AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.A. Britto, J.—Both the parties to the reference, have challenged the judgment of the Reference Court dated 5/05/2005 awarding compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 120/ - per square metre.
The parties hereto shall be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the said reference case.
The applicant was a co-owner of a property surveyed under No. 60/8 lying on the bank of river Zuari at Curchorem, admeasuring about 2682 square metres. By notification issued u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, published on gazette dated 18/12/1997, the Government acquired several lands for the purpose of construction of the road for the bridge across the Zuari river at Sanvordem/Curchorem in Sanguem Taluka.
An area of 1070 square metres was acquired from the said property of the applicant. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 24/ - per square metre for 255 square metres and at the rate of Rs. 40/ - per square metre for the balance area. Rs. 26,946/ - was awarded as the fruit value of the trees.
The applicant claimed Rs. 250/ - per square metre before the Reference Court. As already stated, the learned Reference Court has awarded to the applicant Rs. 120/ - per square metre and, as such, both the parties have filed the present appeals.
Before the Reference Court, the applicant had examined his attorney who had produced two sale deeds. The first sale deed dated 9/08/1996 was in respect of a plot admeasuring 366 square metres in which there were three structures sold at the rate of Rs. 410/ - per square metre. The learned Reference Court has discarded this sale deed as it reflected the price of the land as well as the said three structures, a fact which was admitted by the applicant. The learned Reference Court observed that what was the value of the said structure was not mentioned in the sale deed and, therefore, the price of the land could not be determined without having examined the vendor or the vendee of the said structures so as to bring on record what was the value of the said structures. In my view, the sale deed dated 9/08/1996 could not have been the basis for the determination of the price of the acquired land, as it reflected, not only the price of the land, but also the three structures existing therein. No grievance is made on behalf of the either of the parties as regards the rejection of the said sale deed.
The applicant had also relied upon the evidence of Shri K.P. Bhangui as a registered valuer. The learned Reference Court has rejected his evidence as not inspiring any confidence. The said PW2/Shri Bhangui had stated that there was only an old house in the plot of sale deed which he had valued at Rs. 40,000/ -, area of which according to him, was about 80 square metres, but in cross-examination he was compelled to admit that there was another new structure existing on the northern side of the old house and he was unable to state whether on the southern side of the said old house there was another structure. Further, he was compelled to admit that the sale deed did not mention the value of the structure and also that the sale deed price included the value of the structure which was standing on the plot. As regards the acquired property, he began his evidence by stating that it was a levelled land but in cross-examination he was compelled to admit that survey No. 60/8 has a low level towards the northern side near the river bank and that from the old approach road towards the western side of survey No. 60/8, the land was sloping downwards gradually. Ultimately, he conceded that construction could be done upon the acquired land by filling of the land to some extent by raising its level, but did not state as to what level it had to be raised and what would be its cost of filling up. It was suggested to him that he had submitted the report without visiting the acquired property, as well as the property of the sale deed, a suggestion which he denied. It is therefore obvious that AW2/Bhangui had either not visited both the properties or was bent upon to support the case of the applicant who had engaged his services, by going to any extent. It is therefore obvious that Mr. Bhangui had given his evidence not with any objectivity, but with a view to help the party who had engaged his services. The description of Lord Campbel fits AW2/Shri Bhangui, well. Said Lord Campbel "they come with such a bias on their minds to support the case in which they are embarked, that hardly any weight should be given to their evidence". (See page 16 Field''s Expert Evidence, third edition.)
The learned Reference Court used the sale deed dated 10/02/1997-Exhibit 15 for the purpose of assessing the market value of the acquired land and regarding which there is no dispute raised on behalf of either of the parties. This sale deed was in respect of a plot of land which was situated at a distance of about one kilometre from the acquired land having an area of 156 square metres and which was sold at the rate of Rs. 480/ - per square metre, but the fact remains that this plot was located in the heart of the city at Sanvordem, bounded on the eastern side by the property of Cine Prashant connected by a tar road where subsequently a multistoreyed building was erected with commercial shops. The learned Reference Court noted and, in my view rightly, that the plot of sale deed - Exhibit 15 had an area of 156 square metres while the acquired land admeasured about 1086 square metres (in fact 1070 square metres) which was from Survey No. 60/08 which was having an area of 2732 square metres. The learned Reference Court noted that this land had no road connecting it and while the plot of sale deed was much superior to the acquired land which was low lying and not levelled land. The learned Reference Court then referred to the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Bibhuti Bhusan Chatterjee and Others, and held that the area of 255 square metres could be considered as part of a bigger property and valued as such. Next, the learned Reference Court took a deduction of 75% from the sale price of Rs. 480/- and fixed the market value payable to the applicants at Rs. 120/ - per square metre. In doing so, the learned Reference Court took note of the fact that Exhibit 15 was a sale deed of a plot of 156 square metres while the acquired land was much larger and that a small plot always fetched a ready buyer while a bigger plot does not have a similar advantage and on that basis took a deduction of 25%. The learned Reference Court then noted that the sale deed plot - Exhibit 15 was situated next to the road and, as such, had a huge development potential while the acquired land was situated away from the road, near the river and on that basis took a further deduction of 25%. The learned Reference Court then noted that the sale deed plot of Exhibit 15 was a levelled plot where subsequently a multistoreyed building was put up while the acquired land was low lying and sloppy and had less construction potentiality and on that count took another deduction of 25%, and, as already stated took a total deduction of 75% of the sale price of Rs. 480/ - per square metre.
The grievances of learned Counsel appearing for both parties is regarding the extent of deduction taken by the learned Reference Court. Mrs. Agni, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants, relying on Saibanna ''Dead'' by LRs. Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, has submitted that the learned Reference Court was not at all justified in taking a deduction of 25% towards absence of a road connecting the acquired property as there was ample evidence to suggest that the acquired property was connected by a road. Learned Counsel has also submitted that the deduction could not have been more than 33 1/3rd% relying on the aforesaid judgment. Learned Counsel has referred to the statement of applicant''s engineer who had stated that there was an old tar road leading to the acquired land. In fact, a suggestion was put to him that the said statement of his was false, a suggestion which he denied.
Ms. Linhares, the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that applicant''s land was low lying, away from the town and therefore could not be compared with the plot of sale deed - Exhibit 15.
AW2/Bhangui in his report dated 28/03/1998 did not refer to any road. In his affidavit he stated that there was an approach road to the acquired land. In cross-examination, he stated that there was an old tar road leading to the acquired property. In other words, it is a story of successive improvements. The plan attached to the award of the Land Acquisition Officer does not show any road. The applicant himself had stated that the northern boundary of their property surveyed under No. 60/8 was river Zuari. On the western boundary, there was a old bridge existing in the Government property. He had denied that the eastern side of their property got flooded in the monsoons and that to enter their property one had to come from the southern side and that there was a motorable road before the acquisition up to the southern boundary of their property, but in further cross-examination he had stated that the road on the southern side of their property did not come up to their property, but it came up to one house on the eastern side of their property. It is therefore, obvious that at the time of acquisition the applicant''s property, was not at all connected by a road and that has been rightly taken into consideration by the learned Reference Court. AW2/Bhangui has been found to be an unreliable witness by the learned Reference Court and I endorse that finding.
The applicant''s property was not only low lying, but was uneven and was situated on the bank of the river Zuari. It appears that it was getting flooded during monsoons since otherwise there was no reason for applicant''s witness Shri Bhangui to state that it had no history of flooding in the past. Being located on the bank of the river, the applicant''s property would have suffered more restrictions imposed by Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 1991.
What deduction is to be taken in a particular case is not based on any principle of law, but depends from case to case, place to place and variety of other factors, particularly, the disadvantages the acquired land suffered from, when compared to the land of the sale deed chosen to form the basis of determination of the price of the acquired land. In Smt. Basavva and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others, the Apex Court held that the deduction need not always be 1/3rd and that the deduction towards development charges could be always 33 1/3rd to 53%. In the case of Ratan Lal Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI), , the deduction taken was 78.45% and that was taken because the acquired lands were located in an undeveloped area though adjacent to a developed area, as it would take a long time for realisation of potentials as they would require further development. It is to be noted that it is well settled that compensation for any acquired land cannot be fixed with any mathematical precision and it is held that at times some guess work is permissible while determining the same but what is impermissible are feats of imagination and misplaced sympathies. Care should be taken to ensure that there should not be either unjust enrichment on the part of the Government nor undue deprivation on the part of the owner.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the compensation payable to the applicant as determined by the learned Reference Court is fair and reasonable and calls for no interference from this Court.
The learned Reference Court had ordered that the applicant be paid only 1/4th of the compensation as there were three other co-owners of the acquired property. The applicant has filed MCA No. 229/2006 stating that the applicant had received half of the compensation, including the share of his wife from the LAO pursuant to the order passed in inventory proceedings No. 67/95 and, therefore, compensation for half of the acquired land be paid to the applicant. Learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents has no objection in case the compensation due and payable for half of the acquired land of 1070 square meters is paid to the applicant.
Consequently, the applicants shall be paid compensation at the rate of Rs. 120/ - per square metre for 535 square metres, with consequential statutory benefits. The award of the learned Reference Court is therefore accordingly modified.
Except for the modification of the award hereby ordered, I find there is no merit in both the appeals and, therefore, the same are hereby dismissed. The amount of compensation deposited by the Government with accrued interest, if any, shall be paid to the applicants.