Patna High Court
State vs Sarju Ram on 8 July, 2014
Author: Mungeshwar Sahoo
Bench: Mungeshwar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
First Appeal No.47 of 1988
Against the Judgment and Award dated 13.08.1987 passed by Second
Subordinate Judge, Ara in Land Acquisition Case No.11 of 1982.
===========================================================
State of Bihar through Collector, Bhojpur
..........Opposite party-Appellant
Versus
Sarju Ram
.........Applicant-Respondent
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Kundan Bahadur Singh, Advocate, S.C.22.
Mr. Niraj, Advocate, A.C. to S.C.22.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajnandan Prasad, Advocate
===========================================================
Dated : 8thday of July, 2014
PRESENT
CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO
CAV J U D G M E N T
1. The State of Bihar has filed this First Appeal under Section
54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the Judgment and Award dated
13.08.1987passed by the Second Subordinate Judge-cum-Land Acquisition Judge, Ara in Land Acquisition Case No.11 of 1982.
2. The applicant respondents land measuring 88 decimal comprised within 2 plots in Mauza Gaushganj was acquired for the purpose of construction of Ara Town protection Bandh. Notification 2 Patna High Court FA No.47 of 1988 dt.08-07-2014 2/7 under Section 4 was issued in the year 1978, i.e., on 16.12.1978. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.16,192/- for the total land. The applicant on receipt of notice under Section 9 filed objection claiming Rs.15,000/- to 20,000/- per katha alleging that the land acquired by the State of Bihar for the purpose of construction of the Dam is homestead land and has got potential value. The claimant has already constructed house thereon which was demolished. At the time of Notification for acquisition, the market value of the land was Rs.15,000/- per katha. Reference was made to the Land Acquisition Judge under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. After evidences, the Land Acquisition Judge awarded total compensation of Rs.4,02,050.40/- by fixing the valuation of the land at Rs.1,96,000/- of the total 28 katha= 88 decimal, i.e., Rs.7000/- per katha.
3. It may be mentioned here that the claimant respondent has also filed a cross objection under Order 41 Rule 22 C.P.C. claiming enhanced compensation to the extent of Rs.15000/- per katha. Therefore, the appeal and the cross objection were heard.
4. The learned S.C.22 submitted that the State of Bihar produced the sell instances on the basis of which the compensation was awarded by the Collector. The Land Acquisition Judge strongly relied the ext.5A produced by the claimant without considering that 3 Patna High Court FA No.47 of 1988 dt.08-07-2014 3/7 the lands purchased through that sale deed is of different village and has wrongly fixed the rate exorbitantly. According to the learned counsel, the Land Acquisition Officer has rightly awarded the amount of Rs.16000/- and odd for the lands acquired which was the real market value on the date of notification.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant respondent who is cross objector submitted that in the sale instances ext.B itself at serial No.16, the lands was sold for Rs.15000/- per katha. On these grounds, the learned counsel submitted that the appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed and the cross objection be allowed.
6. In view of the above submissions of the parties, the points for consideration in this Appeal is as to whether market value of the land fixed by the Land Acquisition Judge is just and proper and whether the claimants are entitled for higher compensation as claimed by them in the cross objection.
7. In support of their cases regarding the valuation, i.e., market value of the land, both the parties have examined witnesses and also have produced the documentary evidences. It is relevant to mention here that Land Acquisition Case No.30(5), 78-79 was initiated under emergency procedure and the possession of the lands were taken by 4 Patna High Court FA No.47 of 1988 dt.08-07-2014 4/7 the State Government except the present lands. So far the present land is concerned, ordinary procedure was followed by initiating land acquisition case No.35(5) 78-79 and rate has been fixed at Rs.16000/- per acre, i.e., on the basis of the sale deed mentioned in the serial No.9 of the sale statement ext.B. The State of Bihar has produced ext.A, the valuation report and the sale statements ext.B. In this ext.B at serial No.9, the lands were sold which was in the vicinity at Rs.16,000/- per acre. The claimants examined A.W.2 and 3 who are formal witnesses. The witness have produced the sale deeds and report. A.W.1 has stated that the acquired land is in the town area and the rate of the land is Rs.14,000-15,000/- per katha. The evidence of A.W.5 is to the same effect who has stated that the lands acquired is close to the Ara Buxar road and is valuable. The land was filled up by the claimant by earth and two rooms were constructed for residential purpose. This A.W.5 is the husband of the applicant. These are the oral evidences.
8. So far documentary evidences are concerned, the plaintiff has produced ext.5(A) the sale deed. It appears that 1 katha land was sold in June, 1978 for Rs.20,000/-. It further appears that the land covered under this sale deed is at a long distance from the lands acquired.
5 Patna High Court FA No.47 of 1988 dt.08-07-2014 5/7
9. So far the oral evidences are concerned, since the parties are claiming a exaggerated amount and further on the basis of oral evidence the market value of the land cannot be fixed. Now, therefore, the only documentary evidences are ext.'B' item No.9 which has been relied upon by the Land Acquisition Judge whereas ext.5A the sale deed which is relied upon by the applicant. So far ext.5A is concerned, it is not the land which is situated by the side of the acquired land. Moreover, only 1 katha land was sold in that sale deed. The land is at a long distance. In such circumstances, this sale deed cannot be accepted as a whole but certainly it gives some light to the Court for fixing the market value.
10. The settled proposition of law as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Ram Kumari Devi 1996 (8) SCC 577 at paragraph 4 as follows :-
'It is seen that small pieces of land of an extent of 60' x 20', 40' x 40' and 1600 sq. ft. were sold by the claimants, obviously on coming to know of the proposed acquisition. It is common knowledge that acquisition proposal would be made at an earlier point of time and finalisation of acquisition would take long time. In the process, on becoming aware of the acquisition, obviously, these sale deeds have been brought into existence to inflate the market value. It is laid down by this Court which is well settled principle that it is the duty of the Court to assess reasonable compensation. Burden is on the owner to prove the prevailing market value. On adduction of evidence by the parties, the acid test which the Court has to adopt is that the Court has to sit in the arm-chair of a prudent purchaser, eschew feats of imagination and consider whether a 6 Patna High Court FA No.47 of 1988 dt.08-07-2014 6/7 reasonable prudent purchaser in the open market would offer the same price which the Court is intending to fix the market value in respect of the acquired land. Since it is a compulsory acquisition it is but the solemn duty of the Court to assess reasonable compensation so as to allow the same to the owner of the land whose property has been acquired by compulsory acquisition and also to avoid needless burden on public exchequer. No feats of imagination would require to bog the mind that when 13.75 acres of land was offered for sale in an open market, no prudent man would have credulity to purchase that land on sq. ft. basis. The High Court as well as the District Judge have committed a grave error in not applying the above acid test while considering the case. They merely proceeded by accepting the sale deeds which were obviously brought into existence to inflate the market value and determined the compensation on the price settled by them. Thus, we hold that both the Courts have applied a wrong principle of law in determining the compensation.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hookiyar Singh Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Moradabad 1996 (3) SCC 766 has held that the it is the duty of the Court to carefully scrutinize the evidence and determine just and adequate compensation. The burden of proof of market value prevailing as on the date of publication of income under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is always on the claimant.
12. In view of the land of the claimant measure 88 decimal only was acquired, no feats of imagination would require to bog the mind that no prudent man would credulity to purchase that land on katha basis. In view of the above position of law and the fact that only one 7 Patna High Court FA No.47 of 1988 dt.08-07-2014 7/7 katha was sold by ext.5/A and likewise one katha was sold in the sale deed mentioned at serial No.16 at ext.B that cannot be the basis for fixing the prevalent market value of the land acquired which is large chunk of land. Considering all these factual aspects and position of law, in my opinion, the learned Land Acquisition Judge has rightly fixed the rate, i.e., Rs.1,96,000/- for 88 decimal, and i.e., Rs.7000/- per katha. In my opinion, this rate fixed by the Land Acquisition Judge is just and adequate compensation for the lands acquired. Therefore, the Judgment and Decree needs no interference.
13. In the result, the First Appeal and the cross objection both are dismissed.
(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) Sanjeev/-
U