AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read with section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against the judgment dated 27/08/2004 passed by District Judge, Satna in MJC No.37/2001 arising out of Reference Application filed under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as ''the Act''?) against the award dated 05/05/1989 passed by Land Acquisition Officer, District, Satna in Revenue Case No.14-A/82.
In brief, relevant facts of the case are that on 30/09/88 the appellant''s land bearing survey No.967, land ad-measuring 1.250 hectare situated at village Baghai, Tahsil Rampur Baghelan, District Satna, was acquired by the respondents by issuing notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and the Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.24,095/- per hectare and evaluated market price of the kaccha house situated on the acquired land at Rs.9118/- and with all statutory benefits, total compensation was determined to the tune of Rs.54,781.70/-, which was received by the appellant under protest.
Thereafter, an application under Section 18 of the Act was submitted by the appellant to the Land Acquisition Officer, which was referred to the District Judge, Satna. In the application the appellant claimed that the value of the land has been determined deeming it third category land, while it was irrigated land and yielded two crops per annum. The land situated near the acquired land has been considered as first category land and accordingly compensation has been determined, but without any reason the appellant has been awarded less compensation. Similarly, determination of the value of the house is also very meager, while it should be valued of Rs.75,000/-. It is further stated that the respondent No.2 has taken possession of the total land admeasuring 1.995 hectare, while compensation has been given for the land admeasuring 1.250 acre and for 0.745 hectare of land no compensation has been awarded. On account of acquisition of the land, one part of the appellant''s land is separated with the other part of the land and there is no convenient way to reach the other part of the land situated across the railway line, as the land has been acquired for the purpose of railway line. For this inconvenience, no compensation has been awarded. Apart from it, for the purpose of construction of railway line, on both sides of appellant''s other land, two big pits holes have been created, which rendering the piece of land useless for agricultural purpose and no compensation has been awarded for this damage. In the acquired land there were well and tube well, but no compensation has been given in this regard. On these grounds in the application it is prayed that appropriate compensation be awarded to the appellant.
On behalf of the respondent No.1 correctness of the contents of the application were denied and prayer was made to reject the same.
Learned reference Court after trial by the impugned judgment has held that the appellant has failed to establish that for the land situated nearby the acquired land higher compensation has been awarded and has also failed to establish that the value of the kaccha house at the time of acquisition was higher than the value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. Similarly, the appellant has also failed to establish that excess land than the acquired land was taken in possession by the respondents, or any damage was caused by digging two pit holes. Similarly, appellant has also failed to establish the fact that there was any well or tube-well in the acquired land at the time of acquisition of the land. It is further held that the appellant has also failed to establish that by separation of one part of the land from other part, he needs Rs.1,00,000/- for construction of appropriate road to reach the separated part of the land. Accordingly, the claim of the appellant has been dismissed.
The appellant filed this appeal against the aforesaid judgment and findings of the learned lower Court stating that the findings of the learned Lower Court are contrary to facts, evidence and law. The compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is not adequate. The acquired land was categorized as ''Bhata-3'' and the land belonging to other persons having same category considered as ''A-grade'' land and valued Rs.37,620/- per hectare and appellant''s land considered as ''Grade-C'' and valued Rs.24,696/- per hectare, which is arbitrary. On that account appellant is entitled for compensation on market rate i.e. Rs.37,620/- per hectare. It is further stated that keeping in view of the documents Ex.P/12 & Ex.P/13 the appellant deserves to be compensated to the tune of Rs.35,000/- for the land measuring 0.745 hectare, which has been taken without any acquisition proceedings. Similarly, for the kaccha house appellant is further entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.40,000/-. Similarly, appellant is also entitled to be compensated for damages caused by digging pit holes on both sides of the land and for the inconvenience caused due to separation of appellant''s land and also entitled compensation for the well and tube well situated in the acquired land. Learned Lower Court has wrongly denied to award compensation to the appellant on the heads as mentioned above, therefore, the impugned judgment be set aside and appropriate compensation be awarded. It is further stated that for short of fund to pay court fee for the enhancement of compensation, the appeal has been valued at Rs.1,00,000/- and considering his financial condition prayer is made that in the event of enhancement of compensation exceeding Rs.1,00,000/- appellant is willing to pay the difference of the Court fees.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 opposes all the aforesaid grounds and prayed for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the learned reference Court has considered all the facts, evidence and law in right perspective and the impugned judgment is not required any interference.
Respondent No.2 remained absent; therefore, appeal is heard exparte against respondent No.2.
Having considered the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record in this case following questions arise for disposal of this appeal :- i. Whether the market value of the acquired land determined by the lower court is not correct and requires any interference?
ii. Whether the market value for the house situated on the acquired land is not correct and requires any interference, if yes then what will the market value?
iii. Whether the appellant''s adjoining land ad-measuring area 0.745 hectare has been taken without any proceeding of acquisition or without awarding any compensation?
iv. Whether at the time of acquisition, on the acquired land well and tube-well were situated, if yes then what amount will be determined as compensation?
v. Whether on both sides of the adjoining land of the appellant, two big pits were created and the land has been damaged and the land has become useless, if yes then what amount of compensation be awarded?
vi. Whether separation of the other land of the appellant caused inconvenience or damage to the appellant, if yes then what amount as a compensation be awarded?
vii. Relief and cost.
Question No.1 : On behalf of the appellant it is contended that other claimants having similar nature of land have been awarded more amount of compensation than the appellant''s land. But on perusal of the record it is found that there is no document, on the basis of which, this contention can be examined and any inference may be drawn by this court. On perusal of the record it is found that before the lower court it was contended that the owner of the land of survey no. 750 situated in the same village for the similar nature of the acquired land, higher compensation has been awarded and the land of survey no. 750 has been considered Grade-A land and the acquired land of the present case has been considered as Grade-D land without any reason which is discriminatory approach of the land acquisition officer. The aforesaid contention has been made, on the basis of the entry in the revenue paper Ex.P/2, which is related to Samvat 1983 to 2002 i.e. for the years 1926 to 1945, in which both lands have been categorized as Bhata-3 in the column of quality of land and the acquisition has been made on 30.9.1988 near about after 62 years. Therefore, on the basis of the entry of 62 years old regarding quality of the land, it cannot be compared with the present time. No documentary evidence regarding present entry about the quality of land has been produced by the appellant. Apart from it, other khasra panchsala Exs.P/6 to Ex.P/11 do not disclose that the acquired and was irrigated by any means. While, as per the statement of the appellant (PW-1) Sukhram, land bearing survey no. 750 was irrigated by Nala while the acquired land had no such facility as map Ex.P/3 does not disclose existence of any Nala nearby the acquired land. In the aforesaid circumstances, learned lower court has rightly held that no discrimination has been made by the land acquisition officer in determination of the market value of the land. On behalf of the appellant, no other evidence or material was adduced before the reference Court for the purpose of determination of market value of the acquired land. Therefore, the learned lower court has rightly upheld that the value determined by the land acquisition officer is correct. In view of this court, this finding does not requires any interference with. Hence, it is held that the market value of the acquired land has been determined correctly and no interference is required. Accordingly, the question no. 1 is answered.
Question No.2: Market value of the house situated on the acquired land has been determined to the tune of Rs.9118/-. The appellant has claimed that it should be Rs.70,000/-. In this regard, Sukhram (PW-1) has simply stated in his statement that the value of his house was Rs.75,000/- but nothing has been stated that on what basis this assessment has been made. Similar statement has been given by Bhagwat Singh (PW-2). On the basis of general averments regarding value of the house it cannot be determined that the value of the house was Rs.75,000/-. There must be specific evidence about length, width and quality and other items used in construction of the house. In absence of such evidence or evidence of any technical person, the assessment made by the land acquisition officer, on the basis of the report of technical person, is admissible or believable. In the aforesaid circumstances, learned lower court has not committed any error in rejecting the appellant''s claim in this regard. Therefore, this court also holds that Rs.9000/- is correct market value of the house situated on the acquired land and no interference / modification is required. Accordingly, the question no. 2 is answered.
Question No.3: Appellant Sukhram (PW-1) and Bhagwat (PW-2) have stated in their statements that during construction of railway line, other adjoining land of the appellant Sukhram, area 0.745 hectare was also taken which is other than the acquired land. It is not stated that the land was taken at the time of taking possession of the acquired land by the Collector. Therefore, this objection does not come in purview of section 23 (I) of the Land Acquisition Act. In this regard, separate proceeding may be initiated against the Railway Department or the concerned contractor. Apart from it, there is no cogent evidence on record to establish the fact that actually the aforesaid land, area 0.745 hectare other than the acquired land was also taken in possession at the time of construction of railway line. This fact cannot be established without getting demarcation and no such demarcation has been made. Therefore, it is rightly held by the learned lower court that the appellant has failed to establish that other than the acquired land, area 0.745 hectare land was also taken by the respondents. In such circumstances, in this head no compensation can be given to the appellant. Hence, the question no. 3 is answered accordingly.
Question No. 4: Appellant Sukhram (PW-1) and Bhagwat (PW-2) have also stated in their statements that in the acquired land, there were one Well and one tube-well but these statements are not trust worthy as it is against the revenue record Exs. P/6 to P/9 and Exs. P/14 and P/16 as till the acquisition of the land, there was no entry about the well and tube well and the revenue entries show that the land was un-irrigated. Therefore, the learned lower court has rightly held that in the acquired land, no well and tube-well was situated. Hence, with regard to the well and tube-well, no compensation can be granted. Hence, the question no. 4 is answered accordingly.
Question no. 5: Appellant Sukhram (PW-1) and Bhagwat (PW-2) have stated in their statements that during construction of railway line, the land of both sides of the railway line other than the acquired land was damaged as on both sides of the land big pits were created for taking soil, on account of which, the appellant has been deprived of using the aforesaid land for the agricultural purposes. But, in this regard on behalf of the appellant, no demarcation has been made and the aforesaid act of the respondent no. 2 is related to the damage caused during construction of the railway line which does not come in purview of Section 23 (I) of the Act as it was not made at the time of taking possession of the acquired land. If any damage is caused by the respondent no.2, in this regard also, separate proceeding can be initiated. In this case, no compensation can be determined for the aforesaid head. Therefore, the learned lower court has rightly denied granting any compensation in this regard. The finding of the learned lower court is also upheld. The question no. 5 is answered accordingly.
Question N0.6: In this case, there is no dispute that some part of the survey no. 967 has been separated and divided into two parts on account of railway line passed across the acquired land and the appellant has to use different way to approach separated part of the land and it creates inconvenience to him. In this regard, the appellant is entitled to get compensation. Now, the question is that what amount would be appropriate in this head. The appellant has also claimed that to approach other part, construction of new road will be required and cost of new road would be near about Rs. 1 lakh. The aforesaid claim is not acceptable. This claim will be 2-3 times more than the market value of the acquired land or the separated land. In view of this court, in this head, Rs.5000/- would be appropriate. Therefore, for the inconvenience caused to the appellant because of separation of the land, Rs.5000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only) would be appropriate and the appellant is entitled to this amount with other statutory benefits as compensation. The question no. 6 is answered accordingly.
Relief and cost: Accordingly, in view of the findings of the aforesaid questions, this appeal is partly allowed with modification in the impugned judgment that the appellant is entitled to get Rs.5000/- under Section 23 (I) of the Act for the inconvenience caused due to separation of the land, with all statutory benefits. Therefore, the respondents are directed to pay the aforesaid enhanced amount with all statutory benefits to the appellant. No orders as to costs.