JAWAHARLAL NEHRU KRISHI VISHWAVIDYALAYA vs CHHIDAMILAL

This appeal under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act has been filed against the judgment dated 17.1.2002 passed by II Additional District Judge Gwalior in Reference Case No.2 of 2/77 (Land Acquisition) by which, the reference court granted compensation amount at the enhanced market rate.

The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal in short are that the land bearing Survey No.63 area 3 Biswa and Survey No.65 area 1 Bigha 11 Biswa total area 1 Bigha 14 Biswa situated at village Laliyapur Tehsil and District Gwalior belonging to the respondent was acquired by the appellant/State in the year 1968. The Land Acquisition Officer assessed the market price of the land at Rs.1600/- per Bigha which was not acceptable to the respondent. Therefore, an application was made for referring the matter to the District Judge and accordingly, the matter went in reference to the court below.

It was pleaded by the respondent that while assessing market price of the land which was acquired by the State, several aspects like quality of the soil, location of the land, sale deeds of the other land which were sold on previous occasion have not been taken into consideration. It was further pleaded that the mud boundary (Maidh) is situated in Survey No.64 and 65 but the wrong report was given that it is situated in Survey No.60/62 and 63. Thus, it was prayed that the respondent is entitled for compensation at a price of Rs.40,500 per bigha and he is also entitled to get Rs.1,000/- for mud boundary (Maidh), Rs.5,000/- towards repair of well and construction of a room and Rs.1,000/- towards standing crop and accordingly, total amount of Rs.47,500/- was claimed as compensation for acquisition of the land belonging to the respondent.

The appellant filed it''s written statement and pleaded that the land was acquired in the year 1968 and the market value of the land has been assessed after considering the location of land as well as different sale deeds at the time of acquisition and it was not necessary to assess mud boundary (Maidh) separately. The land was acquired in the year 1968 and at that time, there was no industrial activities near the place. Vicky Moped Factory is also located at a distance and is situated at another end of railway line. It is admitted that the land in dispute is situated near Sitholi railway station but it was pleaded that it is very small station and no development had taken place around the said railway station. The land in dispute was used for agricultural purposes only and only one crop could be yielded in a year.

The reference court framed following issues :

"VERNACULAR TABLE OMITTED"

After recording evidence of the witnesses and after hearing both the parties, the reference court held that the respondent is entitled for compensation at a price of Rs.3200/- per Bigha. He is entitled to get Rs.500/- for the mud boundary (Maidh) and he is entitled to get Rs.267.25 towards the price of the crop with 30% solatium.

Vidyadhar Joshi (PW1) had stated that the land acquisition officer had assessed the market price of the land on the basis of the sale deeds of Bholaram and Maharaj Singh but the quality of those lands were very poor. The land in question is a plain land whereas, the land of Bholaram and Maharaj Singh was uneven with several pits. It was further pleaded that Omprakash had sold the land by registered sale deeds dated 4.12.1963 Ex.P/13, Ex.P/14, Ex.P/15 and Ex.P/16. It was further pleaded that the land of one Harishankar Goel is also situated by the side of the land in dispute which too was acquired and award has been passed in respect of the land of Harishankar Goel in reference No.12/16 and the certified copy of the said award is Ex.P/17.

Vidhyadhar Joshi (PW1) has admitted that the land in question was agricultural land. For ascertaining the market price of the acquired land, the sale deeds of surrounding areas should be taken into consideration. Market price of the land bearing Survey No.62 and 65 has been wrongly assessed considering the same as un-irrigated land.

Ajay Kumar Jain (PW2) had stated that he had seen the land in question and there a well and diesel pump is installed.

Appellant/State did not examine any witness in support of its case which is evident from the order sheet dated 19.12.2001. On 19.12.2001, the respondent examined Shri Ajay Kumar Jain as (PW2) and thereafter, the respondent closed its right to lead any other evidence. On the very same date, the appellant also expressed that they do not want to give any evidence and accordingly, the case was fixed for final arguments. Thus, it is clear that in absence of any evidence contrary to the evidence led by the respondent, it would be difficult to hold that the land of the respondent acquired by the State was un-irrigated land. The reference Court has also taken into consideration the sale deed Ex.P/2 by which, 8 Bigha 5 Bisawa land was sold for consideration amount of Rs.60,000/- on 6.12.1968. If the market price of 1 bigha land is calculated on the basis of the sale deed dated 6.12.1968 Ex.P/2, then, it would come to Rs.2424/- per bigha. So far as the sale deeds Ex.P/13, P/14, P/15 and P/16 are concerned, since those sale deeds are in relation to diverted lands, therefore, the sale deeds cannot be taken into consideration because, the land which has been acquired is an agricultural land. The reference court after considering the evidence on record came to a conclusion that the land in dispute is an irrigated land and therefore, the price of the said land was Rs.3200/- per Bigha. As the State did not lead any evidence, in support of it''s case, this Court is left with no other option but to hold that the land in question was irrigated land and therefore, the reference court has rightly assessed the price of the land to Rs.3200/- per Bigha. The trial court has awarded an amount of Rs.267.25 towards price of standing crops as it is undisputed fact that at the time when the possession was taken, the crop was standing in Survey No.65.

Counsel for the appellant in absence of any evidence led by the appellant could not point out any perversity in the findings of the reference Court. The reference court by award dated 17.1.2002 had held that as 1.14 Bigha irrigated land was acquired, therefore, the respondent is entitled to Rs.5440/- towards compensation amount of the land at the rate of Rs.3200/- per Bigha. The respondent is entitled to get Rs.500/- towards mud boundary (Maidh) as well as Rs.267.25 towards the standing crop and accordingly, it was held that the respondent is entitled to an

amount of Rs.6207.25 towards compensation amount. It was also held that in view of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, the respondent is also entitled to get interest at the rate of 12% from the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act till 13.9.1968 when the possession was taken. The respondent has also been awarded 30% solatium and the reference court has also awarded 9% interest from 13.9.1961 to 12.9.1969 and thereafter from 12.9.1969 onwards, the interest at the rate of 15% till the payment is made has been awarded.

Considering the evidence which has come on record and considering the different sale deeds, this Court is of the view that the award passed by the reference Court does not require any reconsideration. The award passed by the reference Court does not suffer from any perversity and accordingly, the award dated 17.1.2002 passed by the Reference Court is affirmed.

Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.