A.D.A. vs Matrumal

Sanjay Misra, J.—List of final hearing cases has been revised. None appears on behalf of the respondent inspite of repeated calls. Sri A.K. Misra learned counsel for the Allahabad Development Authority is present.

This is a first appeal u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the award dated 31.1.1991 passed in Land Acquisition Reference no. 108 of 1989 (Mataru Vs State of U.P. and Others). By the impugned award the compensation of the land in question has been enhanced by the reference court to Rs. 40 per square metre.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the notification u/s 4 of the Act was issued on 6.6.1983 and the notification u/s 6 of the Act was issued on 16.6.1983 whereas possession was taken on 2.4.1985 and the award was made on 22.9.1986. On a reference u/s 18 of the Act the reference court has passed the impugned award which is under challenge in this appeal.

The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the finding given on Issue no. 1 regarding the quantum of compensation is based on the Land Acquisition Reference no. 104 of 1989 (Rohini Prasad Vs State of U.P. and Others) wherein the award was given on 5.12.1999. He submits that insofar as the impugned award is concerned there is no finding recorded as to why the compensation has been enhanced to Rs. 40 per square metre.

Learned counsel has referred to the award dated 5.12.1990 passed in Land Acquisition Reference no. 104 of 1989 (Rohini Prasad Vs State of U.P. and Another) which has been filed as Paper no. 25-ga before the reference court and is available in the paper book in this appeal to state that while deciding Issue no. 2 on the quantum of compensation the reference court has taken into account the circle rate fixed by the Collector under Rule 340 of the Stamp Rules and found that the land in the year 1982-83 was valued at Rs. 30-45 per square metre under the Stamp Act. He states that the circle rate fixed under the Stamp Act is for the purpose of revenue and stamp duty on a transaction of transfer and it cannot be made the basis of valuation of the land in land acquisition proceedings. For the said purpose he has placed reliance on a decision in the case of Jawajee Nagnatham Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, A.P. and Others, . He has also placed reliance on a decision in the case of Land Acquisition Officer, Eluru and Others Vs. Jasti Rohini (Smt) and Another, .

Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record admittedly the impugned award has granted enhanced compensation @ Rs. 40 per square metre only on the basis of the award dated 5.12.1990 given in Land Acquisition Reference no. 104 of 1989 (Rohini Prasad Vs State of U.P. and Another. The award dated 5.12.1990 in the case of Rohini Prasad is available on record wherein Issue no. 2 has been decided on the basis that the circle rate fixed by the District Magistrate under Rule 340 of the Stamp Rules was Rs. 30-45 per square metre and therefore taking the circle rate as the basis of assessment for valuing the land he has fixed the value of the land at Rs. 40 per square metre for the purpose of grant of compensation in these land acquisition proceedings.

There is no other reason given in the impugned award or in the award in the case of Rohini Prasad for fixing the value of land at Rs. 40 per square metre for the purpose of grant of compensation under the Land Acquistion Act. The valuation of the land as fixed under the Stamp Act is a unilateral exercise hence it cannot bind the vendor. Therefore it is not a sound basis for determining the value of land under the land acquisition proceedings. Clearly in view of the judgment in the case of Jawajee Nagnatham Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, A.P. and Others, and in the case of Land Acquisition Officer, Eluru and Others Vs. Jasti Rohini (Smt) and Another, the circle rate under the Stamp Act fixed by the District Magistrate could not be made the sole and only basis for determining the market value of the land in question for the purpose of payment of compensation under the Land Acquistion Act.

Under such circumstances the reason given in the impunged award for enhancing the compensation cannot be upheld. The impugned award is therefore liable to be set aside. The impugned award dated 31.1.1991 passed in Land Acquisition Reference no. 108 of 1989 (Mataru Vs State of U.P. and Others) by the XII Additional District Judge, Allahabad is set aside.

The appeal stands allowed as above.

No order is passed as to costs.