Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
R.S.I.D.& I.Corp.Ltd vs Devi Lal & Ors on 20 July, 2011
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 395/2010
RIICO Ltd. vs.Devi Lal & Anr.
& Other 62 connected appeals
Judgment dt:20th July, 2011
1/27
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
JUDGMENT
RIICO Ltd. vs. Devi Lal & Anr.
S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 395/2010
& other 62 connected appeals (see schedule)
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 20th July, 2011
PRESENT
HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
REPORTABLE
Mr.Raj Kumar Mehta, ]
Mr.Ravi Bhansali, ]
Mr.Dilip Rajvi, ] for the appellant RIICO
Mr.Sanjeet Purohit, ]
Dr.Sachin Acharya, ]
Mr.Ramesh Purohit, ] for the respondent claimants.
Mr.Sanjay Nahar, ]
Mr.Sandeep Saruparia, ]
BY THE COURT:
1. These appeals have been filed by Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. (for short RIICO) S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 395/2010 RIICO Ltd. vs.Devi Lal & Anr.
& Other 62 connected appeals Judgment dt:20th July, 2011 2/27 under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 being aggrieved by the order passed by learned District Judge, Bhilwara on a reference application under Section 18 of the Act, whereby, the learned District Judge enhanced the compensation for the land acquired compulsorily under the provisions of the Act of 1894 from the respondent land holders by the State Government for developing growth centre or Industrial area by the appellant RIICO.
2. The facts illustratively are taken from two appeals.
(i) Facts of Civil Misc. Appeal No. 395/2010 - RIICO Vs. Devi Lal & Anr.
By notification dated 23/11/1995 issued under Section 4 of the Act, the land measuring 886 bighas 7 biswas of land was sought to be acquired in village Billia Kalan, Guvardi and Swaroopganj, Tehsil Bhilwara for developing growth centre, Hameergarh for industrial development of said industrial city of Bhilwara known as Textile City in the country. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 28/12/1996 and award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer (SDO, Bhilwara) on 4/4/1998. The compensation S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 395/2010 RIICO Ltd. vs.Devi Lal & Anr.
& Other 62 connected appeals Judgment dt:20th July, 2011 3/27 of the land in question was determined for these three villages on the basis of rates determined by District Level Committee and communicated to the Land Acquisition Officer vide communication dated 31/1/1997, which in a tabular form is as under:-
भ लव ड च त ड म र स च त अस च त
गम आब द / / डक आब द / / डक
डक क डक प दर प दर
प 200 म .
दर
बबसलय
कल 180000 150000 42000 35000 30000 25000
रव
! रड 180000 130000 18000 16000 10000 8000
सवरपरज - - 13000 10000 9000 6000
Being aggrieved, the land holders applied for reference under Section 18 of the Act, which in the present case was made on 14/5/1998. Certain sale deeds were produced by the claimants - land holders to support the claim at the rate of Rs. 3 lacs per bigha. Under Ex-1-A sale deed dated 27/11/95, 06 biswas of agriculture land was sold by one Kamla Devi to Kishan Lal Nai and the Sub-Registrar, Hameergarh determined the additional stamp duty of Rs. 4530/-
taking the rate of land at Rs.1,51,000/- per bigha. Ex.2 - sale deed dated 21/3/95 was produced under which one Nanda, Bheru and S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 395/2010 RIICO Ltd. vs.Devi Lal & Anr.
& Other 62 connected appeals Judgment dt:20th July, 2011 4/27 Gopal s/o Mangu Gurjar sold 02 bighas and 16 biswas of land to one Swastica Poly Fab Pvt Ltd., Bhilwara for Rs.1,90,000/-, but the Sub-
Registrar, Bhilwara determined the stamp duty of Rs. 36,400/- on the valuation of Rs.3,64,000/-. Under Ex.3 sale deed dated 17/1/96, one Bhura Ram & ors. sold 03 bighas 10 biswas of agriculture land to Ladda Construction Company for Rs.2,10,000/- but the Sub-
Registrar, Bhilwara taking the value of land to be Rs.1,50,000/- per bigha determined the stamp duty of Rs.52,500/-. Similarly, under Ex.4-lease deed dated 21/3/96, the State Government is said to have executed lease deed in favour of M/s Sangam Spinners, Bhilwara in village Billia Kalan of 05 biswas of land @ Rs.2 lacs per bigha and lease rent of the said land was determined at Rs. 50,000/- accordingly per year. The claimants, therefore, stated before the Reference Court that these sale transactions were of nearby places and the land acquired of the claimants was on the Ajmer - Chittorgarh State Highway, which was near to Bhilwara City and since land of Swaroopganj and Billia Kalan were contiguous, therefore, compensation should be determined at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- per bigha. The said claim was contested by RIICO as well as State Government before the learned Reference Court. The Reference S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 395/2010 RIICO Ltd. vs.Devi Lal & Anr.
& Other 62 connected appeals Judgment dt:20th July, 2011 5/27 Court of learned District Judge, Bhilwara (Shri H.R.Poonia, RHJS) by the impugned order under Section 8 of the Act dated 10/11/2009 enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per bigha for the land in question and besides that interest and solatium were awarded as per provisions of the Act and passed the impugned order on 10/11/2009.
(ii) Facts of Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1049/2010 - RIICO Vs. State & Ors.
For the same notification under Section 4 of the Act issued on 23/11/1995 for the acquisition of land in another village Billia Khurd, award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 4/4/1998 as per rates supplied by District Level Committee, which was much higher than the rates given for other villages like Swaroopganj, Guvardi and Billia Kalan. As against the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per bigha and Rs.
6,000/- per bigha for irrigated and un-irrigated land respectively in village Swaroopganj, Rs.35,000/- per bigha and Rs. 25,000/- per bigha for irrigated and un-irrigated land respectively for Billia Kalan, the rates for village Billia Khurd was Rs.1,10,000/- per bigha for S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 395/2010 RIICO Ltd. vs.Devi Lal & Anr.
& Other 62 connected appeals Judgment dt:20th July, 2011 6/27 irrigated land and Rs. 60,000/- per bigha for un-irrigated land. The reason for this difference was that Bhilwara-Udaipur National Highway was near to the said village Billia Khurd. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation as per the DLC rates, the claimant, however, claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,00,000/-
per bigha and supported their claims with the help of certain sale deeds produced by them. Ex.1 is the sale deed dated 2/11/92 by one Arjun Lal in favour of Shanti Devi & others under which 01 bigha and 10 biswas of `chahi land' was sold at Rs.45,000/- per bigha. In Ex.2 Sale deed dated 11/10/93, one Vimla Devi sold 04 biswas of land in favour of Manmal for Rs.25,000/-. Ex.3 is the sale deed dated 4/3/95 by one Suresh Kumar in favour of Mool Chand, whereby, 09 biswas of land was sold at Rs. 15,000/-. Under Ex.4 Sale deed dated 2/11/92, one Arjun Lal and Brijmohan sold 04 bighas and 02 biswas of land to Synthetic Weaving Mill Association, Bhilwara, which land also included a constructed well for Rs.15,000/-. As against the claim of Rs. 3 lacs per bigha, the learned Reference Court of learned District Judge, Bhilwara (Shri Devendra Kachwaha, RHJS) by the impugned order passed on different dates and in the present case on 6/7/2010 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 395/2010 RIICO Ltd. vs.Devi Lal & Anr.
& Other 62 connected appeals Judgment dt:20th July, 2011 7/27 bigha for the said village Billia Khurd and also determined compensation for trees @ Rs.1000/- per tree.
3. Both the Reference Courts, in the impugned orders also held against the appellant RIICO that merely acceptance of the claim awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer without protest would not disentitle the land holders for making reference application under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement of the compensation.
Interest and solatium were separately awarded by the Reference Courts in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
4. Being aggrieved by these reference orders, this batch of appeals have been filed by the appellant RIICO before this Court under Section 54 of the Act.
5. The principal contentions raised by learned counsels appearing for the RIICO, Mr.Ravi Bhansali, Mr. Dilip Rajvi, Mr. Sanjeev Purohit and Mr. R.K.Mehta are as under:
(i) that having accepted the compensation without demur or S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 395/2010 RIICO Ltd. vs.Devi Lal & Anr.
& Other 62 connected appeals Judgment dt:20th July, 2011 8/27 protest the land holders were not justified in claiming enhancement of compensation before the Reference court.
(ii) that the market value was rightly determined as per the DLC rates and, therefore, should not be enhanced on the basis of sale deeds, which were neither of the same area nor of the contemporary period and, therefore, could not furnish valid basis for enhancement of compensation and in some cases rates disclosed were even lesser than the rates as determined by the Reference Court.
(iii) that the market value has to be determined under Section 23 of the Act as on the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Act, which in the present case is 23/11/1995 and, therefore, the transactions after such date and sale value disclosed therein cannot be taken into account.
6. Learned counsels for the appellant RIICO relied upon the following judgments in support of their contentions:-
(i) A.Natesam Pillai vs. Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Tiruchy - (2010) 9 SCC 118.
S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 395/2010 RIICO Ltd. vs.Devi Lal & Anr.
& Other 62 connected appeals Judgment dt:20th July, 2011 9/27
(ii) Mohd. Raofuddin vs. Land Acquisition Officer - (2009) 14 SCC 367.
(iii) Viluben Jhalejar Contractor vs. State of Gujarat - (2005) 4 SCC 789
(iv) Printers House Pvt. Ltd vs. Mst Saiyadan & ors. - (1994) 2 SCC 133
(v) L.A.C. & ors. vs. Kishan Singh & Ors. - AIR 2006 Himacha Pradesh 1.
(vi) Jai Prakash & Ors. vs. Union of India - AIR 1997 SC 2237
(vii) Mrinalini Roy Ratna Prova Mondal & ors vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. - ARI 1997 SC 2244
(viii) Andhra Pradesh Housing Board vs. K.Manohjar Reddy & Ors. - (2010) 12 SCC 707
(ix) Prithvi Raj Taneja vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
- AIR 1977 SC 1560
(x) Jai Prakash & Ors. vs. Union of India - (1997) 9 SCC 510
(xi) Special Tehsildar Land Acquisition, Vishakapatnam vs. A. Mangala Gowri - (1991) 4 SCC 218
(xii) Periyar & Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. vs. State of Kerala
- (1991) 4 SCC 195
(xiii) Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karigowda & ors. - (2010) 5 SCC 708
(xiv) Rajashekar Sankappa Taradandi Ors. vs. Asstt. Commissioner & Land Acquisition Officer & Ors. - (1996) 9 SCC 642 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 395/2010 RIICO Ltd. vs.Devi Lal & Anr.
& Other 62 connected appeals Judgment dt:20th July, 2011 10/27
(xv) Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) & anr. Vs Shah Manilal Chandulal & ors. - (1996) 9 SCC 414 (xvi) State of Karnataka vs. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar & ors. - AIR 2005 SC 2204 (xvii) Nadirsha Shapurji Patel & Ors. Deputy Collector & Land Acquisition Officer & anr.- (2010) 13 SCC 234 (xviii) Ashwani Kumar Dhingra vs. State of Punjab - (1992) 2 SCC 592 (xix) Chaturbhuja Modi & ors vs. State of Orrisa & anr. - (2010) 12 SCC 234 (xx) Haridwar Development Authority vs. Raghubir Singh & Ors. - (2010) 11 SCC 581 (xxi) Land Acquisition Officer (Revenue Divisional Officer), Nalgonda vs. Morisetty Satyanarayana & ors. - (2002) 10 SCC 570
7. On the other hand, learned counsels Dr.Sachin Acharya, Mr. Ramesh Purohit, Mr. Sanjay Nahar appearing for the respondent claimants vehemently supported the impugned reference orders and submitted that the learned Reference Court was perfectly justified in enhancing the rate of compensation and the DLC Rates cannot be said to be authentic and reliable basis for determining the real market value & amount of compensation. They submitted that the source of livelihood of the land holders was snatched under the said S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 395/2010 RIICO Ltd. vs.Devi Lal & Anr.
& Other 62 connected appeals Judgment dt:20th July, 2011 11/27 compulsory acquisition permanently for industrial development and relying upon the recent decisions of Apex Court urged that the adequate compensation has not been awarded. They also assailed the validity of the award on the ground that the land owners were not even given reasonable opportunity for establishing their claims of compensation. Learned counsels also submitted that the sale deeds are of bonafide and genuine transactions and they are not only of the land in the same vicinity but sale deeds are of contemporary period around the date of Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, therefore, rates substantively lesser than the rates in such sale deeds awarded by the Reference Court cannot be said to be high or illegal in any manner. Learned counsels for the respondent claimants relied upon the following judgments in support of their submissions:
(i) Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs. State of Maharashtra - 2009 AIR SCW 2962.
(ii) Ajit Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. - 1994 AIR SCW 2459
(iii) Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer vs. Narasaiah - AIR 2001 SC 1117
(iv) State of Haryana vs. Ram Singh - AIR 2001 SC 2532
(v) RIICO Vs. Smt. Suman Setiya & anr - SBCMA No. 37/95 decided on 9/2/2010 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 395/2010 RIICO Ltd. vs.Devi Lal & Anr.
& Other 62 connected appeals Judgment dt:20th July, 2011 12/27
(vi) M/s Steel Authority of India ltd. vs. S.U.T.N.I.Sangam & Ors. - 2009 AIR SCW 5676.
(vii) Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority vs. Devendra Kumar & ors. Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 16366/2011 - decided on 6/7/2011.
8. I have heard the learned counsels at length and perused the record including the impugned award dated 4/4/1998 and reference orders passed by learned District Judge, Bhilwara and case laws cited at the bar.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent decision of 6th July, 2011 quashing the land acquisition by Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority in a landmark decision came down heavily on the said Authority. While dismissing the Special Leave Petitions against the judgment of Allahabad High Court & quashing the entire acquisition as a colorable exercise of power under the 1894 Act and some of the observations from the said recent decision are worth quoting, which will throw light on the spirit and tenor in which the compensation should be awarded to the poor land holders, whose S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 395/2010 RIICO Ltd. vs.Devi Lal & Anr.
& Other 62 connected appeals Judgment dt:20th July, 2011 13/27 source of livelihood is permanently taken away by the State Government in compulsory acquisition under the Act of 1894:
" Before concluding, we consider it necessary to reiterate that the acquisition of land is a serious matter and before initiating the proceedings under the 1894 Act and other similar legislations, the concerned Government must seriously ponder over the consequences of depriving the tenure holder of his property. It must be remembered that the land is just like mother of the people living in the rural areas of the country. It is the only source of sustenance and livelihood for the landowner and his family. If the land is acquired, not only the present but the future generations of the landowner are deprived of their livelihood and the only social security. They are made landless and are forced to live in slums in the urban areas because there is no mechanism for ensuring alternative source of livelihood to them. Mindless acquisition of fertile and cultivable land may also lead to serious food crisis in the country.
In the result, the special leave petitions are dismissed.
S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 395/2010 RIICO Ltd. vs.Devi Lal & Anr.
& Other 62 connected appeals Judgment dt:20th July, 2011 14/27 The Greater Noida Development Authority is saddled with cost of Rs.10 lakhs for undertaking an exercise of allotment of land to the builders in complete violation of the purpose for which the land was sought to be acquired and even before approval by the State Government for the change of land use. The amount of cost shall be deposited in the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within a period of three months from today."
10. While holding it to be colorable exercise of powers, the Hon'ble Supreme Court relying upon the earlier decision of Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Gurdial Singh - 1980 (2) SCC 471 and quoted the following from the said judgment while quashing the acquisition on the ground of malafide exercise of powers:
" This was nothing but a colourable exercise of power by the State Government under the 1894 Act and in our considered view, the High Court did not commit any error by recording a conclusion to that effect. In this context, it will be useful to notice the observations made in State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh (1980) 2 SCC 471. In that case, while pronouncing upon the correctness of the order passed by the Punjab S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 395/2010 RIICO Ltd. vs.Devi Lal & Anr.
& Other 62 connected appeals Judgment dt:20th July, 2011 15/27 and Haryana High Court which had quashed the acquisition of the respondents' land on the ground of malafide exercise of power, this Court observed:
"Legal malice is gibberish unless juristic clarity keeps it separate from the popular concept of personal vice. Pithily put, bad faith which invalidates the exercise of power -- sometimes called colourable exercise or fraud on power and oftentimes overlaps motives, passions and satisfactions -- is the attainment of ends beyond the sanctioned purposes of power by simulation or pretension of gaining a legitimate goal. If the use of the power is for the fulfilment of a legitimate object the actuation or catalysation by malice is not legicidal. The action is bad where the true object is to reach an end different from the one for which the power is entrusted, goaded by extraneous considerations, good or bad, but irrelevant to the entrustment. When the custodian of S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 395/2010 RIICO Ltd. vs.Devi Lal & Anr.
& Other 62 connected appeals Judgment dt:20th July, 2011 16/27 power is influenced in its exercise by considerations outside those for promotion of which the power is vested the court calls it a colourable exercise and is undeceived by illusion. In a broad, blurred sense, Benjamin Disraeli was not off the mark even in law when he stated: "I repeat . . . that all power is a trust -- that we are accountable for its exercise -- that, from the people, and for the people, all springs, and all must exist".Fraud on power voids the order if it is not exercised bona fide for the end designed. Fraud in this context is not equal to moral turpitude and embraces all cases in which the action impugned is to effect some object which is beyond the purpose and intent of the power, whether this be malice- laden or even benign. If the purpose is corrupt the resultant act is bad. If considerations, foreign to the scope of the power or extraneous to the statute, enter the verdict or impel the action, mala fides or fraud S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 395/2010 RIICO Ltd. vs.Devi Lal & Anr.
& Other 62 connected appeals Judgment dt:20th July, 2011 17/27 on power vitiates the acquisition or other official act."
11. While in the present appeals before this Court, the acquisition itself is not under challenge but the aforesaid judgment certainly throws light upon the spirit in which the compensation in such cases is required to be determined compassionately and sympathetically and one need not be literally led by mathematical precision on the basis of evidence brought before the Reference Court alone.
12. The ground of challenge raised by the appellant RIICO in the present cases that the compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Officer having been accepted by the respondent claimants without demur and, therefore, they could not claim enhancement is neither factually correct nor legally sustainable. A perusal of the record, which was summoned by this Court indicates that almost all the land holders withdrew such compensation deposited by the appellant RIICO in pursuance of award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer under protest.
S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 395/2010 RIICO Ltd. vs.Devi Lal & Anr.
& Other 62 connected appeals Judgment dt:20th July, 2011 18/27
13. Even if few of them might not have raised specific protest against the amount of compensation that does not debar them or stop them from claiming such enhancement of compensation.
Section 28-A of the Act, which provides for redetermination of amount of compensation on the basis of award of the Court clearly stipulates that where in an award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-
determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court. Thus, parity has to be maintained for all such persons entitled to compensation in law and, therefore, once the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation amount, all the persons have to be treated equally as per the provision of said Act itself and, therefore, raising of formal protest or not by some of the land holders S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 395/2010 RIICO Ltd. vs.Devi Lal & Anr.
& Other 62 connected appeals Judgment dt:20th July, 2011 19/27 is of little significance.
14. The Supreme Court in the case of M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd vs. S.U.T.N.I.Sangam & Ors. - 2009 AIR SCW 5676 in para 77 and 78 held that when application for reference under Section 18 is filed, the protest to award is implicit. Similar view was expressed in an earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajit Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & ors. - 1994 AIR SCW 2459. The issue has already been decided in favour of the land holders by the Reference Court and this Court, therefore, finds no force in the first submission of learned counsels for the appellant RIICO that the land holders were estopped from claiming enhancement, since they accepted the compensation without protest.
15. As far as second contention about the rate of compensation is concerned, this Court finds no force either in the submissions made by the learned counsels for the appellant RIICO for the following reasons. Firstly, the sale deeds produced as evidence before the learned Reference Court discloses the market value of the land sold by different parties, who can be assumed to be willing sellers and S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 395/2010 RIICO Ltd. vs.Devi Lal & Anr.
& Other 62 connected appeals Judgment dt:20th July, 2011 20/27 buyers with free consent and no doubt was ever raised about the genuineness of such transactions at any point of time by the appellant RIICO or the State. The rates as per the sale deeds are comparable to the rates determined by Reference Court at the rate of Rs. 50,000/-
per bigha for the land acquired in village Swaroopganj, Guvardi and Billia Kalan and Rs. 1.50 lacs per bigha for village Billa Khurd. In fact, this Court is of the opinion that difference of rates between the land of three villages like Swaroopganj, Guvardi, & Billia Kalan could not be so low compared with Billia Khurd merely because National Highway was passing through the village Billia Khurd. It is not in dispute that all these four villages are in near vicinity and land comprising in all these four villages was adjacent and was intended to be developed for appellant RIICO by way of acquisition under single Notification under Section 4 of the Act issued on 23/11/1995 by setting up Growth Centre for industrial development in the said contiguous land in different four villages, therefore, such a high difference as per the DLC rates and also rates determined by the Reference Court ought not to have been there.
16. Be that as it may, since there are no cross appeals filed by the S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 395/2010 RIICO Ltd. vs.Devi Lal & Anr.
& Other 62 connected appeals Judgment dt:20th July, 2011 21/27 land holders before this Court or cross objections in the present appeals filed by appellant RIICO, this Court would not like to enhance the compensation amount further. On the other hand, this Court is of the opinion that the Reference Court of learned District Judge, Bhilwara has been conservative and circumspect in determining the rate of compensation at about half of the rate claimed by the land holders in the reference applications. Determination of the market value under Section 23 of the Act as on the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Act necessarily involves some guess work and estimation and as already stated above no comparison with mathematical precision can be made with the sale price disclosed in the sale deeds which are registered in the contemporary period because the nature of land, size of land and capacity of buyer and seller cannot be expected to be exactly the same in such transactions and, therefore, the Reference Court has to exercise a fair discretion in determining the market value relying upon the evidences produced with reasonable amount of discretion also. Such discretion should not be arbitrarily or whimsically used & the amount of compensation for the land holders should be assessed with compassion and sympathy in the mind of the Court for them because by such compulsory S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 395/2010 RIICO Ltd. vs.Devi Lal & Anr.
& Other 62 connected appeals Judgment dt:20th July, 2011 22/27 acquisition they are deprived of their source of livelihood for ever.
17. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find that the reference orders determining the compensation under Section 18 of the Act suffers from any vice or illegality . The market value determined by the Reference Court is not only reasonable and based on evidence adduced by the claimants but is also conservative use of discretion and a fair via media between the rates claimed by the land holders and rates supplied and evidenced by the DLC and sale deeds produced before the Reference Court. Such orders, therefore, do not require any interference by this Court in the present appeals filed by the appellant RIICO and the same, in the opinion of this Court, do not deserve to be accepted.
18. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.
(DR.VINEET KOTHARI), J.
item no. 83-144 baweja/-
S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 395/2010 RIICO Ltd. vs.Devi Lal & Anr.
& Other 62 connected appeals Judgment dt:20th July, 2011 23/27 SCHEDULE (1) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1049/2010 RIICO Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
& (2) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 392/2010 R.S.I.D. & I. Corp. Ltd. Vs. Kalu Kalal & Ors.
& (3) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 393/2010 R.S.I.D. & I. Corp. Ltd. Vs. Devi & Ors.
& (4) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 394/2010 R.S.I.D. & I. Corp. Ltd. Vs. Dalall Keer & Ors.
& (5) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 396/2010 R.S.I.D. & I. Corp. Ltd. Vs. Kana & Ors.
& (6) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 397/2010 R.S.I.D. & I. Corp. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Kamla Devi & Ors.
& (7) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 398/2010 R.S.I.D. & I. Corp. Ltd. Vs. Dalla Keer & Ors.
& (8) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 399/2010 R.S.I.D. & I. Corp. Ltd. Vs. Hajari & Ors.
& (9) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 400/2010 R.S.I.D. & I. Corp. Ltd. Vs. Parthu & Ors.
& (10) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 402/2010 R.S.I.D. & I. Corp. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Poonam Devi & Ors.
& (11) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1030/2010 RIICO Vs. State & Ors.
& (12) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1031/2010 RIICO Vs. State & Ors.
& (13) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1032/2010 RIICO Vs. State & Ors.
& (14) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1050/2010 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 395/2010 RIICO Ltd. vs.Devi Lal & Anr.
& Other 62 connected appeals Judgment dt:20th July, 2011 24/27 RIICO Vs. State & Ors.
& (15) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1051/2010 RIICO Vs. State & Ors.
& (16) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1052/2010 RIICO Vs. State & Ors.
& (17) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1053/2010 RIICO Vs. State & Ors.
& (18) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1054/2010 RIICO Vs. State & Ors.
& (19) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1055/2010 RIICO Vs. State & Ors.
& (20) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1146/2010 RIICO, Jaipur Vs. Ladu Lal & Ors.
& (21) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1218/2010 R.S.I.D. & I. Corp. Ltd. Vs. Narayan & Ors.
& (22) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1219/2010 R.S.I.D. & I. Corp. Ltd. Vs. Banshi Dass Ramchandra Dass & Ors.
& (23) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1220/2010 R.S.I.D. & I. Corp. Ltd. Vs. Narayan & Ors.
& (24) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1221/2010 R.S.I.D. & I. Corp. Ltd. Vs. LR's of Devi Lal & Ors.
& (25) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1258/2010 R.S.I.D. & I. Corp. Ltd. Vs. Ishwar Keer & Ors.
& (26) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1259/2010 R.S.I.D. & I. Corp. Ltd. Vs. LR's of Nanda & Ors.
& (27) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1260/2010 R.S.I.D. & I. Corp. Ltd. Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors.
& (28) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1324/2010 RIICO Ltd. Vs. Gokul & Ors.
S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 395/2010 RIICO Ltd. vs.Devi Lal & Anr.
& Other 62 connected appeals Judgment dt:20th July, 2011 25/27 & (29) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1328/2010 RIICO Ltd. Vs. Narayan & Ors.
& (30) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 186/2011 R.S.I.D. & I. Corp. Ltd. Vs. Bheru & Ors.
& (31) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 187/2011 R.S.I.D. & I. Corp. Ltd. Vs. Kishan & Ors.
& (32) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 189/2011 R.S.I.D. & I. Corp. Ltd. LR's of Deva Jat & Ors.
& (33) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 190/2011 R.S.I.D. & I. Corp. Ltd. Vs,. Khudabaksh & Ors.
& (34) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 191/2011 R.S.I.D. & I. Corp. Ltd. Vs. Suraj Devi & Ors.
& (35) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 192/2011 R.S.I.D. & I. Corp. Ltd. Vs. Badda & Ors.
& (36) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 193/2011 R.S.I.D. & I. Corp. Ltd. Vs. Suraj Mal & Ors.
& (37) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 202/2011 RIICO Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.
& (38) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 203/2011 RIICO Ltd. Vs. Devi Das @ Devi Lal & Ors.
& (39) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 204/2011 RIICO Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sarju & Ors.
& (40) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 205/2011 RIICO Ltd. Vs. Chittar & Ors.
& (41) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 212/2011 R.S.I.D. & I. Corp. Ltd. Vs. Ramchandra & Ors.
& (42) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 214/2011 R.S.I.D. & I. Corp. Ltd. Vs. Mula & Ors.
& S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 395/2010 RIICO Ltd. vs.Devi Lal & Anr.
& Other 62 connected appeals Judgment dt:20th July, 2011 26/27 (43) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 215/2011 RIICO Ltd. Vs. Kishan Lal & Ors.
& (44) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 216/2011 R.S.I.D. & I. Corp. Ltd. Vs. Gopi & Ors.
& (45) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 217/2011 R.S.I.D. & I. Corp. Ltd. Vs. Bhanwar Lal & Ors.
& (46) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 224/2011 RIICO Ltd. Vs. Ladu & Ors.
& (47) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 225/2011 RIICO Ltd. Vs. Mu. Sayari & Ors.
& (48) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 230/2011 RIICO Ltd. Vs. Narayan & Ors.
& (49) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 231/2011 RIICO Ltd. Vs. Nanda & Ors.
& (50) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 232/2011 RIICO Ltd. Vs. Devi Lal & Ors.
& (51) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 233/2011 RIICO Ltd. Vs. Ram Chandra & Ors.
& (52) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1106/2011 RIICO Ltd. Vs. Banshi Lal & Ors.
& (53) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1107/2011 RIICO Ltd. Vs. Dilip Kumar & Ors.
& (54) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1108/2011 RIICO Ltd. Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors.
& (55) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1109/2011 RIICO Ltd. Vs. Ghesu Lal & Ors.
& (56) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1110/2011 RIICO Ltd. Vs. Udai Lal & Ors.
& (57) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1111/2011 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 395/2010 RIICO Ltd. vs.Devi Lal & Anr.
& Other 62 connected appeals Judgment dt:20th July, 2011 27/27 RIICO Ltd. Vs. Mu. Jamni & Ors.
& (58) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1112/2011 RIICO Ltd. Vs. Devkaran & Ors.
& (59) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1113/2011 RIICO Ltd. Vs. Jagdish Chandra & Ors.
& (60) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1114/2011 RIICO Ltd. Vs. Ladu & Ors.
& (61) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1115/2011 RIICO Ltd. Vs. Madan Lal & Ors.
& (62) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1116/2011 RIICO Ltd. Vs. Ganga Mula & Ors.