicates that the burden with regard to
market value for the land acquired was placed not on
the respondent-applicant, but on the appellant-
RIICO, the non-applicant before the lower court. The
erroneous approach by the court below was further
exacerbated by the lower court having failed to insist
upon any evidence of probative worth from the
respondent-applicant's side in regard to the market
price of the land acquired as on the date of
notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 i.e.
12.09.2005. In my considered view, compensation
cannot be determined on the basis of mere surmises,
conjecture and even extrapolation / approximation
with reference to the sale price of the land several
years subsequent to the date of notification
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:47:45 AM)
(4 of 40) [CMA-3104/2015]
under Section 4 of the Act of 1894. A bare look at
the impugned order evidences the fact that the
compensation has been enhanced on the mere ipse
dixit of the respondent-applicant as stated in its
witness's affidavit in evidence before the court below
without any documentary support as to the extant
market value of the land acquired on the date of
the Section 4 notification under the Act of 1894. To
my mind that is a completely unsatisfactory state of
affairs and public monies cannot be so causally
expanded by the enhancement of award contrary to
law. On this count, the compensation having been
enhanced without any evidence of probative worth
for the purpose, the appellant-RIICO is entitled to
succeed. It is held that the determination of
enhanced compensation for the land acquired @
Rs.1,600/- per square meter plus further amount
under Sections 23(1A) and 23(2) and Section 34 of
the Act of 1894 is wholly illegal, perverse and based
on no evidence. Therefore, to that extent, the order
dated 06.03.2013, passed by the lower court is liable
to be quashed and set aside.
There would have been substance in the
submission of Mr. Bhandari appearing for the
appellant-RIICO that the respondent-applicant
having failed to adduce requisite evidence before the
court below justifying the enhancement of
compensation with reference to the market rate of
the land acquired as of 12.09.2005 i.e. the date of
notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, the
entire reference was deserving of dismissal, if it had
not been for the fact that the LAO in passing the
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:47:45 AM)
(5 of 40) [CMA-3104/2015]
award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 on
10.04.2006 committed an apparent illegality holding
that in spite of the land being recorded after formal
conversion by the competent authority for residential
user, the respondent-applicant was only entitled to
compensation treating the land acquired as
agricultural. Consequently, this fundamental error in
determining the nature of the land acquired by the
LAO while passing the award renders it necessary
that the matter be remanded to the lower court for
determination afresh of the market price of the land
acquired on the basis of evidence at the instance of
the respondent-applicant as to the market price of
the land acquired prevailing as of 12.09.2005 i.e. the
date of notification under Section 4 of the Act of
1894.
Consequently, the order dated 06.03.2013 is
quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded
to the lower court for decision on the matter afresh
based on evidence with regard to the market price of
the land acquired as of 12.09.2005 treating the land
to be residential in nature."
After remand of the matter, learned Civil Judge,
reheard the matter and re-determined the amount of
compensation of the land @ Rs.80/- per sq. feet on the basis
of the District Land Committee Rates (for short, 'DLC rates')
submitted by the respondent, vide judgment dated
23.4.2015.
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:47:45 AM)
(6 of 40) [CMA-3104/2015]
Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated
23.04.2015, the appellants RIICO has submitted this appeal.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants RIICO submitted that while determining the
compensation of the land of the respondent, the court below
has relied upon an "un-exhibited document" issued by the
Office of the Registration and Stamps Department, wherein
the DLC rate was mentioned as Rs.80/- per sq. yard for the
residential land for the year 2005-06. Senior Counsel submits
that this document was un-exhibited, hence, the same was
not admissible in evidence. Senior Counsel submits that this
entire document was in print form but the date of its
enforcement was hand-written indicating the date of its
applicability as "दिनांक 24.11.2005 से प्रभावा (लााग))
30.06.2006". Senior Counsel submits that the DLC rates of 8
Villages i.e. Janaksinghpura, Madhosinghpura, Majarikalan,
Mandhan, Kaathuwas, Kanhawas, Daulatsinghpura,
Daulatsinghpura near Neemrana, were mentioned and in
Column 9 of this document the words "other villages" were
mentioned. However, a hand-written note was also there
mentioning "the other village" which includes Village Kath Ka
Majra. Senior Counsel submits that only the name of the
Village 'Kath Ka Majra' was hand-written and no reason was
assigned for not mentioning the names of other Villages in
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:47:45 AM)
(7 of 40) [CMA-3104/2015]
the same hand-written format. Senior Counsel submits that
this hand-written note raises doubt about the genuineness of
this DLC rates document.
Senior Counsel submits that neither the DLC
document was exhibited on the record nor any oral or
documentary evidence was led by the respondent on the
record of the court below, which is why, the appellants RIICO
could not get any opportunity to cross-examine the
respondent or the person who issued this document. Senior
Counsel submits that no oral or documentary evidence was
produced by the respondent to prove the market value of its
land. Still the court below has relied upon this un-exhibited
DLC rates document and determined the amount of
compensation in favour of the respondent. Senior Counsel
submits that the document prescribing DLC rates, cannot be
relied upon to determine the market value. In support of his
contentions, he has placed reliance upon the following
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-
(i) Government (NCT of Delhi) and others v. Ajay
Kumar and Others, reported in (2014) 13 SCC 734;
(ii) Union of India v. Savitri Devi and Anr., reported in
AIR 2017 SC 5834;
(iii) K.S. Shivadevamma and Others v. Assistant
Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer and
Another, reported in (1996)2 SCC 62; and
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:47:45 AM)
(8 of 40) [CMA-3104/2015]
(iv) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. M/s. Nemichand
Damodardas & Anr., Civil Appeal No.3478 of 2022
decided on 11.7.2022.
Senior Counsel submits that Order 13 Rule 4 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the CPC') deals with
the provisions relating to endorsement on documents
admitted in evidence. Senior Counsel submits that mere
production of DLC document was not sufficient because there
was no admission on behalf of the appellants-RIICO and the
process contained under Order 13 Rule 4 CPC was not
followed. Hence, the DLC rates document was not admissible
in evidence. Senior Counsel submits that the DLC rates
document prescribes the old and the proposed residential and
commercial rates of the land situated and also the distance
from the road and 'Aabadi'. Senior Counsel submits that no
oral or documentary evidence was submitted by the
respondent about the location of its land, whether it was
situated near or at the distant place from road and 'Aabadi'.
Senior Counsel submits that the every land cannot be treated
as a developed land and the compensation cannot be granted
for "per sq. feet land." Senior Counsel submits that out of
total 431.82 hectare land, 0.83 hectare land of the
respondent was acquired but the court below has assessed
the compensation on the basis of 'per sq. feet land', while no
oral or documentary evidence was produced on the record
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:47:45 AM)
(9 of 40) [CMA-3104/2015]
about the developed location of the land of the respondent.
In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.
Rajan and Another v. Kerala State Electricity Board and
Another, reported in (1997) 9 SCC 330.
Senior Counsel submits that the determination of
compensation for per sq. feet land should be confined only to
highly developed land or the land situated at a place in the
heart of the City but the court below without any basis, in the
present case, determined the compensation 'on sq. feet
basis'. Senior Counsel submits that under these
circumstances, the impugned judgment dated 23.04.2015
passed by the Reference Court is not sustainable in the eyes
of law and is liable to be quashed and set aside by this Court.
Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent
opposed the arguments raised by the Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants-RIICO and submits that no evidence was produced by the RIICO about the market value of the land in question. Hence, the court below has rightly determined the amount of compensation on the basis of the DLC document. Counsel submits that even no reply was submitted by the RIICO. In support of his contentions, reliance has been placed on the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Dattatray (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:47:45 AM) (10 of 40) [CMA-3104/2015] Thirthkar v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2009) 11 SCC 141.
Counsel submits that the procedure for assessment of the market value of the property has been prescribed under Rule 58 of the Rajasthan Stamp Rules, 2004 (for short 'the Rules of 2004'). Counsel submits that the market value of the land is to be assessed by the Registration Officer on the basis of the rates recommended by the District Level Committee constituted under Rule 2(b) of the Rules of 2004. Counsel submits that the DLC rates of the Village Kath-ka- majra and other Villages were assessed by the Committee of Deputy Registrar, Neemrana (Alwar) for the year 2005-06 and the compensation was determined by the court below on the basis of the same. Hence, no illegality has been committed.
Counsel submits that as per section 23 of the Act of 1894, the court shall consider the market value of the land for determining the amount of compensation and here in this case also, the court below has determined the compensation on the basis of the market value of the land in question. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of RIICO Ltd. V. Devi Lal & Anr., S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.395/2010, decided on 20.07.2011, wherein (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:47:45 AM) (11 of 40) [CMA-3104/2015] the market value of the land was assessed on the basis of the sale deeds.
Counsel submits that the DLC document is a public document under section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act and the contents of the same have been proved by producing its certified copy, hence, the presence of the Registrar was not required to prove this document. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Devi v. Nemi Chand and Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 11088 and 11086/ 2017 decided on 22.11.2021.
Counsel submits that Chapter III and Sections 56, 57 and 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short 'IEA') say that there are various facts which need not be proved because these are judicially-noticeable facts. The court below has taken judicial notice of the DLC document issued by the Deputy Registrar, Registration and Stamps Department, Neemrana, District Alwar and determined the compensation of the land of the respondent on the basis of the market value of its land as 'per sq. feet'.
Counsel submits that all these facts were taken into consideration and the compensation was determined accordingly. Hence, interference of this court is not warranted. Counsel also placed reliance upon the judgment (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:47:45 AM) (12 of 40) [CMA-3104/2015] delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rattan Arya and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., Writ Petition No.5226/82 and other connected petitions decided on 16.04.1986 as also the judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Bhopal Singh v. Precious Properties Pvt. Ltd., S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.3138/2012, decided on 10.03.2014.
Heard the rival submissions and perused the impugned judgment and the material available on the record.
The undisputed facts of this case are that total 431.82 hectare land of the respondent was acquired by the RIICO for the purpose of extension of industrial area at Neemrana (Alwar) and out of the aforesaid land, 0.83 hectare land of the respondent from Khasra No.35 at Village Mazra Kath, Tehsil Behror (Alwar) was acquired and the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 10.04.2006 determining the total compensation as Rs.51,26,766/- including interest under Section 23(1A) and 30% solatium. Thereafter, the respondent submitted an application under section 18 of the Act of 1894 and the same was allowed vide judgment dated 6.3.2013 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Alwar and the compensation was enhanced to Rs.1,32,80,000/- with a solatium amount @ 30% and an additional amount @ (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:47:45 AM) (13 of 40) [CMA-3104/2015] 12% per annum from the date of the Notification in terms of Section 23(1A) of the Act of 1894.
The Judgment dated 6.3.2013 was not accepted by the appellants-RIICO and the same was assailed before this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1889/2013 and the same was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 14.02.2014 wherein the judgment dated 6.3.2012 was quashed and the matter was remanded to the Senior Civil Judge for decision on the matter afresh based on "evidence" with regard to the market price of the land acquired as of 12.09.2005- by treating the land to be residential in nature.
Perusal of the order dated 14.02.2014 passed by this Court clearly indicates that the matter was remanded to the lower court for decision on the matter afresh on 'evidence' with regard to the market price of the land. The word 'evidence' was used for fresh decision.
After remand of the matter, the respondent submitted a certified copy of a document pertaining to DLC rates of 8 named Villages and other unnamed Villages situated near Neemrana (Alwar). This document was issued by the Office of Deputy Registrar, Registration and Stamps Department, Neemrana, District Alwar. Except this document, no other documentary and oral evidence was produced by (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:47:45 AM) (14 of 40) [CMA-3104/2015] either of the sides to prove the market value of the land in question and on the basis of the DLC rates document, the compensation of the land of the respondent was determined as Rs.7147236.90/- @ Rs.80/- per sq. feet + compensation of Rs.2900/- for trees, solatium amount @ 30% and an additional amount @ 12% from the date of the Notification i.e. 12.09.2005 till 10.04.2006 was awarded and interest @ 9% till one year w.e.f. 10.05.2006 to 30.05.2007 and 15% interest thereafter was awarded under Sections 28 and 28A of the Act of 1894.
Now the question before this Court is "Whether compensation can be determined solely on the basis of rates mentioned in the records/ documents issued by the Deputy Registrar, Registration and Stamps Department i.e. DLC Rates?
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Government (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Ajay Kumar (supra) has held that the circle rates prescribed by the administration cannot constitute the sole criteria for fixing the market value of the acquired land and the matter was remitted back to the authorities for fresh determination by taking into consideration the relevant factors and the evidence, which in an appropriate case includes circle rates. The Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with this issue in para 7 and 8 of the Judgment as under:- (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:47:45 AM)
(15 of 40) [CMA-3104/2015] "7. We have heard Shri L.N Rao, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellants and Shri P.S Narasimha, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents. Though, we appreciate the anguish expressed by the High Court over the abysmally low market value determined by the Land Acquisition Collectors in almost all cases, a phenomenon which is prevalent all over the country, it is not possible to approve the exercise undertaken by the High Court for forcing the administration to prescribe circle rates as the criteria for fixing market value or for determination of the compensation. The 1894 Act contains a comprehensive mechanism for fixing market value and determination of the compensation payable. Any person, who feels aggrieved by the award of the Land Acquisition Collector or the determination made by the Reference Court can avail remedy either by filing an application under section 18 of the 1894 act or by filing an appeal under Section 54 thereof. Therefore, there was no justification for the High Court to have compelled the Government to adopt the circle rates as an important factor for fixing market value of the acquired land. The power vested in the Collector to determine market value of the acquired land cannot be controlled by a judicial fiat and each case has to be decided by the authority concerned by application of objective criteria.
8. In the result, the appeals are disposed of by making it clear that the circle rates referred to in Notification dated 23- 2-2001 issued by Appellant 1 shall not constitute the sole criteria for fixing market value of the acquired land and the Land Acquisition Collector shall be free to make determination by taking into consideration the relevant (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:47:45 AM) (16 of 40) [CMA-3104/2015] factors and the evidence which may in an appropriate case include circle rates."
In the case of Union of India v. Savitri Devi and Anr. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the rates fixed for collection of stamp duty cannot be relied upon to determine the compensation under Section 23 of the Act of 1894. Para 6 of this judgment reads as under:-
"6. The finding of the Court that the concession that the market value determined by the Collector on the basis of basic valuation would be properly applied, is obviously illegal. Shri Gopal Subramaniam contended that the Government of U.P. had issued three different circulars accepting the position that the basic valuation would form basis for determination of the compensation under Section 23(1) and that, therefore, the High Court was right in accepting the valuation made by the Collector and in directing to pay the compensation on that basis. After the judgment in Nagnathan's case (1994 AIR SCW 2852) (supra), the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in State of U.P. v. Shahu Singh (1995 HVD Vol.1 191) held that the rates fixed for the collection of stamp duty cannot be relied upon to determine market value. Therefore, the instructions issued by the Government for determination of the market value on the basis of basic valuation register were held illegal. The Collector, therefore, was obviously wrong in determining the compensation under Section 23(1) on the basis of prevailing rates in 1992 as per basic valuation circulars."(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:47:45 AM)
(17 of 40) [CMA-3104/2015] In the case of K.S. Shivadevamma and Others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the circulars issued by the Government for fixation of stamp duty and registration fees would not form the basis to determine the compensation unless evidence is adduced as regards the prevailing market value of the land in the locality prescribed of similar advantageous features. In para 5 of the judgment, it has been held as under:-
"5. From this, the question is what would be the reasonable market value that the lands would command in open market?. The appellants themselves have placed on record the sale deed of an extent of 133' x 99' under Ex.P-18 dated May 30, 1974 which fetched of consideration of Rs. 41,000 per acre. The High Court was not inclined to accept in to this sale deed. But it held that it provides guidance in determination of the market value. Though the appellants have relied upon the Government Circular determining the value of the lands for the purpose of fixing Stamp Duty and Registration Fee and also the Commissioner's Report regarding the valuation assessed by him, the High Court rightly has not accepted them. This Court also had held that the circulars issued by the Government under Section 47A of the Stamp Act for fixation of Stamp Duty and the Registration fee would not form basis to determine the compensation unless evidence is adduced as regards the prevailing market value of the land in the locality possessed of similar advantageous features.(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:47:45 AM)
(18 of 40) [CMA-3104/2015] Even Commissioner's assessment is his "best judgment assessment". Therefore, it cannot form the basis to determine the market value."
Similarly, in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the approach of the Reference Court was erroneous where the amount of compensation was determined on the basis of the value of the land fixed by the authority for the purpose of stamp duty. It has been held in para 9 as under:-
"9. The aforesaid decision in the case of Jawajee Nagnatham (supra) has been subsequently followed in a subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Lal Chand (supra) and it is observed that the market value of the land under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be fixed on the basis of the rates mentioned in the Basic Valuation Registers' maintained for the purpose of collection of proper stamp duty. In that case, as the Reference Court determined the amount of compensation on the value of the land fixed by the District Magistrate for stamp duty purposes, this court has observed and held that the same was erroneous."
Section 23 of the Act of 1894 says that for determination of amount of compensation, the Court shall take into consideration the market value of the land on the date of publication of the Notification under Section 4 of the (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:47:45 AM) (19 of 40) [CMA-3104/2015] Act. The counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of this court delivered in the case of RIICO Ltd. V. Devi Lal & Anr. (supra), in which it has been held that the Reference Court has to exercise a fair discretion in determining the market value relying upon the evidences produced with reasonable amount of discretion. But here in this case, no evidence except the document pertaining to DLC rates was produced by the respondent and the Reference Court determined the amount of compensation only on the basis of this document contrary to the above four judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar (supra), where compensation was determined on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence submitted by the khatedars and no evidence was produced by the State.
The respondent has to stand on its feet to establish its claim for compensation and it cannot be allowed to take the defence that the RIICO has failed to produce any evidence regarding value of the land in question.
Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the provision and the procedure contained under Rule 58 of the Rules of 2004. The said Rule 58 deals with determination of the valuation of any instrument relating to immovable (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:47:45 AM) (20 of 40) [CMA-3104/2015] property. The market value of such land is assessed by the Registration Officer on the basis of the recommendation made by the District Level Committee. The procedure contained under Rule 58 of the Rules of 2004 has no concern for determination of the market value of any land acquired by the State in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Government (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Ajay Kumar and others (supra), Union of India v. Savitri Devi and Anr. (supra), K.S. Shivadevamma and Others (supra) and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (supra).
The judgment cited by the counsel for the respondent in the case of Devi v. Nemi Chand and Ors. (supra), has no concern with the issue involved in this petition. In this case, it was held that the document pertaining to DLC rates is in public domain and after obtaining the certified copy, the presence of the Registrar would not be required. This judgment was not related to the issue of determination of the compensation of the acquired land only on the basis of the DLC rates. In this case, the above four judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court were not brought into the notice of the Court.
Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jaswant Singh Vs. Gurdev Singh and Ors., Civil Appeal (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:47:45 AM) (21 of 40) [CMA-3104/2015] Nos.8879-8880 of 2011 decided on 21.10.2011, where the compromise (Ex.D3) became the basis of the decree passed by the Court and the same was treated as a public document in terms of Section 74 of Indian Evidence Act and the certified copy of the same was treated as admissible in evidence without being proved by calling the witnesses. In this matter, after recording the evidence of the parties, compromise took place and the judgment and the decree was passed by the Judge. But here in the present case, no evidence was produced by both the parties and the Reference Court has passed the impugned judgment only on the basis of the document related to DLC rates.
The judgments cited by the counsel for the respondent in the cases of Rattan Arya and Ors. (supra) and Bhopal Singh (supra), are not applicable, looking to the peculiar facts and the circumstances of the case.
Perusal of the impugned judgment indicates that the amount of compensation has been determined and enhanced only on the basis of the certified copy of the document pertaining to DLC rates. This document was not exhibited on the record of the Reference Court and the impugned judgment has been passed by relying upon this "un-exhibited document".
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:47:45 AM)
(22 of 40) [CMA-3104/2015] Order 13 Rule 4 CPC deals with the procedure of endorsement on documents admitted in evidence. For ready reference, this provision is reproduced as under:-
"4. Endorsements on documents admitted in evidence. - (1) Subject to the provisions of the next following sub-rule, there shall be endorsed on every document which has been admitted in evidence in the suit the following particulars, namely :-
(a) the number and title of the suit,
(b) the name of the person producing the document,
(c) the date on which it was produced, and
(d) a statement of its having been so admitted, and the endorsement shall be signed or initialled by the Judge.
(2) Where a document so admitted is an entry in a book, account or record, and a copy thereof has been substituted for the original under the next following rule, the particulars aforesaid shall be endorsed on the copy and the endorsement thereon shall be signed or initialled by the Judge."
But without following the above procedure, the document pertaining to the DLC rates was taken into consideration and the compensation has been enhanced. This document was not exhibited. This un-exhibited document could not have been relied upon and the same formed basis to award compensation. The Himachal Pradesh High Court in (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:47:45 AM) (23 of 40) [CMA-3104/2015] the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sh. Jagdish Lakhanpal & Ors., reported in 2016 SCC Online 296 has held that it is more than settled that mere admission of document in evidence does not amount to its proof. In other words, mere marking of 'exhibit or mark as a document' does not dispense with its proof, and the same is required to be proved in accordance with law. Thus, assessment of compensation based on an un-exhibited document is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Janak Raj & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. Reported in AIR 2010 Raj. 52 has held that the determination of DLC rates is only an assessment of market value of the property and not a conclusive proof of it. It was observed in para 6 and 7 as under:-
"6. Apart from above, the plea raised by the petitioners in the writ petition that the DLC rates have been increased by the District Level Committee so that the enhanced compensation may be given to the land owners in case the land is acquired by the State Government for any public purpose is concerned, for that plea there is no factual foundation. The petitioners failed to show any collusion of all the members of the committee with the land owners whose land is liable to be acquired by the State Government. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jawajee Nagnatham Vs. Revenue (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:47:45 AM) (24 of 40) [CMA-3104/2015] Divisional Officer, Adilabad, AP reported in (1994) 4 SCC 595 wherein after considering the Section 47A of the Stamps Act it is has been held that the rates given in the basic valuation register (as DLC rates in Rajasthan) cannot be a basis to determine the market value under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 of the land acquired in that area or town or the locality or the taluk etc. In another case delivered in Land Acquisition Officer, Eluru & Ors Vs. Jasti Rohini (Smt) reported in (1995) 1 SCC 717 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the basic valuation register is maintained by the municipalities (in Andra Pradesh) on the basis of the notification issued by the Government under Section 47A of the Stamp Act, which cannot form the basis for determination of market value of the land under Section 23 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. In yet another case delivered in State of Punjab & Ors Vs. Mohabir Singh reported in (1996) 1 SCC 609, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case where the Sub-
Registrar formed his opinion merely on the basis of the instructions issued by the Government obviously of fixing the rates under Section 47A of the Stamps Act directed the executant of the document to revise the instrument and fix the consideration for the purpose of stamp duty as per the rate fixed under Section 47A., the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the guidelines provided by the State would only serve as prima facie material available before the Registering Authority to alert him regarding the value of the property and no absolute higher or minimum value can be predetermined and it would dependent on prevailing prices in the locality in which the land covered by the (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:47:45 AM) (25 of 40) [CMA-3104/2015] instrument is situated. It would be only on objective satisfaction that the authority has to reach a reasonable belief that the instrument relating to the transfer of property has not been truly set forth or valued when it is presented for registration. The ultimate decision would be with the Collector subject to the decision on an appeal before the District Court as provided under sub- section (4) of Section 47A.
7. From the above it is clear that one cannot claim the compensation for acquisition of land under Land Acquisition Act merely on the basis of the rate assessed by the District Level Committees."
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Jawajee Nagnatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, AP reported in 1994 (9) SCC 595 and in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan Vs. Bipin Kumar & Anr., reported 2004 (2) SC 283, and Lal Chand Vs. Union of India & Anr., reported in (2009) 15 SCC 769 has held that the market value of the land under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be fixed on the basis of the rates mentioned in the basic valuation and the registers can be maintained for the purpose of collection of proper stamp duty only.
Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (supra) has considered all the (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:47:45 AM) (26 of 40) [CMA-3104/2015] earlier judgments on the issue involved in this petition in para 7 to 11 as under:
"7. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court relying upon the Ready Reckoner land prices of the area has enhanced the amount of compensation by 800% from Rs.21/- per sq. ft. to Rs. 174/- per sq. ft. The High Court has heavily relied upon the Government Resolution dated 31.10.1994 as well as the Ready Reckoner prices and the decision of the High Court in the case of Shalini Vaman Godbole (supra). However, when decision of this Court in the case of Jawajee Nagnatham (supra) and Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan (supra), which were binding, on whether while determining the compensation for the lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, the Ready Reckoner prices, which are for determination of the stamp duty can be considered or not, the High Court has not followed the aforesaid decisions of this Court, which were binding on the High Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, High Court has seriously erred in not following the two decisions of this Court in the case of Jawajee Nagnatham (supra) and Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan (supra).
8. Whether the prices mentioned in the Ready Reckoner can be the basis for determining the compensation for the lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act has been dealt with by this Court in the two decisions of this Court in the case of Jawajee (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:47:45 AM) (27 of 40) [CMA-3104/2015] Nagnatham (supra) and Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan (supra). In the case of Jawajee Nagnatham (supra), this Court has observed and held that the amount of compensation for the lands under the Land Acquisition Act is determined by adopting the method of valuation namely, (1) opinion of experts; (2) the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages; and (3) a number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired. It is observed that in determining the market value, the Court has to take into account either one or the other of the three methods to determine market value of the lands appropriate to the facts of a given case to determine the market value. Thereafter, this Court considered whether the Basic Valuation Register would form the foundation to determine the market value. While negating the same and accepting the view taken by the High Court that the entries under the Basic Valuation Register cannot form the basis to enhance the market value, it is observed and held in paragraph 5 as under:-
"5. The question, therefore, is whether the Basic Valuation Register is evidence to determine the market value. This Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer v. T. Adhinarayan Setty [AIR 1959 SC 429] in paragraph 9 held that the function of the Court in awarding compensation under the Act is to ascertain the market value of (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:47:45 AM) (28 of 40) [CMA-3104/2015] the land at the date of the notification under Section 4(1). The methods of valuation may be (1) opinion of experts (2) the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages; and (3) a number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired. Same was the view in Tribeni Devi v. Collector of Ranchi [(1972) 1 SCC 480]. It was reiterated in catena of decisions, vide, Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala [(1991) 4 SCC 195]. Therefore, it is settled law that in determining the market value, the Court has to take into account either one or the other three methods to determine market value of the lands appropriate on the facts of a given case to determine the market value. Generally the second method of valuation is accepted as the best. The question, therefore, is whether the Basic Valuation Register would form foundation to determine the market value. The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 provides the power to prescribe stamp duty on instruments, etc. Entry 44 of List III, Concurrent List, of the VIIth Schedule read with Article 254 of the Constitution empowers the State Legislature to amend the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. In exercise thereof all the State Legislatures including the Legislature of A.P. amended the Act and enacted Section 47-A empowering the registering officer to levy stamp duty on instruments of conveyance, etc., if the (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:47:45 AM) (29 of 40) [CMA-3104/2015] registering officer has reason to believe that the market value of the property, covered by the conveyance, exchange, gift, release of right or settlement, has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may refuse registering such instrument and refer the same to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon. On receipt of such opinion, he may call upon the vendor as per the rules prescribed, to pay the additional duty thereon. If the vendor is dissatisfied, he has been given the right to file an appeal and further getting reference made to the High Court for decision in that behalf. Section 47-A would thus clearly show that the exercise of the power thereunder is with reference to a particular land covered by the instrument brought for registration. When he has reasons to believe it to be undervalued, he should get verified whether the market value was truly reflected in the instrument for the purpose of stamp duty; the Collector on reference could determine the same on the basis of the prevailing market value. Section 47-A conferred no express power to the Government to determine the market value of the lands prevailing in a particular area, village, block, district or the region and to maintain Basic Valuation Register for levy of stamp duty for registration of an instrument, etc. No other statutory provision or rule having statutory force has been brought to our notice in support thereof. Whether an instrument is liable for higher stamp (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:47:45 AM) (30 of 40) [CMA-3104/2015] duty on the basis of valuation maintained in the Basic Valuation Register, came up for consideration in Sagar Cements Ltd. V. State of A.P. [(1989) 3 Andh LT 677] B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J., as he then was, considered the question and held that the Government has unilaterally fixed the valuation of the lands, the Basic Valuation Register had no statutory foundation and therefore it does not bind the parties. Neither the Registrar nor the vendor is bound by it. The market value of the land for proper stamp duty has to be determined as per the law under Section 47-A itself. That view was followed by another learned Single Judge in P. Sasidar v. Sub-Registrar [(1992) 1 Andh LT 49]. It is, therefore, clear that the Basic Valuation Register prepared and maintained for the purpose of collecting stamp duty has no statutory base or force. It cannot form a foundation to determine the market value mentioned thereunder in instrument brought for registration. Equally it would not be a basis to determine the market value under Section 23 of the Act, of the lands acquired in that area or town or the locality or the taluk etc. Evidence of bona fide sales between willing prudent vendor and prudent vendee of the lands acquired or situated near about that land possessing same or similar advantageous features would furnish basis to determine market value. The Division Bench followed, in support of its view a decision of another Division Bench in Land Acquisition Officer v. Venkateswara Prasad [A.S. No. 880 of 1980, (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:47:45 AM) (31 of 40) [CMA-3104/2015] decided on 11-11-1981] which also decided that Basic Valuation Register cannot be relied on to determine the market value. It would appear that in Govt. of A.P. V. Sohan Lal [(1988) 2 Andh LT 306] a Division Bench of that High Court, without noticing these two binding decisions, held that the Basic Valuation Register would form foundation to determine the market value and directed to determine the compensation on that basis. The entire controversy was considered by yet another Division Bench in Vasireddi Bharata Rao v. Revenue Divisional Officer [(1992) 1 Andh LT 591]. The Division Bench, after considering the case law disagreeing with Sohan Lal [(1988) 2 Andh LT 306] view as per incuriam, also reiterated that the Basic Valuation Register maintained by the registering authority has no statutory foundation to determine the market value and cannot form the base under Section 23(1) to determine the market value. This Court in Gulzara Singh v. State of Punjab [(1993) 4 SCC 245] held that mutation entries of the land transactions in the revenue records are not evidence unless the parties to the transactions have been examined in proof of documents. In Director of Survey-cum- LAO v. Mohd. Ghouse [(1985) 1 MLJ 116] relied on by Mr Ganguli, the Division Bench of Madras High Court, relying upon the instructions issued by the Government to determine the market value for the purpose of registration of the instrument under Section 47-A, held that it would form basis to determine the market value under Section 23 in (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:47:45 AM) (32 of 40) [CMA-3104/2015] an appropriate case, subject to proof of the market value. What were the instructions issued by the Government and whether they had any statutory foundation, have not been stated by the Division Bench. If the broad proposition of law that under Section 47-A of Stamp Act such instructions could be issued, as contended for the appellant herein, as appears to be the view of the High Court, it is not correct law. As we have already noted, Section 47-A being local amendment, made by each State Legislature did not find any such statutory basis. Like A.P. Act, Tamil Nadu Act is also referable to transactions intra vivos and not as general guidelines. If they are based on evidence inter partes it would be consistent with Section 47-A. Accordingly we hold that the basic value of registration has no statutory base. It cannot form any basis to determine the market value of the acquired lands under Section 23 of the Act. The burden of proof is always on the claimant to prove, in each case the prevailing market value as on the date of notification published in the State Gazette under Section 4(1) of the Act with reference to the sale deeds of the same lands or neighbour's lands possessed of same or similar advantages and features executed between willing vendor and willing vendee or other relevant evidence in the reference court. The State did not file any appeal against the award of the reference court which itself is a matter gone in favour of the appellant. We do not find any justification to further enhance the market value."(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:47:45 AM)
(33 of 40) [CMA-3104/2015]
9. The aforesaid decision in the case of Jawajee Nagnatham (supra) has been subsequently followed in a subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Lal Chand (supra) and it is observed that the market value of the land under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be fixed on the basis of the rates mentioned in the Basic Valuation Registers' maintained for the purpose of collection of proper stamp duty. In that case, as the Reference Court determined the amount of compensation on the value of the land fixed by the District Magistrate for stamp duty purposes, this court has observed and held that the same was erroneous.
As such, we are in complete agreement with the view taken in the aforesaid two decisions that the prices mentioned in the Ready Reckoner for the purpose of calculation of the stamp duty, which are fixed for the entire area, cannot be the basis for determination of the compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. It is required to be noted that in the present case, the Reference Court did consider the submission on behalf of the claimants to determine the market value on the basis of the Ready Reckoner. The Reference Court specifically refused to accept the same on appreciation of the deposition of PW-3. PW-3, a Government Officer specifically admitted that the Ready Reckoner was prepared for recovery of the proper stamp duty and the registration charges and that the actual rates of transaction of sales in market are different than the rates mentioned in the Ready Reckoner and that correct market prices cannot be reflected from the Ready Reckoner. Even PW-4 also (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:47:45 AM) (34 of 40) [CMA-3104/2015] specifically admitted in his deposition that the Ready Reckoner is prepared only for collecting stamp duty. The Refence court, therefore, rightly relied upon and followed the decisions of this Court in the case of Jawajee Nagnatham (supra) and Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan (supra).
10. Why the prices mentioned in the Ready Reckoner, which is basically for the purpose of collecting proper stamp duty and registration charges shall not be the basis for determination of the compensation for the lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act is required to be considered from another angle also. It cannot be disputed that the rates mentioned in the Ready Reckoner are for the lands of the entire area and the uniform rates are determined with respect to different lands. In the case of Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and Anr., (1988) 3 SCC 751, this Court has laid down the broad principles to be followed in the case of determination of compensation, which are as under:-
"4. The following factors must be etched on the mental screen:
(1) A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award unless the same material is produced and proved before the court.(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:47:45 AM)
(35 of 40) [CMA-3104/2015] (2) So also the award of the Land Acquisition Officer is not to be treated as a judgment of the trial court open or exposed to challenge before the court hearing the reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the material utilised by him for making his valuation cannot be utilised by the court unless produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the court to sit in appeal against the award, approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition Officer, as if it were an appellate court.
(3) The court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it.
(4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the court. Of course the materials placed and proved by the other side can also be taken into account for this purpose.
(5) The market value of land under acquisition has to be determined as on the crucial date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (dates of notifications under Sections 6 and 9 are irrelevant).(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:47:45 AM)
(36 of 40) [CMA-3104/2015] (6) The determination has to be made standing on the date line of valuation (date of publication of notification under Section 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price.
(7) In doing so by the instances method, the court has to correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance, which provides the index of market value.
(8) Only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Sometimes instances are rigged up in anticipation of acquisition of land.) (9) Even post-notification instances can be taken into account (1) if they are very proximate, (2) genuine, and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects.
(10) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations:
(i) proximity from time angle,
(ii) proximity from situation angle.(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:47:45 AM)
(37 of 40) [CMA-3104/2015] (11) Having identified the instances which provide the index of market value, the price reflected therein may be taken as the norm and the market value of the land under acquisition may be deduced by making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-à-vis land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition.
(12) A balance sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do.
(13) The market value of the land under acquisition has thereafter to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it for minus factors. (14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13) has to be undertaken in a common sense manner, as a prudent man of the world of business would do. We may illustrate some such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors:
Plus factors Minus factors
1. smallness of size 1. largeness of area
2. proximity to a road 2. situation in the interior at
a distance from the road
3. frontage on a road 3. narrow strip of land with
very small frontage
compared to depth
4. nearness to developed 4. lower level requiring the area depressed portion to be filled up
5. regular shape 5. remoteness from developed locality
6. level vis-à-vis land 6. some special under acquisition disadvantageous factor which would deter a purchaser
7. special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:47:45 AM) (38 of 40) [CMA-3104/2015] special advantage XXXXXXXXXX"
11. Thus, there may be various factors, which are required to be considered for determining the market value of the land. The market value of the land depends upon the location of the land; area of the land; whether the land is in a developed area or not; whether the acquisition is of a small plot of land or a big chunk of land and number of other advantageous and disadvantageous factors are required to be considered. Therefore, there cannot be the same market value for the different lands while determining the compensation for the lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the rates mentioned in the Ready Reckoner, which are basically for the purpose of collection of stamp duty and as observed hereinabove, which are the uniform rates for all the lands in the area, cannot be the basis for determination of the compensation for the lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the High Court has committed a serious error in enhancing the amount of compensation by 800% from Rs. 21/- per sq. ft. to Rs. 174/- per sq. ft. relying upon and/or considering the rates mentioned in the Ready Reckoner."
Looking to the binding effect of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India in the cases of Jawajee Nagnatham (supra), Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswar (supra), Lal Chand (supra), Ajay Kumar (supra), Savitari Devi (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:47:45 AM) (39 of 40) [CMA-3104/2015] (supra), K.S. Shivadirmma (supra), BSNL vs. M/s. Nemi Chand (supra) and Damodardas (supra), the action of the Reference Court in determination of the amount of compensation only on the basis of DLC rates is found to be erroneous.
From the judgments referred hereinabove, it is clear that one cannot claim compensation for the acquired land under Section 23 of the Act of 1894 merely on the basis of rates assessed by the District Land Committee.
It is worthwhile to mention here that this matter was remanded by this Court to the Reference Court with the specific direction for decision on the matter afresh based on "evidence" with regard to the market price of the acquired land. But no evidence was produced by either side except the unexhibited document pertaining to DLC rates and the Reference Court has decided the matter in favour of the respondent without following the directions of this Court issued at the time of remand and the impugned judgment has been passed without recording any "evidence".
In the result, the impugned judgment dated 23.04.2015 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Alwar is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Reference Court for decision of the matter afresh. The Reference Court shall be free to make the determination of (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:47:45 AM) (40 of 40) [CMA-3104/2015] compensation by taking into consideration all the relevant factors and the evidence which may be appropriate including DLC rates, after giving opportunity of hearing to both the sides.
The parties are directed to appear before the Reference Court on 21.11.2022. It is expected from the Reference Court to decide the reference petition afresh within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties, in accordance with law.
The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Stay application and all pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of.
The Registry is directed to send back the record of the case to the Reference Court forthwith.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Sharma NK/24 (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 11:47:45 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)