Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dhanraj Singh & Oth. vs The State Of M.P. & Oth on 14 May, 2012
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
FIRST APPEAL No.371/1998
Dhanraj Singh & others
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh & another
____________________________________________________________
Shri A.K. Pathak, learned Counsel for the appellants.
Ms. Divya Kirti Bohre, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent
No.1.
Shri Vivek Rusia, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2.
____________________________________________________________
Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi
____________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
(14/05/2012) This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to as 'Act') read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 16.04.1998 passed in M.J.C. No.1/1990, refusing to enhance the award dated 31.12.1988.
2. Brief facts giving rise of filing of this appeal are that the land in question was sought to be acquired for the purposes of construction of Railway siding by respondent No.2 at Birsinghpur for Sanjay Gandhi Thermal Power Project. The notification in that respect was issued on 19.08.1988. However, it was not given wide publicity, on account of which the objections could not be filed by the appellants. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation and passed an award on 31.12.1988. A compensation of Rs.14,357/- only was granted to the appellants, which according to them, was much less than the market value of the land so acquired. A reference 2 application was, thus, made before the Land Acquisition Officer by the appellants but the same was rejected vide order dated 04.05.1989 and, therefore, a revision was filed before this Court being Civil Revision No.267/1989. The revision came up for hearing before this Court and was allowed vide order dated 23.01.1990. The matter was referred back to the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference to the District Court. Such a reference was made and the District Court registered the reference as M.J.C. No.1/1990, made it over to II Additional District Judge, Shahdol for decision according to law. The evidence was recorded, arguments were heard and thereafter by the impugned order dated 16.04.1998, reference was rejected. Therefore, this appeal is required to be filed.
3. It is contended by learned Counsel for the appellants that the Court below while rejecting the reference, has not taken into consideration various documents, sale-deeds produced by the appellants, evidence adduced in this respect and has wrongly reached to the conclusion that the value of the land was properly assessed and compensation was rightly granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is contended that mere distance of the villages was not to be taken into account. The residential value of the area was to be taken into account and then only the order was required to be passed. It is contended that though such evidence was made available, but the same has not been taken into consideration. Even interest and solatium was not granted to appellants by the Land Acquisition Officer while fixing the compensation of land so acquired. This aspect was also not examined by the Court below. Various laws have been pointed out and it has been contended that such aspects were not taken into consideration by the Court below, therefore, the order impugned is bad in law and is liable to be set aside.
34. Per contra it is contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents that assessment of evidence was rightly done by the Reference Court. Each and every document was taken into consideration. The Reference Court was required to note down that for specific purpose the land was required and that the land was not situated in a place where the value was such high as was claimed by the appellants. In absence of evidence available in this respect, the Reference Court has rightly decided that the compensation of the land so acquired was rightly granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is contended that since the order passed by the Reference Court is based on rightful appreciation of evidence, both documentary and oral, the order impugned need not be interfered in this appeal by this Court.
5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and examined the record.
6. In the application made by the appellants, areas of the land acquired have been shown, which was duly verified and in the reference application itself, the Collector has mentioned these facts. Response was given to such an application by the respondents and a denial was made. On the application of the appellants, it was stated that the land sought to be acquired was situated by the side of the road and was adjacent to the urban habitation, therefore, the price of the land was much high. To demonstrate that the value of the land in the same vicinity was more than assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer, certain sale-deeds were filed, of which reference was also made in the application. The issues framed by the Reference Court were with respect to the valuation of the land. Apart from the documentary evidence, oral evidence was also adduced. A perusal of the oral evidence will indicate that it was said that when the land was acquired, the Government rate as 4 mentioned in the guidelines for the said land was Rs.6 or Rs.7 per square feet but the market value of the land was Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. Documents Exhibit P-1 to P-5 were exhibited by the appellants. Witness Dhanraj Singh in his cross-examination has admitted that he was cultivating on the land, which was sought to be acquired. The distance of the land from the main road is hardly 100 or 150 feet. He admitted that he has not produced any document in proof of the fact that he was taking two crops from the land. He had not produced any document in proof of the Government rate of the land. However, he contended that some of the lands have been disposed of within the same area. There is nothing more in his statement. The other witness Vijay Singh has also not stated anything material. One of the witnesses, Ramesh Kumar, has stated that he has sold the land, which is situated just 200 feet away from the road by the side of the Railway line at a rate of Rs.15 per square feet.
7. As against this evidence, the respondents have produced the evidence but they could not point out as to what was the nature of the land, for what purposes the land was being used and what was the Government rate fixed. No other evidence was adduced by the respondents.
8. The reference Court has taken note of these evidence and reached to the conclusion that the appellants could not demonstrate that the land was of more value than the value assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The Reference Court has taken note of the fact that though certain sale- deeds have been produced by the appellants as also by the respondents but the said sale-deeds were not proved by adducing evidence of either seller or purchaser or the attesting witnesses. Such a finding is found to be incorrect in view of the fact that Dhanraj, witness No.1, was examined by the appellants and he has categorically 5 indicated in his statement that vide Exhibit P-5, he has sold the property for Rs.12,000/-. The area of the land was only 2400 square feet. From this, it is clear that if the area of the appellants was required to be acquired, appropriate compensation was required to be paid. From this document only, the fact was proved that the value of the land was more than what was assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer. This piece of evidence is completely ignored by the Reference Court. Apart from that, certain documents were produced by the respondents and exhibited but again assessment of such evidence was not done. The valuation of the land only has been taken into account but the nature of the transfer was not considered. Exhibit D-6 was the document of gift and deliberately proper valuation of the land was not shown in the same so as to avoid application of provisions of Section 165 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code.
9. One more glaring discrepancy in consideration of the claim of the appellants is that the Reference Court has never asked the Land Acquisition Officer to produce the record of the sale register of the area where the land was acquired so as to see whether the compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer, for the land acquired, was adequate or not. Further it was to be proved by the respondents that the compensation of the land acquired fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was appropriate inasmuch as the sale, it would have taken place in the said area, would have not fetched more value than assessed as compensation for the land by the Land Acquisition Officer. The Apex Court in the case of Meharban and others vs. State of U.P. and others, (1997) 6 SCC 54, was of the view that in fact the determination of the compensation must be done in the manner, by sitting the Land Acquisition Officer in the armchair of a willing and prudent vendee and Court must sit in the airchair of willing and prudent vendor and to put a question whether the market value sought to 6 be determined would be capable of fetching the hypothetical price. The Court should determine a just and adequate compensation for the land acquired. For the said purpose, it was very essential to see what was the market value of the land at the time when the same was acquired and whether such a compensation is offered to the appellants or not. Since this was not done, the reference decided by the Court below cannot be said to be just and proper. However, since this piece of evidence is not available on record, it would not be possible for this Court to determine the appropriate compensation to be granted to the appellants. Apart from the compensation, the appellants would also be entitled to adequate interest as also solatium as per the provisions of the Act. It is not clear from the statements submitted by the respondents whether such interest and solatium was granted to the appellants or not. If the amount of compensation includes the said amount, naturally the price of the land assessed by the respondents for grant of compensation, on account of acquisition of the land, cannot be said to be adequate in any manner.
10. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The order of the Reference Court is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Reference Court to take into consideration the evidence of PW-1 with reference to Exhibit P-5 as proved document, ask for production of sale statement from the office of the Registrar, with respect to the sale of land which has taken place at the relevant time and to reassess the compensation on the basis of value of the land of the appellants, so acquired by the respondents, at the relevant time. The Reference Court will also look into the matter of grant of interest on the amount of compensation as also solatium as per the provisions of the Act. This exercise be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of record. Registry is directed to remit back the 7 record to the Reference Court immediately. Parties to appear before the Reference Court on 2nd July, 2012. Thereafter, the dates would be fixed for completing the process of hearing, within the time as indicated herein above.
11. The appeal is accordingly finally disposed of. Since it has been found that the Reference Court has not properly adjudicated the reference, after recording of the evidence and for the said purpose in exercise of power under Order 41 Rule 23 of the C.P.C., the matter is being remitted back, the appellants would be entitled to refund of the Court fees paid for this appeal. There shall be no order as to cost.
(K.K. Trivedi) Judge Skc