Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Mandeep Singh S/O S. Manjeet vs The Collector Land on 4 April, 2024
Author: Vinod Chatterji Koul
Bench: Vinod Chatterji Koul
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CFA No. 15/2014
Pronounced on: 04.04.2023
Mandeep Singh S/o S. Manjeet .... Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Singh, R/o House No. 9/5,
Trikuta Nagar, Jammu
Through:- Mr. Anuj Dewan Raina, Advocate.
V/s
1. The Collector Land .....Respondent(s)
Acquisition, Jammu
2. The Chief Engineer, P.H.E,
Department, B.C. Road, Jammu
Through:- Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
01. This Civil First Appeal is filed against the judgement and decree dated 06.11.2013, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jammu, ("Reference Court" for short) in a Civil Reference bearing File no.7/Civil Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the "Act") titled as Mandeep Singh v. Collector, Land Acquisition, Jammu, whereby the petitioner has been held entitled to compensation on account of the land acquired measuring 03 Kanals, 13 Marlas, situated at Village Barnai, Tehsil and District Jammu, comprising Khasra No. 455 (land in question) @ Rs.2,00,000/- per Kanal with 15% Jabrana and simple interest of 6% per annum from the date of notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act till its realization.
CFA No. 15/2014 Page 2 of 7
02. The land in question was taken over by Public Health Engineering Department in 1981-82. The owner, at the time of taking over possession of the land, was Late Rominder Kour, who, being an old woman, is said to have not resisted taking over possession of the land by the Department. She approached the Department and started persuading the Government to pay compensation to her in lieu of land taken over by them, but as no compensation was paid, she approached this Court and filed a writ petition bearing OWP No. 572/1992. The said writ petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to acquire the land and pay compensation to her. She is stated to have died, but during her lifetime, she executed a will in favour of her grandson, namely Mandeep Singh/petitioner, which fact was brought to the notice of the concerned authorities.
03. As the judgment of the Court was not implemented, the petitioner filed a contempt petition. In response to which, respondents submitted that the award had been passed, but it was claimed by petitioner that he had no knowledge about the said award. An amount of Rs. 50,000/- per kanal was awarded along with Jabrana and interest.
04. The petitioner, not satisfied with the award, approached the Court below by filing an application under Section 18 for reference, which was made to learned Additional District Judge, Jammu, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
05. After passing of the judgment, as shown by the respondents, Collector Land Acquisition issued a notification under the provisions of Section 4(1) of the J&K Land Acquisition Act, vide No.718/LA dated 18.02.1993 in respect of the land in question for construction of Tube CFA No. 15/2014 Page 3 of 7 Well, vide No. 133-RD of 30.11.1993, issued by the Secretary, Revenue Department. The land was declared to be required for public purposes after considering the report of the Collector.
06. The Collector was asked to proceed under Section 7 of the Act for taking an order of acquisition, and notices under Sections 9 and 9-A of the Act were issued to the landowners/interested persons as well as to the intending department for filing objections.
07. The Department submitted that after they had no objection, the land owner did neither appear and nor filed objections. Accordingly, an inquiry was conducted by Collector. He visited the spot and took cognizance of the sales that had taken place for last three years and passed tentative/draft compensation to the tune of Rs.90,000/- per Kanal and 15% Jabrana, so that award of Rs. 3,77,775/- was made on 08.12.1995.
08. Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, vide communication dated 06.01.1996 conveyed that the Committee had approved the award compensation of Rs.50,000/- per Kanal along with 15% Jabrana and, accordingly, an award of Rs. 2,35,060/- was passed on 31.01.1996.
09. The Reference Court, while taking into account the evidence produced before it, came to the conclusion that the market value of the land in question at the relevant point of time was not less than Rs.20,00,000/- per Kanal and thereafter passed an award in question.
10. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the respondent is called in question in this appeal by the petitioner on the following grounds:
CFA No. 15/2014 Page 4 of 7
I. The order impugned is against the facts and law as the interest has not been calculated and paid in accordance with Section 35 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1990.
II. Trial Court did not take into consideration evidence in support of appellant's claims. The sale deed of 1994 emphasizes the value of land at Rs.20,000/- per Marla at the time of notification in year 1992- 93, so the order impugned is bad in law.
III. Trial Court did not appreciate the fact that land is of high commercial value which is 4-5 Km from canal towards Akhnoor over the main road situated at Barnai and the rate fixed at Rs.2,00,000 per Kanal is less than the market value of the land.
IV. The learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence of the Patwari and other documents that provided the land value as Rs 20,000 per Marla and calculated the value at Rs. 200,000 per Kanal. V. The learned trial court has not taken into consideration the factum of getting forcible possession of land of the appellant in the year 1981- 1982 and the simple interest rate of 6% have been awarded from the date of notification and not from the date of getting forcible possession which amounts to interest upon delayed amount VI. The trial court has no given plausible reasons and the decree and judgment does not sustain in the presence of settled principle of law. VII. The impugned order has been passed without proper consideration of the statutory provisions and factual aspect of the case.
11. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter.
12. As is evident from perusal of the file, land in question was notified under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 18.02.1993. The Collector passed tentative/draft compensation @ Rs.90,000/- per kanal and Jabrana 15%. However, Committee approved Rs.50,000/- per kanal. When land was taken over in the year 1981 as claimed by petitioner, Smt. Rominder Kour had been its owner. She filed a writ petition, WP no.572/1991, which was disposed of vide Order dated 30.04.1992. It was observed in the said order that no person could be deprived of his property without adopting due course of law and without paying compensation for such land which was acquired or taken possession of. This Court also CFA No. 15/2014 Page 5 of 7 observed that it could have quashed whole of the acquisition proceedings and directed that possession be delivered to petitioner but keeping in view the fact that a tube-well had been dug in the land, the Court decided not to take such a coercive measure. It was made clear by the Court that from the attitude of respondents, it was established that they had taken possession of land without due course of law and had not paid any compensation to petitioner and had willfully avoided to place relevant record before the Court to justify their action. Accordingly, writ petition was disposed of with a direction to respondents to determine compensation of land in question which was taken by them and pay it to petitioner. Despite this direction, when nothing positive emerged, Smt. Rominder Kour was forced to file a contempt petition, bearing COA(W) No.181/1992. In the order dated 02.05.1996 it was observed by this Court that even order of this Court did not move authorities which constrained writ petitioner to approach this Court with contempt petition. It was also observed that sequence of events reflected a sorry state of affairs and that even though the State-respondents admittedly had taken over land way back in 1981, but no compensation was paid to petitioner-owner. Smt. Rominder Kour breathed her last in the year 1993 and consequently present petitioner started pursuing the matter for payment of compensation.
13. Ultimately, application under Section 18 was preferred. The Reference Court on the reference having been made to it and on considering the case, framed following issues: -
"1. Whether compensation has been assessed by the collector on market value available therein. OPP
2. What is the actual market value of the land acquired therein? OPP
3. Relief."
14. The parties produced the evidence before the Reference Court. Petitioner in support of his claim produced and examined three witnesses, namely, Mushtaq Ahmed Patwari, Krishan Lal So Record Keeper, Gurvinder Jeet Singh Collector (ACR), besides himself. CFA No. 15/2014 Page 6 of 7
15. It is evident from bare perusal of impugned judgment that petitioner in his statement has stated that when notification was issued the market value of the land was more than Rs.2.00 Lacs. Insofar as other witnesses adduced by petitioner are concerned, they have stated that the market value of the land was about Rs.1,85,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/- per kanal. Thus, the Reference Court has rightly said that the market value of the land under reference at relevant time, i.e., at eth time of issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act was not less than Rs.2.00 Lacs per Kanal.
16. The relevant factors to be taken into consideration while acquiring the land are provided in Section 23 of the Act, which reads as under: -
"23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation.
"(1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration-
First, the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the declaration relating thereto under Section 6;
Secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector's taking possession thereof;
Thirdly, the damage (if any), sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of severing such land from his other land;
Fourthly, the damage (if any), sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings;
Fifthly, if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change; and Sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under section 6 and the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land. (2) In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount CFA No. 15/2014 Page 7 of 7 calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market-value in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition."
17. The important aspects as stipulated in Section 23 of the Act have not been taken note of by Collector while making the award for the land under reference. Thus, the Reference Court has rightly and correctly given and decreed Rs.2.00 Lacs per Kanal and, resultantly, to this extent impugned judgment and decree does not call for any interference. However, insofar as interest @ 6% per annum from the date of notification given by the Reference Court is concerned, the requires modification and the said interest is to be given/granted from the date the land under reference was taken by the respondents.
18. For the reasons stated above, writ petition qua enhancement of compensation is disallowed. However, insofar as interest is concerned, petitioner is held entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date the possession of the land in question was taken by respondents i.e., 1981 till realization and to that extent writ petition is allowed.
19. Disposed of as above.
(Vinod Chatterji Koul) Judge Jammu:
04.04.2024 Michal Sharma Whether approved for reporting? No Bir Bahadur Singh 2024.04.18 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document