Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Unless these fields are developed into Township, there is noprospect of the lands under acquisition features of a township.

Onlya few fields stand classifiedin accounts as semidry and all others stand classified as wet. Notwithstanding the variation inclassification, all the lands under acquisitionexecuting a few levelled up plots are wet paddy fields onground. The few lands which were not grown with paddy were cultivated with dry crops like banana, sugar and chillies. To make the lands under acquisition suitable for house sites, the levels have to be raised by about 2 to3 feetto make themfit for building purposes. There can be no two opinions about the difficulty that is presently being experienced by personswhopurchase Agricultural lands in Tenali Town ingetting earth rooted to those lands forlevelling themup. From the experience of the Municipality which understood levellingwork for provisionof houses to weaker sections of the society, it can be said withcertainty thatthe cost involved in levelling up these lands to makethem fit for residential purposes would be not less than Rs. 60,000/- peracre.' Onthe basis of the above factual material collected, the land Acquisition officer passed his award.The question arises:whether the acquired lands possessedof potential value for being used as building sites? The High Court has found, as pointed out by Shri Sudhir Chandra, learned senior counselfor the claimants, that the lands arepossessed of potential value for being used for building purpose. It is well settled legal position that the claimantsstand in the position of plaintiffs. Burden of proof is always on the claimants to prove byadduction of cogent and acceptable evidence that the lands are capableof fetching higher compensation than what is determined bythe land Acquisition officer, whichis only an offer. If the award is accepted withoutprotest, it binds theparties. It is the bounden duty of the court to evaluatethe evidence onthe basis of the human conduct, even if no rebuttalevidence is produced by theLand Acquisition Officer, to assess themarket value applying the relevant tests laid down by this Court inbead role of decisions. InPeriyarand PareekanniRubbersltd. V/s. State of Kerala [(1991) 4 SCC 195], this Court considered theentire case law as onthat date, on the principle of determination of market value andthe relevant test laid in that behalf. The burdenof proof that the amount awardedby the land AcquisitionOfficer/Collector is not adequate is always on the claimant. Theburden is to adduce relevant and material evidence to establish that the acquired landsare capable offetching highermarket value than the amount awarded by the land Acquisition officer/Collector or that the land Acquisition Officer/Collector proceeded ona wrongpremiseor applied a wrong principle of law. The object of the enquiry in a reference under Section 18 of the Act is to bring on record the price which the land under acquisition was capable of fetching in the open market as on the date of the notification. The relative situation of the acquiredland which is the subject of the sale transaction, the nature of the land, its suitability, nature ofthe useto which the lands are put to on the dateof thenotification, income derivedor derivable from or any other special distinctive feature whichthe land is possessed of and thesale transactions in respect of lands covered by thesame notification, are all relevant factors to be takeninto consideration in determiningthe market value. It is, therefore, theparamount dutyof thecourts of facts to subjectthe evidence to very close scrutiny, objectively assess the evidence tenderedby the parties on proper consideration thereof in correct perspective to arrive at adequate and reasonable market value.The attending facts and circumstances in each case wouldfurnishguidance to arrive at the market value of the acquired lands. it is equallyrelevant to consider the neighbourhoodlands as are possessed ofsimilar potentiality or anyadvantageous features or any special circumstances available ineach case. The Court is required to take into account all the relevant considerations. The Court isrequired to Keep at the back of its mind that the object of assessment is to arrive at reasonable and adequate market value of the lands. In thatprocess, thoughsome guess workis involve, feats of imagination should be eschewedand mechanical assessment of the evidence should beavoided. Even in the absence oforal evidence adduced by the land Acquisition officer or the beneficiaries the judges are to draw from their experience the normal human conduct of the parties and bona fide and genuinesale transactions are guiding star in evaluating the evidence. Misplaced sympathiesor undue emphasis solely on the claimants'right to compensation would place very heavy burden on the public exchequer to which other everyone contributes by direct or indirect taxes.

InBasant Kumar & Ors. V/s. Union of India& Ors. [1996 (11) SCC 542], this Court pointed out thatdoctrine of equality in determination of the payment ofsame compensation to allclaimants covered by thesame notification, is not a good principle. Treating the entire villageas oneunit and uniformly determiningcompensation that basis is not sustainable in law. The Court must always determine market value prevailing as on the date of notification under Section 4 (1) of theAct andnot what was claimedby theparties. Even estimate of claimant is not decisive. The status of the claimant is irrelevant. It was reiterated that while determining the compensation under section23 (1), the Court should sit in the arm chairof a prudentwilling purchase in the open market and see whether he would be willing to offer the sameprice as is proposed to be fixed bythe Land Acquisition Officer asmarket value for the same or similar lands possessedof all the advantageous features.This test should always be kept in mind in analysing theevidence and the Court should answer affirmatively taking into consideration all the relevant factors. If feats of imagination are allowed the sway, the land Acquisition Officer/collector would overstep judicial decisions/quasi-judicial ordersand would land in misconduct amenable to disciplinary law. In that case, thecompensation as fixed by the Land Acquisition officer was reduced. In Special landAcquisition Officer,Dharwad V/s. Tajar Hanifabi (Smt.)[(1996)10 SCC 627], the question related to determination of the market value in respect of 6 acres of land. When theland in factwas used foragricultural purpose, no prudent andwiling vendee would offer the market value on square foot basis. Thus determination of compensation on the basis of square foot basis on thefoot of a small saletransaction washeld tobe a wrong principal of lawand according the determination of compensation was reducedfrom Rs. 1,96,20\- per acre to 45,000/-per acre.

The HighCourt has relied upon the oral evidence adducedby theclaimants in support ofthe Claim. It is not in dispute, aseven pointed out by the Land Acquisition Officer, that there is colony and railway shed etc. near the acquired lands. But the question is: whether on the date of the notification, the lands possessed of potential value and were fit foruse asbuilding site?On thebasis of the evidence adduced beforethe land Acquisition officer and the contents of theaward which is always part of the record and material evidence, it is difficult to accept the contention of ShriSudhir Chandra that thelands possessedof potential value for being used for building purpose. Except a small fraction of land, the elands are agricultural lands. Tomake them fit for construction, evenaccording to the conservative estimate,an amount of Rs. 23.50 per acre to level up the same. Itwould be figment of imagination to believethat aprudent builder woulddo that. TheHigh Court, therefore, is clearly in error in treating the lands as fitfor building purpose and on that basis determining the compensation after giving the deduction.

The question, therefore, arises:what is the market value the lands were capable to fetch?In a reference under Section18, asheld earlier, the burden of proof always is on theclaimants to establishthat the lands are possessed of advantageous features and are, therefore, capable of fetching higher marketvalue than whatis determined by the Land Acquisition Officer in his awardunder Section 11. In view ofthe fact that the High Court itself hasrejected all the sale deedsexcept Ex. A-12which we are now constrained to reject, andas no other evidence isavailable, we cannot allow the appeals anddismissthe reference. The Court, insteadof indulging into feats of imagination, should sit in thearm chair of a prudent willing purchaser in the normal conditions of the market and seek answer to the question whether he would be willingto offer the amount proposed by the court, after taking into consideration all the features of the land existing ason thedate of the notification . In view of the material collected by theland Acquisition officer himself as referred in the award, we think that after taking into consideration allthe relevant factors, the reasonable compensation should beRs. 50.000/- per acre. The compensation is accordingly awarded.