Himachal Pradesh High Court
Land Acquisition Co Llector vs Shri Tedhi Singh & Another on 1 September, 2016
Author: Sanjay Karol
Bench: Sanjay Karol
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RFA No. 229 of 2009 alongwith RFA Nos.230 to 272 of 2009.
.
Date of Decision : September 1, 2016.
1. RFA No. 229 of 2009 Land Acquisition Co llector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus Shri Tedhi Singh & another ...Respondents.
2. RFA No. 230 of 2009 of Land Acquisition Co llector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus Shri Jagdish Chand & another ...Respondents.
3. rt RFA No. 231 of 2009 Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus Shri Om Prakash & others ...Respondents.
4. RFA No. 232 of 2009 Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus Smt. Kiran Sood & another ...Respondents.
5. RFA No. 233 of 2009Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus Shri Dola Ram & others ...Respondents.
6. RFA No. 234 of 2009Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus Shri Gurcharan Singh & another ...Respondents.
7. RFA No. 235 of 2009Land Acqu isition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus Shri Tedhi Singh & another ...Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:08:22 :::HCHP 2 8. RFA No. 236 of 2009Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus Smt. Kala Devi & others ...Respondents.
9. RFA No. 237 of 2009.
Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus Shri Budhu alias Budh Ram & another ...Respondents.
10. RFA No. 238 of 2009Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus Shri Krishan Lal & others ...Respondents.
of 11. RFA No. 239 of 2009 Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus
Shri Rajinder Kumar & others
rt ...Respondents.
12. RFA No. 240 of 2009
Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus
Shri Karmu & others ...Respondents.
13. RFA No. 241 of 2009
Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus
Smt. Dugli & others ...Respondents.
14. RFA No. 242 of 2009
Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus
Shri Bhadru & others ...Respondents.
15. RFA No. 243 of 2009
Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus
Shri Mehar Chand alias Mohar Singh & others ...Respondents.
16. RFA No. 244 of 2009Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus Smt. Veena Devi & another ...Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:08:22 :::HCHP 3 17. RFA No. 245 of 2009Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus Shri Des Raj & others ...Respondents.
18. RFA No. 246 of 2009.
Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus Smt. Shairi & others ...Respondents.
19. RFA No. 247 of 2009Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus Shri Gian Chand & others ...Respondents.
of 20. RFA No. 248 of 2009 Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus
Smt. Naina Devi & others
rt ...Respondents.
21. RFA No. 249 of 2009
Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus
Smt. Kishi Devi & others ...R espondents.
22. RFA No. 250 of 2009
Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus
Shri Jagat Singh & others ...Respondents.
23. RFA No. 251 of 2009
Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus
Shri Pari alias Pari Dutt & others ...Respondents.
24. RFA No. 252 of 2009
Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus
Shri Bhadru & others ...Respondents.
25. RFA No. 253 of 2009
Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus
Shri Chuni Lal & others ...Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:08:22 :::HCHP
4
26. RFA No. 254 of 2009
Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus
Shri Tek Singh & others ...Respondents.
27. RFA No. 255 of 2009
.
Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus
Smt. Kala Devi & others ...Respondents.
28. RFA No. 256 of 2009
Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus
Shri Dolu & another ...Respondents.
of
29. RFA No. 257 of 2009
Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus
Shri Dote Ram & others
rt ...Respondents.
30. RFA No. 258 of 2009
Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus
Shri Subja Chand & others ...Respondents.
31. RFA No. 259 of 2009
Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus
Shri Karamu & another ...Respondents.
32. RFA No. 260 of 2009
Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus
Shri Gian Chand & others ...Respondents.
33. RFA No. 261 of 2009
Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus
Shri Man Chand & others ...Respondents.
34. RFA No. 262 of 2009
Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus
Shri Harfe Ram & others ...Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:08:22 :::HCHP
5
35. RFA No. 263 of 2009
Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus
Shri Manohar Lal Sharma & others ...Respondents.
36. RFA No. 264 of 2009
.
Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus
Smt. Nar Kali ...Respondents.
37. RFA No. 265 of 2009
Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus
Shri Sangat Ram & others ...Respondents.
of
38. RFA No. 266 of 2009
Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus
Shri Dile Ram & others
rt ...Respondents.
39. RFA No. 267 of 2009
Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus
Shri Roshan Lal & others ...Respondents.
40. RFA No. 268 of 2009
Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus
Shri Kahan Chand & others ...Respondents.
41. RFA No. 269 of 2009
Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus
Smt. Nimtu Devi & others ...Respondents.
42. RFA No. 270 of 2009
Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus
Shri Kadshi Ram & another ...Respondents.
43. RFA No. 271 of 2009
Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus
Shri Fhate Ram & others ...Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:08:22 :::HCHP
6
44. RFA No. 272 of 2009
Land Acquisition Collector, N.H.P.C. ...Appellant.
Versus
Shri Parveen Kumar & others ...Respondents.
Coram:
.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1Yes.
For the Appellant : Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Sr. Advocate
with Ms.Shreya Chauhan,
Advocate, for the appellant in all the appeals.
of For the Respondents: M/s Sunil Mohan Goel & Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocates, for the private respondent(s) in respective RFAs. rt Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with Mr.R.S. Verma, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent- State in all the appeals.
Sanjay Karol, J (oral).
Primarily issue before this Court is as to whether in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Cement Corpn. of India Ltd. Versus Purya and others, (2004) 8 SCC 270, more specifically paragraphs 25 to 31 of the said report trial Court was right in not considering the sale deeds (Ex.R1, Ex.R3, Ex.R5, Ex.R7, Ex.R9, Ex.R11, Ex.R13, Ex.R15 & Ex.R17) tendered in evidence by the beneficiar y/appellant herein on ly on account of non examination of the vendor(s) and vendee(s).
1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:08:22 :::HCHP 72. Also legality of the award in redetermining the market value of the acquired land varying from `7,772/-
to `2,46,000/- per bigha to `3,56,000/- per bigha .
(`17,800/- per biswa) with respect to the acquired land in Phatti: Raila, Suchain and Manyashi, falling within the jurisdiction of Collector, Kullu, is subject matter of consideration.
of
3. For the public purpose, namely, construction of Parvati Hydro Electric Project, land situate in Phati Raila, Suchain and Manyashi, came to be acquired with rt the publication of the notification in the official dated 22.03.2003, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Collector Land Acquisition in terms of his award No. 19, dated 06.01.2005, so passed under Section 11 of the Act, determined the market value of the acquired land category wise as under :-
Sr.No. Name of Phati Classification Market price of land per bigha (Rs.) I. Raila
1. Bathal Awwal 93,088.00
2. Bathal Dom 69,816.00
3. Bathal Som 46,544.00
4. Bathal 34,908.00 Chaharm ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:08:22 :::HCHP 8 II. Suchain
1. Ropa 1,51,554.00
2. Bathal Awwal 1,16,580.00 .
3. Bathal Dom 97,150.00
4. Bathal Som 73,834.00
5. Bathal 23,316.00 Chaharm
6. Bagicha 1,16,580.00
7. Banjar Kadeem 7,772.00 III. Manyasi of
1. Ropa Awwal 2,46,000.00
2. Ropa Dom 2,16,480.00
3. Ropa Som 1,72,200.00
4. rt Bathal Awwal, 1,52,520.00 Bagicha Bathal
5. Bathal Dom 1,47,600.00
6. Bathal Som 1,08,240.00
7. Bathal 68,880.00 Chaharm
8. Banjar Kadeem 9,840.00
4. It is a matter of record that various land owners laid challenge to the award by filing separate land reference petitions under Section 18 of the Act, which came to be clubbed together by the Court below.
It is also a matter of record that subsequent to the consolidation of these petitions, Reference Petition No.58/2007, titled as Sh. Tedhi Singh Versus Collector Land Acquisition and another, was taken as a lead case, wherein as mutually agreed, parties led their evidence.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:08:22 :::HCHP 95. Market value stands redetermined by the Court below by returning the following findings: (a) In the absence of the vendor and the vendee having proved the .
sale transactions sale deeds (Ex.R1, Ex.R3, Ex.R5, Ex.R7, Ex.R9, Ex.R11, Ex.R13, Ex.R15 & Ex.R17) tendered in evidence by the beneficiary could not be taken into consideration; (b) sale deeds (Ex.P1, Ex.P3 & Ex.P5) of proved on record by the claimants established the average market value of one biswa of land to be `44,500/- (`8,90,000/- per bigha), over which, deduction rt to the extent of 65% was required to be allowed in view of the exemplar sale deeds being of small chunk of land;
(c) In the award dated 29.09.2007, titled as Bhagwan Dass Versus Collector, Land Acquisition & others (Ex.P10), passed by the District Judge, pertaining to the very same acquisition proceedings, market value already stands redetermined at much higher rate.
6. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Cement Corpn. of India (supra) has observed as under:-
"26. In the acquisition proceedings, sale deeds are required to be brought on record for the purpose of determining market value payable to the owner of the land when it is sought to be acquired.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:08:22 :::HCHP 10
27. Although by reason of the aforementioned provision the parties are free to produce original documents and prove the same in accordance with the terms of the rules of evidence as .
envisaged under the Indian Evidence Act, the LA Act provides for an alternative thereto by inserting the said provision in terms whereof the certified copies which are otherwise secondary evidence may be brought on record evidencing a transaction. Such transactions in terms of the of aforementioned provision may be accepted in evidence. Acceptance of an evidence is not a term of art. It has an etymological meaning. It envisages rt exercise of judicial mind to the materials on record. Acceptance of evidence by a court would be dependent upon the facts of the case and other relevant factors. A piece of evidence in a given situation may be accepted by a court of law but in another it may not be.
28. Section 51-A of the LA Act may be read literally and having regard to the ordinary meaning which can be attributed to the term "acceptance of evidence" relating to transaction evidenced by a sale deed, its admissibility in evidence would be beyond any question. We are not oblivious of the fact that only by bringing a documentary evidence in the record it is not automatically brought on the record. For bringing a documentary evidence on the record, the same must not only be admissible but the contents thereof must be proved in accordance with law. But when the statute enables a court to accept a ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:08:22 :::HCHP 11 sale deed on the records evidencing a transaction, nothing further is required to be done. The admissibility of a certified copy of sale deed by itself could not be held to be inadmissible as .
thereby a secondary evidence has been brought on record without proving the absence of primary evidence. Even the vendor or vendee thereof is not required to examine themselves for proving the contents thereof. This, however, would not mean that the contents of the transaction as of evidenced by the registered sale deed would automatically be accepted. The legislature advisedly has used the word "may". A discretion, therefore, has been conferred upon a court to be rt exercised judicially i.e. upon taking into consideration the relevant factors .
29. In Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer V. Narasaiah, (2001) 3 SCC 530, this Court correctly understood the said scope and object of insertion of Section 51-A in the LA Act when it held thus: (SCC p. 535, para 13) "It was in the wake of the aforesaid practical difficulties that the new Section 51 -A was introduced in the LA Act. When the section says that certified copy of a registered document 'may be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document' it enables the court to treat what is recorded in the document, in respect of the transactions referred to therein, as evidence."
... ... ...
... ... ...
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:08:22 :::HCHP
12
31. Thus, the reasoning of this Court in
Narasaiah's case that Section 51-A enables the party producing the certified copy of a sale transaction to rely on the contents of the .
document without having to examine the vendee or the vendor of that document is the correct position in law. This finding in Narasaiah's case (supra) is also supported by the decision of this Court in the case of Mangaldas Raghavji Ruparel (supra).
of
32. Therefore, we have no hesitation in accepting this view of the Court in the Narasaiah's case as the correct view.
33. rt The submission of Mr. G. Chandrasekhar to the effect that the contents of a sale deed should be a conclusive proof as regard the transaction contained therein or the Court must raise a mandatory presumption in relation thereto in terms of Section 51-A of the Act cannot be accepted as the Court may or may not receive a certified copy of sale deed in evidence. It is discretionary in nature. Only because a document is admissible in evidence, as would appear from the discussions made hereinbefore, the same by itself would not mean that the contents thereof stand proved. Secondly, having regard to the other materials brought on record, the Court may not accept the evidence contained in a deed of sale. When materials are brought on record by the parties to the lis, the Court is entitled to appreciate the evidence brought on records for determining the issues raised before it and in the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:08:22 :::HCHP 13 said process, may accept one piece of evidence and reject the other.
... ... ...
35. A registered document in terms of Section .
51-A of the Act may carry therewith a presumption of genuineness. Such a presumption, therefore, is rebuttable. Raising a presumption, therefore, does not amount to proof; it only shifts the burden of proof against whom the presumption operates for disproving it. Only if the presumption is not of rebutted by discharging the burden, the Court may act on the basis of such presumption. Even when in terms of the Evidence Act, a provision has rtbeen made that the Court shall presume a fact, the same by itself would not be irrebuttable or conclusive. The genuineness of a transaction can always fall for adjudication, if any, question is raised in this behalf."
(Emphasis supplied)
7. The trial Court thus erred in outrightly rejecting the exemplar sale deeds produced by the beneficiary.
8. However, in para-40 of the report itself the Apex Court clarified that comparative nature of the location, suitability or marketability of the exemplar sale deed was necessarily required to be proved by the proponent.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:08:22 :::HCHP 149. Now in the instant case, only one witness was examined by the beneficiary and that being Bishan Kashyap (RW.1), a Clerk from the office of Sub-Registrar, .
Sainj, who only proved execution of these exemplar sale deeds. He is not even a witness to such transactions or is aware of the parties; area; nature or category of land.
No sale transaction ever took place in his presence. He is of also not a local resident of the area. Hence, exemplar sale deeds (Ex.R1, Ex.R3, Ex.R5, Ex.R7, Ex.R9, Ex.R11, Ex.R13, Ex.R15 & Ex.R17) cannot be looked into for the rt purposes of adjudicating the respective rights and contentions of the parties in the determination of a fair market value. More so in the teeth of evidence of rebuttal led by the claimants. In the passing reference, it may only be observed that even in terms of the said sale transactions, land stood sold in different Phatis ranging `5,000/- to `73,500/- per bigha. These sale transactions pertain to the period December, 2001 up to August, 2002. None from the office of the Land Acquisition Collector was produced by the beneficiary. Even no revenue officer was examined to establish the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:08:22 :::HCHP 15 comparability of the acquired land with the exemplar sale land.
10. However, it is a settled principle of law that a .
petition under Section 18 of the Act is to be treated as a plaint and the onus to establish the true and correct market value of the acquired land is always upon the claimants.
of
11. The claimants are expected to lead cogent and proper evidence in support of their claim. Onus primarily is on the claimants, which they can discharge rt while placing and proving on record sale instances and/or such other evidences as they deem proper, keeping in mind the method of computation for awarding of compensation which they rely upon. However, it cannot be said that there is no onus whatsoever upon the State in such reference proceedings. The court cannot lose sight of the fact that obligation to pay fair compensation is on the State in its absolute terms. Every case has to be examined on its own facts and the courts are expected to scrutinise the evidence led by the parties in such proceedings. (See: Special Land Acquisition Officer Versus Karigowda and others, (2010) 5 SCC 708).
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:08:22 :::HCHP 1612. Now in the instant case, one finds that the claimants have proved on record three exemplar s ale deeds. Sale deed (Ex.P1), dated 19.04.1994, pertain ing .
to sale of 1 biswa of land situate in Phati Raila, for a sum of `40,000/-, stands proved on record by vendor Prittam (PW.1); sale deed (Ex.P3), dated 29.11.2002, pertain ing to sale of 2 biswas of land situate in Phati Suchain , for a of sum of `66,000/- (`33,000/- per biswa), stands proved by Bale Ram (PW.2); and sale deed (Ex.P5), dated 02.01.2003, pertaining to sale of 2 biswas of land situate rt in Phati Manyashi, for a sum of `1,21,000/- (`60,500/- per biswa) , stands proved by Gian Chand (PW.3).
13. Significantly, all the aforesaid witnesses (vendors/vendees) have uncontrovertedly deposed that the acquired land is just adjacent to the exemplar land, having similar potentiality with regard to the use, nature and similarity of classification and value. On this issue, beneficiary did not cross-examine these witnesses. It is a matter of record that not only these sale transaction were accepted to be genuine by the authorities, but also parties acted thereupon, and entries of mutation effected ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:08:22 :::HCHP 17 by the revenue authorities, which fact stands proved on record by Bale Ram (PW.2) and Bhagat Ram (PW.4).
14. From the testimony of claimant Maan Chand .
(PW.6), it is also evident that even he has been able to establish the market value determined by the Collector to be miserably low and the true and correct market value to be the one as depicted in the exemplar sale of deeds. Noticeably, acquisition proceedings commenced in March, 2003 and sale transactions (Ex.P3 and Ex.P5) are more proximate to that time. In fact, it is evident rt that since the year, 1994, when sale transaction (Ex.P1) came to be executed, there has been increase in the market value. From `40,000/-, cost of the land has arisen to `60,000/- per biswa. Significantly, it could not be pointed out by the beneficiary that these sale transactions were sham or executed only in anticipation of the project coming in the near future. Thus, there is no difficulty in accepting these exemplar sale deeds in determining the market value of the acquired land.
15. It is urged on behalf of the beneficiary that system of belting ought to be adopted as the exemplar sale transactions pertain to small pieces of land, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:08:22 :::HCHP 18 whereas, acquisition proceedings pertains to large chunk of land (approximately 109-12-08 bighas ). Reliance is sought on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in .
Land Acquisition Officer & Sub-Collector Gadwal Versus Shreelatha Bhoopal (Smt.) & another, (1997) 9 SCC 628 and Bhule Ram Versus Union of India and another, (2014) 11 SCC 307.
of
16. The aforesaid decisions clearly do not lay down the principle, as is sought to be argued before this Court. It is not the mandate of law, that sale transactions rt pertain ed to small chunk of land cannot not be considered at all.
17. The market value of a property for the purposes of Section 23 of the Act is the price at 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 bona fide transactions of sale at or about the time of the preliminary notification are the usual and, indeed the best evidences of market value.
{Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai (Deceased) through his Heirs and LRs. and Others v. State of Gujarat (1989) 4 SCC ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:08:22 :::HCHP 19 250, Nelson Fernandes & Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa & Ors . (2007) 9 SCC 447}.
18. Now it is a settled principle of law that if the .
entire land is put for a public use and no area is left out for carrying out any developmental activity, then the claimants are entitled for compensation for the entire acquired land, at uniform rates, regardless of its of categorization.
19. The apex Court in Haridwar Development Authority vs. Raghubir Singh & others, (2010) 11 SCC 581 rt has upheld the award of compensation on uniform rates.
20. In Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh and others 2005(12) SCC 564, while determining the compensation for acquisition of land pertaining to five different villages, the apex Court uniformly awarded a sum of ` 40,000/- per acre, irrespective of the classification and the category of land.
21. Further, in Nelson Fernades vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer 2007(9) SCC 447 while dealing with the case where the land was acquired for laying a Railway line, the Court held that no deduction by way of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:08:22 :::HCHP 20 development charges was permissible as there was no question of any development thereof.
22. Similar view stands taken by this Court in .
Gulabi and etc. Vs. State of H.P., AIR 1998 HP 9 and later on in H.P. Housing oard vs. Ram Lal & Ors. 2003(3) Shim.
L.C. 64, which judgment has attained finality as SLP (Civil) No. 15674 -15675 of 2004 titled as Himachal of Pradesh Housing Board vs. Ram Lal (D) by LRs & Others, filed by the H.P. Housing Board came to be dismissed by the Apex Court on 16.8.2004.
rt
23. This judgment was subsequently referred to and relied upon by this Court in Executive Engineer & Anr. vs . Dilla Ram {Latest HLJ 2008 HP 1007} and relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Harinder Pal Singh (supra) , wherein the market value of the land under acquisition situated in five different villages was assessed uniformly, irrespective of its nature and quality, also awarded compensation on uniform rates.
24. It is a matter of fact that the entire land was put to public purpose. Power project stood constructed thereupon. It was used for only one purpose and as such ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:08:22 :::HCHP 21 there cannot be any error in the uniform determination of the market value of the acquired land.
25. Now what is that real market value of the .
acquired land, the Apex Court has clearly held it to be that which a willing vendor and willing vendee are ready to receive and pay.
26. The market value is the price that a willing of purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities when rt led out in most advantageous manner, excluding any advantage due to carrying out of the scheme for which the property is compulsorily acquired. In considering market value disinc lination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy should be disregarded. The question whether a land has potential value or not, is primarily one of fact depending upon its condition, situation, user to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put and proximity to residential, commercial or industrial areas or institutions.
The existing amenities like, water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, whether near about Town is ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:08:22 :::HCHP 22 developing or has prospect of development have to be taken into consideration. (Atma Singh and others v. State of Haryana and another (2008) 2 SCC 568).
.
27. In Union of India v. Pramod Gupta (Dead) by LRs. & Ors . [(2005) 12 SCC 1], the Apex Court held that the best method, as is well-known, would be the amount which a willing purchaser would pay to the owner of the of land. In absence of any direct evidence, the court, however, may take recourse to various other known methods. Evidence admissible therefor inter alia would rt be judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisitions of lands made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages. Such a judgment and award in the absence of any other evidence like deed of sale, report of the expert and other relevant evidence would have only evidentiary value.
28. In Suresh Kumar v. Town Improvement Trust, Bhopal [(1989) 2 SCC 329], the Apex Court has held that while determining the market value of the land acquired, it has to be correctly determined and paid so that there is neither unjust enrichment on the part of the acquirer nor undue deprivation on the part of the owner.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:08:22 :::HCHP 2329. Now in the instant case, the geographical location and situation of the land; existing use of the land; its potentiality and comparability stands .
established on record. The entire acquired land even though being a large chunk could be put to agricultural use. Trial Court, was right in applying deduction to the extent of 60%. (See: Bhagwathula Samanna and others of Versus Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality, Visakhapatnam, (1991) 4 SCC 506. rt
30. Significantly, exemplar award (Ex.P10) pertaining to the land situate in Dhaugi, can be compared with the acquired land with respect to its location, quality and potentiality. In terms of the said award, entire land stands re-determined @ `4,00,000/-
per bigha (`20,000/- per biswa) and can be relied upon in view of Pramod Gupta (supra).
31. Entire land stands utilized by the beneficiary for the acquired purpose. It has not come on record that any developmental activity was required to be carried out by the beneficiary. In fact, the entire land stands utilized for the construction of the power project. As ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:08:22 :::HCHP 24 such, trial Court rightly re-determined the market value of the acquired land @ `17,800/- per biswa (`3,56,000/-
per bigha) irrespective of its category and classification.
.
32. Hence in the given facts and circumstances, no interference is warranted. It cannot be said that all the findings returned by the Courts below are perverse, illegal or erroneous. As such, present appeals stand of disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.
33. Efforts put in by Ms.Shreya Chauhan, learned counsel, in rendering valuable assistance to this Court, rt are highly appreciable.
(Sanjay Karol), Judge.
September 1, 2016 (Purohit) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:08:22 :::HCHP