Hiralal and Others vs State of M.P.

D.K. Paliwal, J.—All these appeals under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short "the Act) are arising out of common land acquisition proceedings in which land of Village-Sukhaliya, Bhavrasala, and Kumedi has been acquired for the construction of road by Indore Development Authority (in short "I.D.A.") for its scheme No. 139 (M.R. 10). vide notification issued under Section 4 (1) of M.P. Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (in short the "Act") on 11/10/2002.

For the sake of convenience, in respect of land situated at village Sukhalia the facts of F.A. No. 901/2008 (Hiralal S/o Bherulal Choudhary (dead) through legal representatives v. State of M.P.) filed by the land owner are borrowed.

Briefly stated the facts are that State Government exercising its powers under section 4(1) of the Act issued a notification which came to be published on official gazette on 11/10/2002 identifying the land ad-measuring 2.411 hectare of survey No. 357/4, 358, 351, 361/1, 366/3 for acquisition for the purpose of major road under scheme No. 139 of the I.D.A. The Land Acquisition Officer (in short "L.A.O.") passed an award dated 23/11/2004. Learned L.A.O. has assessed the market value @ Rs. 4,50,000/- per hectare for irrigated land and Rs. 3,00,000/- per hectare for un-irrigated land situated at village Sukhalia. L.A.O. also awarded solatium of Rs. 3,25,485/- under Section 23 (2) of the Act and Rs. 82,634/- @ 12% interest under Section 23 (1)-a-a of the Act and also Rs. 72,061/- @ 15% interest, total Rs. 15,99,797/-.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award deceased/Hiralal filed an application under Section 18 of the Act. The land owner stated that they claimed market value @ Rs. 22,00,000/- per acre because the land falls under the Municipal Corporation Limit, Indore, housing colonies, industries, hospital, school, dharamshala etc. are also situated near the acquired land. Land owner also claimed that they were growing vegetables and were earning Rs. 35,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- per acre but no compensation has been given. They claimed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 54,34,000/-per hectare but the learned Reference Court has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 25,00,000/- per hectare for irrigated land. Being dis-satisfied this appeal has been filed.

Learned Senior counsel for the appellant submits that reference court has failed to consider that the acquired land is situated within the limits of municipal corporation and there are several industrial units and residential colonies adjacent to land acquired. It is further submitted that land which is acquired is having high potential value. The acquired land is labeled land and is situated adjacent to the Khan River which has plenty of water and appellant has laid the pipeline of about 2200 ft. after digging 3 ft. on the land for the purpose of irrigation and spent Rs. 2,06,000/-. Learned reference court has not given any compensation with regard to that. It is further submitted that 21 plants costing about Rs. 47,000/- were situated in the land but only compensation with regard to 6 trees has been awarded. It is submitted that the appellant has submitted the certified copies of the sale-deed executed at the relevant time but the same have not been considered. Learned reference court committed an error in relying on the guidelines issued by the Collector. Hence prayed for enhancement of compensation.

The respondent/I.D.A. on the other hand filed their reply to claim statement and denied the averments made therein. It is submitted that L.A.O. has rightly assessed the compensation and there is no scope for interference by this Court, hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

In respect of village Kumedi, the facts are borrowed from F.A. No. 326/2010 (Ganesh Prashad v. Indore Development Authority). State Government has issued notification under section 4(1) of the Act on 11/10/2002. The L.A.O. By his Award dated 23/11/2004 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,50,000 per hectare for irrigated land. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation and awarded compensation at the rate of 24 lacs per hectare for irrigated land. Being aggrieved appellant preferred this appeal.

It is submitted that reference court has failed to consider that the acquired land is situated within the limits of municipal corporation and there are several industrial units and residential colonies adjacent to land acquired. It is further submitted that land which is acquired is having high potential value. The value of the land is much more than the compensation awarded by Reference court. It is further submitted that appellant has filed the certified copies of the sale deed Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/9 of the adjoining land and the appellant was entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs. 150 per squire feet. It is further submitted that learned Reference court also failed to award just compensation with regard to other items.

The respondent/I.D.A. on the other hand filed their reply to claim statement and denied the averments made therein. It is submitted that L.A.O. has rightly assessed the compensation and there is no scope for interference by this Court, hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

In respect of village Bhawrasla the facts are borrowed from F.A. No. 273/10 (Ram Chandra Das v. State Of M.P.). State Government has issued notification under section 4(1) of the Act on 11/10/2002. The L.A.O. by his Award dated 23/11/2004 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,50,000 per hectare for irrigated land. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation and awarded compensation at the rate of 24 lacs per hectare for irrigated land. Being aggrieved appellant preferred this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that reference court has failed to consider that the acquired land is situated within the limits of municipal corporation and there are several industrial units and residential colonies adjacent to land acquired. It is further submitted that land which is acquired is having high potential value. The value of the land is much more than the compensation awarded by Reference court. It is further submitted that appellant has filed the certified copies of the sale deed Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/9 of the adjoining land and the appellant was entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs. 150 per square feet. It is further submitted that learned Reference court also failed to award just compensation with regard to other items.

On behalf of State it is submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the reference court is on the higher side. L.A.O. has rightly awarded the compensation.

We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the record. The land owners alongwith claim statement have filed sale-deeds. Ex. P/1, P/2 and P/3 in respect of Village-Sukhaliya, Ex. P/4 and 5 in respect of Village- Kumedi, Ex. P/6 and P/7 in respect of Village- Bhorasala and Ex P8 and Ex. P9 in respect of village Niranjanpur.

The reference court after appreciating the evidence of Hiralal (AW/1), Shankarlal (AW/2) and Kamal (AW/3) holding that the sale-deed Ex. P/1, Ex. P/2 and Ex. P4 to P/9 are with respect of a smaller area while as per sale-deed Ex. P/3, it is for 1.620 hectare and is executed in the month of October, 2003 much after the publication of notification has assessed value of the irrigated land @ of Rs. 25,00,000/- per hectare in respect of village Sukhalia.

Before proceeding to determine the "Market Value" it would be appropriate to refer the principles laid own in various cases for determination of market value. In the matter of Mumtazali v. Collector, Sehore 1964 MPLJ 299, Division Bench of this Court has observed as under :--

"The ''market value'' is not defined in the Act; but the connotation of the expression is now well settled. It has been stated to be the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser. Neither must be considered as acting under compulsion. The claimant receives for the lands he is compelled to part with under the Act their money equivalent, i.e. that which they are worth to him in money. When a willing purchaser and a willing vendor make a business transaction of sale actuated by business principles, they will necessarily take into account all potentialities of the property. Its actual particular use by the owner at the time of the bargain shall not be the final determining consideration governing its price. All reasonable future possibilities for which the land may be used by a prudent owner must be taken into consideration as part of the value to be owner. The probability that the land can be put to a more profitable use, present or future, in the hands of a prudent owner ought not to be disregarded, so that if a piece of land is at the time of notification under section 4 (1) of the Act primarily used for agriculture or is even lying fallow, that is not conclusive of its value. For, if there is a reasonable probability of its being used as a building site in the near future, this land as a building site shall be an element to be taken into consideration in computing its ''market value''."

In the matter of Sitabai and Others Vs. State of M.P. and Others, (2009) ILR (MP) 843 : (2009) 2 JLJ 343 : (2009) 2 MPHT 442 : (2009) 1 MPLJ 616 , this Court has observed as under:--

"It is now well settled that while determining the compensation for such compulsory acquisition the relevant factors, are the purpose for which the land was acquired, potentiality of the land, its location, its potential use, market price of the land sold in near proximity just prior to the acquisition, and the appreciation of the value of the land for every subsequent year. The Courts for making assessment can safely take into account the documentary as well as the oral evidence led by the parties in support of these factors. The Courts have also to take into consideration in order to avoid element of speculation of fixation of market value with reference to comparable sales as to whether the sale is within the reasonable time of the date of notification, whether it is bonafide sale, whether it is for the land adjacent to the land acquired and whether it possess similar advantages."

In the case of Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer Vs. V. Narasaiah, AIR 2001 SC 1117 : (2001) 3 JT 157 : (2001) 2 SCALE 257 : (2001) 3 SCC 530 : (2001) 2 SCR 141 : (2001) 2 UJ 997 : (2001) AIRSCW 867 : (2001) 2 Supreme 187 , the Supreme Court held as under:--

"the certified copy of the sale-deed relating to similar lands situated in the vicinity can be relied upon without examining vendee or vendor or anybody else connected with the sale."

The Supreme Court in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan, District Badaun v. Bipin Kumar and another (supra), noticing the evidence of high potentiality held as under :--

"the increase of 15% per year on the sale-deed comparable can be taken for assessment of the market value on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act and observed that the same cannot be said to be unreasonable."

In case of Sri Rani M., Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur, Rance of Vuyyur v. The Collector of Madras (supra), the Supreme Court has observed that

"the sale-deed representing highest value out of the different transactions has to be preferred and average of two sale-deeds should not be taken."

Similar is the view taken by the Supreme Court in case of Bakhtawar Singh and another v. Union of India and another (supra), in which it has been held that determination of market value on the basis of comparable sale transaction application of principle of average price is illegal.

In the light of aforesaid principles we shall now examine the material on record to determine the market value of the acquired land in respect of village Sukhalia, Kurmedi and Bhawrasla as on 11/10/2002 i.e. on the date of the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act.

Hiralal (PW/1) has deposed that his land is situated within the limit of Indore Municipal Corporation Area and is surrounded by residential colonies. He further stated that Dal Mill, Pipe Factories and other Factories are also situated adjacent to his land alongwith Hospitals, Schools and Gardens. His land is also situated near Agra-Bombay National Highway. When his land was acquired, the market value of his land was Rs. 30,00,000/- per acre. He has further stated that Khan River flows near his land and he has laid a pipeline for the purpose of irrigating his land and spent Rs. 1,15,000/- but no compensation has been given for the same. He has further stated that there were 21 trees and he claimed compensation of Rs. 47,500/- but the same has not been awarded. Similarly when the possession was taken his vegetable crop was standing but no compensation has been awarded for the loss of his vegetable crop.

Shankarlal (AW/2) has supported the statement of Hiralal. Kamal (AW/3) has stated that his land bearing survey No. 425/1 is situated near the acquired land of Hiralal. He has executed the sale-deed of his survey No. 425/1 for a consideration of Rs. 2,79,000/- (at the rate of Rs. 60,65,218/- per hectare) on 10/12/2001 vide sale-deed Ex. P/1. On behalf of respondent - Rajesh (NAW/1) has been examined. According to this witness he was posted as Patwari from the year 1982 to 1997 in Indore Development Authority. Khasra No. 357/4, 358, 359/1, 361/1 (part), 366/3 total area 2.411 hectare has been acquired for scheme No. 139 (M.R.-10). The aforesaid land was irrigated land. He further stated that 40% of the land acquired for the scheme No. 139 of village- Sukhaliya may be available and remaining 60% of the land should be utilized for development work like Garden, Nala, Drainage Line, Water Line etc. He further stated that there is no potential value of the land acquired.

On behalf of the appellant sale-deed Ex. P/1 to P/9 have been filed. Rajesh Jain (N.A.W1) in his cross examination has admitted that land of village-Sukhalia, Bhawarasala and Kumedi are adjacent to each other.

In respect of village Sukhalia the sale deed Ex. P1 to Ex. P3 are available hence the sale deed Ex. P4 to Ex. P9 which are in respect of village Kumedi, Bhawrasala and Niranjanpur in our opinion can not be made basis for determination of market value in respect of village Sukhalia.

Sale deed Ex. P/1 is dated 10/12/01 and is 335 days prior to date of notification under section 4(1) of the Act. Sale deed Ex. P/2 is dated 25/8/03 and thus 258 days after the notification. Sale deed Ex. P3 is dated 9/10/03 and thus about 336 days after the notification under section 4(1) of the Act.

Hon''ble Apex court in series of cases held that where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is bonafide transaction, will be considered. (Please see Anjani Molu Dessai Vs. State of Goa and Another, (2011) 3 RCR(Civil) 696 : (2010) 13 SCC 710 , Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 2012 SC 2721 : (2012) 114 CLT 696 : (2012) 3 CTC 396 : (2012) 4 SCALE 628 : (2012) 5 SCC 432 : (2012) AIRSCW 2822 : (2012) 4 Supreme 66 .

Based on the above principle, the market value as per Ex. P/2 dated 25/8/03 was Rs. 70,19,608 per hec. which is the highest of exemplars may be taken into consideration.

Considering that sale deed Ex. P/2 is about 10 month after notification under section 4(1) of the Act dated 11/10/02 therefore in the light of Apex Court decision in The General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Another, (2008) 9 JT 480 : (2009) 153 PLR 494 : (2008) 11 SCALE 637 wherein it has been held that where the acquired land is in urban/semi urban areas increase can be to the tune of 10% to 15% per annum and if land is in rural areas increase can be in between to the tune of 5% to 7.5% per annum.

Thus based on above principles we fix the annual increase at 15% per annum and with that of increase the market value of the appellants land on the date of notification would come to Rs. 61,42,157/- per hec. However considering the fact that area of land of sale deed Ex. P2 is a smaller one, it is but proper that appropriate deduction should be made for the same. In Trishala Jain and Another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Another, AIR 2011 SC 2458 : (2011) 2 RCR(Civil) 947 : (2011) 5 SCALE 469 : (2011) 6 SCC 47 : (2011) 8 SCR 520 : (2011) 4 UJ 2536 : (2011) AIRSCW 3582 Apex Court held that the value of small pieces of land can be taken into consideration for determining the market value of large tract of land but with a rider that while taking such instances into consideration has to make a reasonable deduction keeping in view of other attending circumstances. Similar view has been expressed in State of M.P. Vs. Kashiram and Others, AIR 2009 SC 1642 : (2009) CLT 522 : (2009) CriLJ 1530 : (2009) 2 JT 140 : (2009) 2 SCALE 118 : (2009) 4 SCC 26 : (2009) 1 SCR 806 : (2009) 3 UJ 1141 : (2009) AIRSCW 1125 and Prabhakar Raghunath Patil and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 12 JT 456 : (2011) 1 RCR(Civil) 186 : (2010) 11 SCALE 659 : (2010) 13 SCC 107 : (2010) AIRSCW 7016 : (2010) 7 Supreme 992 .

In view of above, it would be just and reasonable to allow deduction at the rate 20%. (Please see Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 2012 SC 2721 : (2012) 114 CLT 696 : (2012) 3 CTC 396 : (2012) 4 SCALE 628 : (2012) 5 SCC 432 : (2012) AIRSCW 2822 : (2012) 4 Supreme 66 .

By applying the above method, the market value for the acquired land in respect of village Sukhalia is fixed at the rate of Rs. 61,42,157/- per hectare minus Rs. 12,28,431/- (towards 20% deduction) equivalent to Rs. 49,13,726/- per hec. which is quite fair and reasonable.

So far enhancement of compensation on other items is concerned, we think the reference court has rightly awarded the compensation and we do not find any justification for enhancement of the same.

In respect of land situated at village Kumedi sale-deeds Ex. P4 and Ex. P5 has been filed. Vide sale deed Ex. P4 dated 4/6/02 0.125 hec. land situated at village Kumedi has been sold for a consideration of Rs. 4,10,000/-. Vide sale-deed Ex. P/5 0.112 hec. has been sold for 1,50,000/-(market value Rs. 2,40,000/) at the rate of Rs. 32,80,000/- per hec.

In the light of Anjani Molu Dessai Vs. State of Goa and Another, (2011) 3 RCR(Civil) 696 : (2010) 13 SCC 710 , Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 2012 SC 2721 : (2012) 114 CLT 696 : (2012) 3 CTC 396 : (2012) 4 SCALE 628 : (2012) 5 SCC 432 : (2012) AIRSCW 2822 : (2012) 4 Supreme 66 sale deed Ex. P/4 is of highest value therefore it is to be considered. As per Ex. P4 the land has been sold at the rate of Rs. 32,80,000/- per hec.

Considering that sale deed Ex. P/4 is about 5 month prior to notification under section 4(1) of the Act dated 11/10/02 therefore in the light of Apex Court decision in The General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Another, (2008) 9 JT 480 : (2009) 153 PLR 494 : (2008) 11 SCALE 637 , we fix the annual increase at 15% per annum and with that of increase the market value of the appellants land would come to Rs. 34,85,000/ per hec. on the date of notification. However considering the fact that area of land of sale deed Ex. P/4 is a smaller one, in the light of Trishala Jain and Another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Another, AIR 2011 SC 2458 : (2011) 2 RCR(Civil) 947 : (2011) 5 SCALE 469 : (2011) 6 SCC 47 : (2011) 8 SCR 520 : (2011) 4 UJ 2536 : (2011) AIRSCW 3582 (supra) , it is but proper that appropriate deduction should be made for the same. In view of above, it would be just and reasonable to allow deduction of 20%. (Please see Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 2012 SC 2721 : (2012) 114 CLT 696 : (2012) 3 CTC 396 : (2012) 4 SCALE 628 : (2012) 5 SCC 432 : (2012) AIRSCW 2822 : (2012) 4 Supreme 66 .

By applying the above method, the market value for the acquired land in respect of village Kumedi is fixed at the rate of Rs. 34,85,000/- per hectare minus Rs. 6,97,000/-(towards 20% deduction) equivalent to Rs. 27,88,000/- per hec. which is quite just and reasonable.

So far compensation on other items is concerned we think the reference court has rightly awarded the compensation and we do not find any justification for enhancement of the same.

In respect of land situated at village Bhawarasla sale-deeds Ex. P/6 and Ex. P/7 has been filed. Vide Ex. P/6 dated 23/3/02 0.070 hec. Land situated at village Bhawrasla has been sold for a consideration of Rs. 4,56,500/- @ Rs. 65,21,429/- per hec. Vide sale-deed Ex. P/7 0.203 hec. has been sold for Rs. 10,00,000/- (at the rate of Rs. 49,26,108/- per hec).

In the light of Anjani Molu Dessai Vs. State of Goa and Another, (2011) 3 RCR(Civil) 696 : (2010) 13 SCC 710 , Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 2012 SC 2721 : (2012) 114 CLT 696 : (2012) 3 CTC 396 : (2012) 4 SCALE 628 : (2012) 5 SCC 432 : (2012) AIRSCW 2822 : (2012) 4 Supreme 66 sale deed Ex. P/6 which is of highest value is to be considered. The land has been sold at the rate of Rs. 65,21,429/-per hec.

Considering that sale deed Ex. P/6 is about 230 days prior to notification under section 4(1) of the Act dated 11/10/02 therefore in the light of Apex Court decision in The General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Another, (2008) 9 JT 480 : (2009) 153 PLR 494 : (2008) 11 SCALE 637 we fix the annual increase at 15% per annum and with that of increase the market value of the appellants land would come to Rs. 71,37,838/- per hec. on the date of notification. However considering the fact that area of land of sale deed Ex. P/6 is a smaller one, it is but proper that appropriate deduction should be made for the same in the light of Trishala Jain and Another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Another, AIR 2011 SC 2458 : (2011) 2 RCR(Civil) 947 : (2011) 5 SCALE 469 : (2011) 6 SCC 47 : (2011) 8 SCR 520 : (2011) 4 UJ 2536 : (2011) AIRSCW 3582 .

In view of above, it would be just and reasonable to allow deduction of 20%. (Please see Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 2012 SC 2721 : (2012) 114 CLT 696 : (2012) 3 CTC 396 : (2012) 4 SCALE 628 : (2012) 5 SCC 432 : (2012) AIRSCW 2822 : (2012) 4 Supreme 66 .

By applying the above method, the market value for the acquired irrigated land in respect of village Bhawrasala is fixed at the rate of Rs. 71,37,838/- per hectare minus Rs. 14,27,567/- (towards 20% deduction) equivalent to Rs. 57,10,271/- per hec. which is quite just and reasonable.

So far compensation on other items is concerned we think the reference court has rightly awarded the compensation and we do not find any justification for enhancement of the same.

Brief facts of F.A. No. 145/2011 (Subhash v. State of M.P). are that appellant has purchased the land bearing survey No. 22/1/4/kha/5 0.1oohec (10750 sq.feet) situated at village Kumedi from Vimala devi and setup Agrawal Metal Industries. Land of the appellant has been acquired for scheme No. 139 (M.R.-10).The acquired land is situated adjacent to well developed residential colonies and several industries, petrol pump, colleges etc. Appellant claimed compensation at the rate Rs. 200 per sq. feet alongwith compensation for industrial sheds and godown. L.A.O. Vide award dated 23/11/04 has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Reference court has enhanced the compensation @ Rs. 6,00,000/-.

Being aggrieved appellant preferred this appeal. It is submitted that reference court has failed to consider that the acquired land is diverted land and falls within the Municipal corporation limits. It is further submitted that reference court has not properly appreciated the evidence of appellant which remained unrebutted. Reference court has also erred in not awarding proper compensation towards industrial unit, plant, machinery, godown and other structures. It is further submitted that land which is acquired is having high potential value. The value of the land is much more than the compensation awarded by Reference court. It is further submitted that appellant has filed the certified copies of the sale deed Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/9 of the adjoining land and the respondent has not rebutted the evidence of appellant hence appellant was entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs. 200/- per sq. feet. It is further submitted that learned Reference court also failed to award just compensation with regard to other items.

The respondent/I.D.A. on the other hand filed their reply to claim statement and denied the averments made therein. It is submitted that L.A.O. has rightly assessed the compensation and there is no scope for interference by this Court, hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

We have perused the record. Subhash Agrawal (AW-1) deposed that he is the owner of Agrawal Metal Industries which has been acquired for scheme No. 139 (M.R.-10). He has further stated that there are several developed colonies and industries adjacent to his land like Aurbindo Hospital, Sardar Rolling Factory, Modern Bread Factory, German Tools. It is stated that his factory land is diverted land and he got its valuation done by Valuer. He further stated that he claimed compensation at the rate 200 per sq. ft. along with construction cost of industry of Rs. 20,00,000/- and Rs. 10,00,000/- for shifting his factory to another place. He has filed the sale deed Ex. P/14 and Ex. P/15.

According to Sunil (AW/4) he is valuer. He did valuation of Agrawal Metal Industries situated at Village-Kumedi and gave his report Ex. P/11 and P/12. As per his report value of Agrawal Metal Industries is Rs. 9,99,560/-.

From perusal of Ex. P/14 and Ex. P/15, it appears that Subhash has purchased the land for a consideration of Rs. 2,35,000/- on 31/08/01. In the sale deed it is mentioned the land is diverted land.

Rajesh Jain has been examined by the respondent. He has stated that when the land was acquired it was unirrigated land. Subhash Agrawal has taken away the construction material before acquisition. He further deposed that L.A.O. has granted just compensation.

Subhash Agrawal has not filed any permission of Industries Department and any map approved by the Industries Department. Sunil Chawda in his cross examination has admitted that he has prepared his report according to information given by the appellant.

In absence of credible evidence of the appellant that the market rates of the acquired land was of Rs. 200/- per square feet, in our opinion appellant is not entitled for a compensation at the rate of Rs. 200/- per square feet. Considering that the acquired land is situated in the village Kumedi and on the basis of sale deed Ex. P/4 which is in respect of village Kumedi, we have determined the market value of the irrigated land situated at village Kumedi at the rate of Rs. 27,88,000/- per hec. We fix the market value of unirrigated land situated at village Kumedi at the rate of Rs. 18,58,666/- per hec..

In the sale deed the land is mentioned as diverted land hence we allow increase of 10% of Rs. 18,58,666/- which comes to Rs. 2045,332/-. Thus in our opinion compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,45,332/- per hec. for the land would be just and fair.

So far compensation on other items is concerned we think the reference court has rightly awarded the compensation and we do not find any justification for enhancement of the same.

Brief facts of F. A No. 124/2014 Hallan Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. v. State of M.P. are that State Government has issued notification under section 4(1) of the Act on 11/10/2002. The L.A.O. By his Award dated 23/11/2004 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,00,000/- per hectare holding the land is unirrigated. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation and awarded compensation at the rate of 16 lacs per hectare.

Being aggrieved appellant preferred this appeal. It is submitted that reference court has failed to consider that the acquired land is diverted land for industrial purpose appellant has also took permission for setting up industry and constructed compound wall, servant quarters and digged three tube wells. It is further contended that acquired land is situated within the limits of municipal corporation and there are several industrial units and residential colonies adjacent to land acquired. It is further submitted that land which is acquired is having high potential value. The value of the land is much more than the compensation awarded by Reference court. It is further submitted that appellant has filed the certified copies of the sale deed Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/9 of the adjoining land and the respondent has not rebutted the evidence of appellant hence appellant was entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,56,13,280/- per hectare. It is further submitted that learned Reference court also failed to award just compensation with regard to other items.

The respondent/I.D.A. on the other hand filed their reply to claim statement and denied the averments made therein. It is submitted that L.A.O. has rightly assessed the compensation and there is no scope for interference by this Court, hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

Prajesh Kumar (A.W.1) testified that land of the company is situated at Village-Kumedi. His land has been acquired. The acquired land is diverted land and is within the limits of Municipal Corporation. Several residential colonies and industries like Ishwar Alloy, Mallaiya Agro Industries, Dall Mill, Pipe Factory are situated adjacent to acquired land. At the time of acquisition the rates of the land were at the rate of Rs. 200/- per sq. feet (Rs.87,12,000/- per acre). Sale deed Ex. P/1 to Ex. P-9 and certified copies Ex. P/13 to Ex. P/15 of order of diversion have been filed.

Aditya (AW/2) has supported the statement of Prajesh Kumar.

Rajesh Kumar has been examined by the respondent. He has stated that land has been acquired for Scheme No. 139 and proper compensation has been awarded.

Prajesh Kumar and Aditya in their cross examination have admitted that they have not purchased land adjacent to acquired land at the rate of Rs. 200/- per sq. feet.

In our opinion in absence of credible evidence appellant is not entitled compensation at the rate of Rs. 200/-per sq. feet. Considering the sale deed Ex. P/4 we have determined the market value of the irrigated land situated at village Kumedi at the rate of Rs. 27,88,000/- per hec. we fix the market value of unirrigated land situated at village Kumedi at the rate of Rs. 18,58,666/-. As the land is diverted land hence we allow increase of 10% of Rs. 18,58,666/- which comes to Rs. 20,45,332/-. Thus in our opinion compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,45,332/- per hec. would be just and fair.

So far compensation on other items is concerned, we think the reference court has rightly awarded the compensation and we do not find any justification for enhancement of the same.

Brief facts of F.A. No. 1005/2010 (Babulal v. State of M.P.) are that State Government has issued notification under section 4 (1) of the Act on 11/10/2002. Two storied house of appellant situated on survey No. 30/1 plot size 22x75 ad-measuring 1650 sq.feet at village Kabirkhedi has been acquired. The L.A.O. by his award dated 23/11/2004 awarded compensation @ Rs. 5,17,398/-. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation and awarded 6 lacs. Being aggrieved appellant preferred this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that reference court has not properly appreciated the evidence and material on record. Reference court also failed to consider the valuation report. Acquired house and land is situated within the municipal corporation area and there are several industrial units and residential colonies adjacent to house and land acquired. It is further submitted that appellant has filed sale deed of village Sukhalia, Kumedi and Bhawrasla. It is further submitted that house and land which is acquired is having high potential value. Learned reference court erred in not awarding just compensation.

On behalf of State it is submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the reference court is on the higher side. L.A.O. has rightly awarded the compensation.

We have perused the record of F.A. No. 1005/2010 (Babulal v. State of M.P.), Babulal (AW/1) has stated that his house situated at Village-Kabirkhedi, near Hira Nagar is two storied house having area 1056 sq.ft. The constructed area of the ground floor is 1054 sq.ft. and first floor 640 sq.ft. Boundary wall was also there. He further stated that his house is situated adjacent to residential colonies like Siddarath Nagar, Gori Nagar, Ghatipura, Sukhaliya, Bhorsala, Kabirkhedi. There is also industrial area adjacent to the aforesaid land. The industries Sardar Rolling Mill, Arbindo Hospital and Research Centre, Dave Ka Divya Garam Masala, Digene of Products Pvt. Ltd., Malwa Poly Plastic Pvt. Ltd., Indo-German Tools, Hindustan Times, Modern Bread Factory and Electronic Complex are situated adjacent to his house. He has filed the sale-deed Ex. P/1 to P/3 of Village-Kumedi and also filed valuation report Ex. P/4.

Rajendra (AW/2) has deposed that he is owner of land bearing survey No. 25/1/2. He has purchased the area of 0.125 hectare for a consideration of Rs. 4,10,000/-. In para 4 of his cross examination he has admitted that he has not filed the sale deed. Even the certified copy has not been filed hence the statement of Rajendra is of no help.

Sale deed Ex. P/4 and Ex. P/5 of village Kumedi and Ex. P/6 and Ex. P/7 of village Bhawrasla have been filed. Baboolal has admitted in his cross examination that his house is situated at Kabir Khedi and is 3 Km. away from Village Bhawrasla and 1.5 Km. away from village Kumedi. Though valuation report Ex. P/4 has been filed but valuer has not been examined. As per Ex. P/4 the house has been valued at Rs. 6,83,250/-. Learned reference court awarded compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/-. In our opinion Rs. 6,20,000/- would be just and fair compensation.

F.A. No. 754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09, 778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09, 789/09, 790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10, 384/10, 386/10, 536/10, 538/10, 540/10, 542/10, 549/10, 551/10, 552/10, 553/10, 554/10, 555/10, 557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have been preferred by Chief Executive Authority, I.D.A.

It is submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the reference court is on the higher side. There is no evidence on record that land of village Sukhaliya, Kurmedi, Bhawrasla and Niranjanpur is surrounded by the industrial area or adjoining to residential colonies. The learned reference court has not properly appreciated the evidence and material on record. It is further submitted that L.A.O. has rightly assessed the market value in the basis of Collector guidelines.

The learned senior counsel for the landowners, on the other hand submitted that both the L.A.O. and the Reference Court have failed to award just compensation.

In view of aforesaid discussion the submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of I.D.A. Indore in F.A. No. 754/09, 772/09, 773/09, 777/09, 778/09, 783/09, 784/09, 786/09, 787/09, 789/09, 790/09, 381/10, 382/10, 383/10, 384/10, 386/10, 536/10, 538/10, 540/10, 542/10, 549/10, 551/10, 552/10, 553/10, 554/10, 555/10, 557/10, 559/10, 560/10 have no force. Hence these appeals fails and hereby dismissed.

F.A. No. 901/08, 649/09, 650/09, 651/09, 655/09, 656/09, 657/09, 710/09, 762/09, 763/09, 769/09, 774/09, 796/09, 155/10, 156/10, 157/10, 158/10, 159/10, 160/10, 161/10, 164/10, 167/10, 168/10, 169/10, 252/10, 253/10, 326/10, 272/10, 273/10, 145/11, 274/10 and 124/14 filed by the claimants/landowners are partly allowed and the cross-objections filed by the respondent No. 1 in F.A. No. 384/2010 is hereby disposed of. The impugned judgment therein modified to the extent that the landowners of village Sukhalia whose land has been acquired for Scheme No. 139 of the I.D.A. for construction of M.R.10 are entitled to claim compensation of irrigated land at the rate of Rs. 49,13,726/- per hec. Landowners of village Bhawrasla are entitled to claim compensation of irrigated land at the rate of Rs. 57,10,271/- per hec. Landowners of village Kumedi are entitled to claim compensation of irrigated land at the rate of Rs. 27,88,000/- per hec. and for un-irrigated land at the rate of Rs. 18,58,666/- per hec. Appellant of F.A. No. 145/11 (Subhas v. State of M.P.) and 124/14 (Hallan Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. v. State of M.P.) are entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,45,332/ per hec. Appellant of F.A. No. 1005/2010 (Babulal v. State of M.P.) is entitled for compensation of Rs. 6,20,000/.

In addition appellants are also entitled for other statutory compensation payable under the Act which shall be worked out on the basis of the rates determined by this court alongwith interest at the rate awarded by the Reference Court.

Counsel fees Rs. 1000/- in each appeal to the counsel for the appellants. A decree be drawn-up accordingly. Copy of this Judgment be retained in all the connected appeals.