Jharkhand High Court
State Of Bihar vs Shamsuddin Ansari And Ors. on 13 July, 2007
Equivalent citations: [2007(4)JCR294(JHR)], AIR 2008 (NOC) 758 (JHAR.), 2007 (3) AIR JHAR R 935, 2008 A I H C 1579, (2007) 4 JCR 294 (JHA)
Author: D.G.R. Patnaik
Bench: D.G.R. Patnaik
JUDGMENT D.G.R. Patnaik, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3.12.1996 and corresponding Award dated 16.12.1996 passed by the Sub-Judge, 1st, Garhwa in Land Acquisition Case No. 36 of 1994, whereby the learned Court below had enhanced the market value of the land acquired by the appellant. Land Acquisition Case No. 36 of 1994 had arisen on account of reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "L.A. Act").
The land comprising total area of 3.3 acres within khata No. 1 and khata No. 4 appertaining to several sub plots belonging to the respondents was acquired by the State Government for the purpose of construction of residential houses and inspection bungalows under Dhanpur scheme for the Government Irrigation Department at village Bishunpur within P.S. Garhwa. Notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act was issued and published in the Government Gazette on 1.11.1975, a copy of which was served on the land owner on 26.12.1975 and in response to which, the land owner had filed his objection. Further notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued and published in the official Gazette on 1.12.1976. This was followed by notice under section of the Act, which was served on the owner on 25.4.1977. Inquiry under Section 11 of the Act was conducted by the Collector/Land Acquisition Officer by making spot inspection of the land. The Land Acquisition Officer, on inspection, had categorized the total lands under two heads, namely, Tand III and Dhan III lands. Submitting his report of inquiry (Ext. 2-A), the Land Acquisition Officer had assessed the value of the lands in Tand-III category at Rs. 21,333/- per acre and the lands in Dhan-III category at Rs. 26,667/- per acre. Being aggrieved, the owner/respondent filed his objection against the amount of compensation, as assessed by the Collector, whereupon the dispute was referred to the learned Court below for adjudication under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. The owner had contested the matter before the Reference Court, claiming that the market value of the lands acquired was much higher than what was assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer since the land is situated in a prime locality near the vicinity of the civil Court, Garhwa, Garhwa Hospital Garhwa Post Office, College, State Bank of India and is situated by the side of Garhwa Muri Semar Main Road and there are several Government offices and residential buildings situated near the land. It was also pointed out that there was several valuable trees standing on the land, the total cost of which could not be less than Rs. 10,000/-, whereas the Land Acquisition Officer has arbitrarily assessed the value of the trees at Rs. 2,000/- only. Emphasis was placed by the owner on the report of the Land Acquisition Officer (Ext. 2-A) wherein the Land Acquisition Officer had himself observed that according to the prevailing market value, the lands within the adjoining municipal area are being sold at Rs. 2.00 lakhs per acre and yet, without offering any reasonable explanation as to why the lands under reference in this case should not fetch the same value, the Land Acquisition Officer had assessed a very meager amount.
2. After hearing both the parties the Reference Court vide its order dated 3rd December, 1996, increased the amount of compensation by assessing the market value of the land at higher rale and awarded lump-sum compensation of Rs. 4.00 lakhs for the entire 3.3 acres of land acquired, with an additional compensation ? amount of 30%, as provided under Section 20A of the L.A. Act, besides imposing interest at the rate of 9% on the enhanced amount calculated till the date of delivery of possession and thereafter, at the rate of 15% of the enhanced amount till the date of final realization. It is against this order, the appellant State has filed the instant appeal.
3. Assailing the impugned order, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned is bad on points of law as well as on facts and that the findings arrived at by the learned Court below is based entirely on conjectures and surmises and hypothetical assumption. It is further submitted that the learned Court below has failed to consider that in respect of a portion of the land measuring 0.38 acres within the same plot of the respondents, the same learned Court had awarded compensation of Rs. 12,000/- per acre vide order passed in L.A. Case No. 155 of 1986. It is further argued that the learned Court below has assessed the compensation on the basis of potential value of the land even without there being any evidence to support the same. It has also been urged that the learned Court below has erred in placing reliance on a passing remark recorded in the order of the Land Acquisition Officer (Ext. 2-A) that on or about the date of acquisition, land adjacent to the lands under reference in this case, was sold at Rs. 2.00 lakhs per acre, although to the same order, the Land Acquisition Officer after considering the sale-deeds in respect of the lands nearer to the lands under reference, has assessed the value at Rs. 26,667/- per acre as maximum rate for Dhan-III land.
4. Respondents have also filed their cross-objection against the quantum of compensation assessed and fixed by the reference Court. Learned Counsel for the respondents would refute the entire grounds of the appellants claiming on the other hand that the compensation as assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer, is unreasonably low as it does not reflect the actual market value of the land prevailing on the date of acquisition. Placing heavy reliance on Ext. 2-A, learned Counsel submits that the total compensation should have been above Rs. 8.00 lakhs for the lands acquired besides a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for the trees standing on the lands. Learned Counsel adds further that the nature of the land has been clearly stated in the order of the Land Acquisition Officer (Ext. 2-A) which would confirm that the land is adjacent to the main road within Garhwa municipality and the plots of land adjacent to the land under reference, have been purchased by private individuals for the purposes of constructing houses and in fact, the present land has also been acquired for the purposes of constructing nouses and inspection bungalow for the Government litigation Department. As such, the future prospects and the potential value of the land acquired, need also to be considered for assessment of the payable amount of compensation.
5. Issues involved in this appeal is, whether the Reference Court has assessed the value of the acquired lands on the basis of the wrong application of the principles involved and, whether the same suffer from any impropriety or illegality.
6. In the proceeding before the Reference, Court the owner/respondent had adduced oral evidences of witnesses besides relying upon the observations recorded in the report of the Additional Land Acquisition Officer (Ext. 2-A) regarding the location of the acquired lands and the market value of the lands situated within the adjacent developed area. However, no sale-deed in respect of sale of any land situated within the vicinity of the lands under reference, executed at or about the period of acquisition of the present lands, was filed by the respondents. The appellant State had also not adduced any evidence of similar nature. However, the learned Court below on the basis of the materials available on record, had proceeded to record its findings regarding the valuation of the lands on the basis of the observations recorded in Ext. 2-A, that the acquired lands are situated within the vicinity of the developed lands where several Government buildings and residential houses besides offices have already come in existence and that even according to the Land Acquisition Officer, the adjacent lands fetch a rate of Rs. 2.00 lakhs per acre.
7. Section 23 of the L.A. Act lays down the matters to be considered for determining compensation for the land acquired under the Act and the provisions of the section gives high priority to the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 Sub-section (1) of the Act. For determining the market value of the land at or about the time of notification the method of evaluation may be,
(a) opinion of experts,
(b) price paid within a reasonable time in a bona fide transaction of purchase of lands acquired or the adjacent lands possessing similar advantageous and,
(c) a number of years purchase and the actual or immediate prospective profits of the land acquired.
8. In the instant case, neither the respondents nor the appellant had adduced any evidence by way of exemplary sale-deeds. The only evidence which was offered for assistance to the Reference Court was the oral testimony of the witnesses adduced by the respondents and the report of the Land Acquisition Officer (Ext. 2-A).
9. Ext. 2-A is a report prepared and submitted by the Additional Land Acquisition Officer after making spot inspection of the acquired lands. The report indicates that the acquired lands are situated by the side of Garhwa-Muri Semar Main Road at a distance of one furlong west of Garhwa civil Court. Adjacent south of this land is the office and go-down of the electric substation and adjacent north are quarters of the Government Irrigation Department. The observation recorded in the report also indicates that the entire land is situated within Garhwa Sub-Divisional Town and on account of the overall development of the town, the value of the lands has considerably increased and the lands have been sold at the rate of Rs. 2.00 lakhs per acre. It has also been observed that the plots of the land adjacent to the lands acquired, have been purchased by private individuals for construction of houses. However, despite the above noted assessment, the Land Acquisition Officer proceeded to assess the value of the acquired land on the basis of a statement chart in respect of the sale-deeds registered at the local Registry office pertaining to lands situated purportedly near to the acquired lands and comparable to the Tand-III lands under reference in this case and on such basis, had assessed the value of the Tand-III category of the acquired land at Rs. 21,333/- per acre. Though reliance was placed on the chart obtained from Sub-Registry Office, but in the proceeding before the reference Court, neither was any such sale-deed called for and adduced in evidence, nor any officer of the Sub-Registery Officer called to depose in order to state and clarify as to the actual date of execution of the sale-deed and the nature of lands as also the location of the land by reference to its distance from the acquired lands. The appellant have thus not brought any definite evidence that the solitary sale-deed referred to in the chart obtained from the Sub-Registry Office was in respect of the land which could be comparable to the acquired land of the instant case.
On the other hand, the same report (Ext. 2-A) confirms that the land acquired in the present case is situated by the side of the High Way road and at a distance of about a furlong from the Civil Court and that the land is near to the vicinity of the developed area of the town and the lands situated in the near vicinity of acquired lands, have been fetching at the rate of Rs. 2.00 lakhs per acre. This fact clearly indicates that on the date of notification, the acquired lands did have potential for higher value than what was offered and the actual and immediate prospective profits of the lands acquired could have accrued to its owners.
10. It appears however, that though the acquired lands are situated at a near distance from the developed lands, but the part of the acquired lands is basically agricultural land and the remaining part is barren lands. The learned reference Court has rightly considered that the actual or immediate prospective profits of the lands acquired which could have accrued to the owner, was certainly much higher than what was assessee by the Land Acquisition Officer and the assessment of the value of the land, as made by the Land Acquisition Officer is unreasonable and unjust and not based upon proper criteria and further, that the assessment omits to consider the damage bona fide resulting from the diminution of the profits of the lands between the time of publication of the notification under Section 6 of the Act and the time the possession of the land was taken by the Collector. The consolidated amount of Rs. 4.00 lakhs for the entire lands acquired, as assessed by the Reference Court, is just and proper. There appears no infirmity or impropriety in the impugned order of the learned Court below and therefore, it does not call for interference in this appeal by this Court. I do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed but in the circumstance without any cost.