L.A. Collector vs Hemanta Samal and Another and Others

A.K. Parichha, J.—The above noted appeals arise out of a composite award passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore in L.A. Misc. Case Nos. 100, 322, 98, 320, 110, 102, 103, 317, 316, 104, 108, 315, 101, 105, 106, 319 and 324 of 1998 answering references made by the Land Acquisition Collector, Balasore under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, (in short, "the Act").

The Government of Orissa vide Gazette notification No. 836 dated 19.7.1995 under Section 4(1) of the Act acquired Ac.24.91 dec. of land situated in village Srikona under Chandipur Police Station in the district of Balasore for establishment of safety zone for New Magazine area for the Defence Research Centre. The lands of the claimants-Respondents as indicated in the table below, were acquired in the above said acquisition exercise.

Sl.No. F.A. No. L.A. Misc.Case No. Area acquired Plot No. Khata KisamOf land

166/2000 100/98 Ac.0.40 4523/5712 450 Sarad-II

164/2000 322/98 Ac.1.86 4251/5225 170 Sarad-I

165/2000 98/98 Ac.0.40 4523/5713 75 Sarad-II

168/2000 320/98 Ac.0.36 4224/5737 1329 Sarad-I

169/2000 110/98 Ac.1.47 4250 1285 Sarad-I

170/2000 102/98 Ac.0.10 4523/5712 450 Sarad-II

171/2000 103/98 Ac.0.10 5112/6009 1478/64 Sarad-I

172/2000 317/98 Ac.1.73 4254 128 Sarad-I

173/2000 316/98 Ac.0.14 4523/5715 61 Sarad-II

175/2000 104/98 Ac.0.30 4523/5714 1010 Sarad-II

176/2000 108/98 Ac.0.20 4253/5112 695 Sarad-I

177/2000 315/98 Ac.0.03 4509 721 Sarad-II

179/2000 101/98 Ac.0.40 4523/5712 450 Sarad-II

180/2000 105/98 Ac.0.82 4523/5714 1010 Sarad-II

191/2000 106/98 Ac.2.90 4257 233 Sarad-I

Ac.0.03 4260/4872 233 Sarad-I

193/2000 319/98 Ac. 1.53 4253/4876 266 Sarad-I

189/2000 324/98 Ac.0.15 4243/4879 1478/12 Sarad-I

The Land Acquisition Collector, Balasore, who is the Appellant in all the appeals conducted an enquiry and awarded compensation to the claimants for the acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- for Sarad-I kisam and Rs. 20,000/- per acre for Sarad-II kisam of land. The claimants-Respondents received such compensation under protest and by separate petitions prayed the Land Acquisition Collector to refer the matter to the Civil Court for determination of proper market value of the acquired lands and accordingly, references were made and the matters, came up before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore in the above noted L.A. Misc. Cases. Since the acquisition of the lands of the above claimants-Respondents was made under one notification and the lands were virtually similar in nature, learned referral Court clubbed all the Misc. Cases for analogous hearing and disposal. The claimants produced oral and documentary evidence separately to justify their claim of higher compensation. The Land Acquisition Collector however produced the same set of evidence in all the cases. Considering the evidence led by the parties, learned referral Court concluded that at the relevant point of time the market value of Sarad-I variety acquired land was Rs. 1,25,000/- per acre and that of Sarad-II variety acquired land was Rs. 1,15,000/- per acre. After this conclusion, learned referral Court directed the Land Acquisition authorities to pay compensation at the above noted rates along with statutory benefits provided under the Act. That composite award is now under challenge in all these appeals.

Mr. Sangram Das, learned Counsel for the Appellant challenged the impugned award basically with the submission that the award is contrary to the materials on record and the settled principles of law. He stated that learned referral Court fell in error by accept in the sale deeds, Exts.1 to 4 in evidence although it was apparent that they were documents manufactured by the claimant, Hemanta Kumar Samal shortly before acquisition of the land for the simple purpose of claiming higher compensation. He alleged that the referral Court committed serious irregularity by arbitrarily ignoring the sale statistics and the sale deed, Ext. A produced by the Appellant-L.A. Collector. Mr. Das further argued that the market value assessed by the learned referral Court is unsustainable because the said Court applied the sale statistics relating to small patches of land in determining the market value of large patches of land acquired from the claimants-Respondents for getting the mandates of the apex Court in the case of Shannmugam alias Kulandaivelu v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2003 SC 202, that while using the market rate of small patches of land to determine the market value of larger patches of land, the market rate of small patches of land has to be reduced by 1/3rd. Mr. Das also attacked the impugned award on the plea that although the acquired lands were not developed lands, rate of developed lands were granted for the acquired lands, which was against the ratio laid down by the apex Court in the case of Panna Lal Ghosh and Ors. v. Land Acquisition Collector and Ors. AIR 2004 SC 1179. The concluding argument of Mr. Das was that the learned referral Court committed illegality in presuming the increase in the rate of the lands although there was no evidence on that score. He cited the case of Gopal Das Vs. Collector of Varanasi, , in this regard. The sum and substance of the argument offered by Mr. Das was that the rate of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was just and proper and that the learned referral Court had no reason to enhance the same.

Mr. Niranjan Panda, learned Counsel appearing for some of the claimants-Respondents while supporting the impugned award submitted, inter alia, that besides the sale deeds, R.O.R. produced by the claimants, there were reliable oral evidence to show that the acquired lands were fit for homestead and had adequate potency and therefore, the learned referral Court did not commit any error in enhancing the quantum of compensation. He argued that the sale deeds produced by the claimants were contemporaneous documents and involved similar variety of land and there was no evidence that those documents were fake and created documents and as such, learned referral Court was not at fault in accepting those documents in evidence, particularly when some of the materials in the sales statistics produced by the L.A. Collector supported the rate noted on the sale deeds. He also argued that most of the acquired lands involved in the present appeals are small patches of lands and therefore, there was no scope of reducing the rates of the lands noted in the sale deeds and other documents. According to Mr. Panda, the acquired lands were developed lands as roads, telephone and electricity facilities were available and schools, market, industry were there nearby and in such a situation, there was also no reason for reducing the available rates of the lands by 1/3rd or 20%. In support of this contention, Mr. Panda relied on the case of Bhagwathula Samanna and others Vs. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality, . Supporting the impugned award, Mr. Panda stated that in determining the market value of the acquired land utmost reliance is to be placed on the contemporaneous sale statistics of portions of same land or neighbouring lands and if the sale statistics of such lands show variance in the rate, normally highest or higher rates available should be adopted for payment of compensation of the neigbouring acquired lands. To fortify his submission, Mr. Panda relied on the case of Sri Rani M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur, Ranee of Vuyyur v. The Collector of Madras 1969 (1) MLJ (S.C.) 45 and Panna Lal Ghosh and Ors. (supra) and the judgment of this Court passed in F.A. No. 302 of 1998.

Learned Counsel for the other claimants-Respondents virtually adopted the submission of Mr. Panda.

Mr. Saroj Kumar Das, learned Counsel for the Defence Estate Officer, Respondent No. 2 offered argument akin to the submission of learned Addl. Standing Counsel. He specifically stated that the sales statistics prepared by the Land Acquisition Department, Ext. F was reliable one and the learned Land Acquisition Collector rightly adopted the rates noted in this document for determining the quantum of compensation of the acquired lands.

There is no dispute about the extent and variety of land acquired from the claimants-Respondents. The only controversy is about the market value of those lands. While it is canvassed by the Appellant that the market value of Sarad-I and Sarad-II varieties of lands of village Srikona was Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- respectively per acre at the time of acquisition, it is claimed by the claimants-Respondents that the value of Sarad-I and Sarad-II varieties of land in the village at the relevant point of time was more than Rs. 1.5 lakhs per acre. As has been said in the case of Sri Rani M. Vijayalakhsmamma Rao Bahadur, Ranee of Vuvvur (suDra) while determinino the market value of the acquired land, instances of contemporaneous sales statistics relating to the portion of the same land or neigbouring lands form the best evidence and in case such sale statistics show variant rates, then higher rate available should be adopted. The claimants-Respondents produced the sale deeds as well as the witnesses before the referral Court to establish that similar neighbouring lands in the village were being sold at the rate of Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 3 lakhs-per acre at the time of acquisition. In L.A. Misc. Case No. 100 of 1998 the claimant examined three witnesses and produced the documents, which were marked as Exts.1 to 16. P.Ws.1 to 3 univocally stated that the acquired lands situate close to the village and were fit for homestead and that infrastructural facilities such as road, electricity, telephone were available near the acquired lands. They proved the sale deeds, Exts.1 to 4 wherein each Ac.0.20 dec. of land were sold for Rs. 20,000/-. P.W.2 stated that he himself purchased Ac.0.20 dec. of land vide sale deed'', Ext.14 for Rs. 16,000/- on 20.9.1994, but the said document was impounded by the Sub-Registrar on the ground of undervaluation and finally stamp duty was collected from him for the sale value of Rs. 20.000/. It was canvassed by the Appellant that the documents like Exts. 1 to 4 should not have been taken into consideration as they are got up documents created by the claimant, Hemanta Kumar Samal, who was employee of D.R.D.O. and had information and knowledge about the proposed acquisition of lands for the safety zone area. No doubt the claimant, Hemanta Kumar Samal was an employee of D.R.D.O., but there was no evidence to show that he had prior knowledge about the acquisition proposal or that the sale deeds were sham in nature. Law is settled that whenever a registered document is available, its genuineness has to be presumed unless fraud, collusion etc. are clearly pleaded and proved. Since there was no evidence or circumstance to show that the documents were created by playing fraud or that they were manufactured for the simple purpose of obtaining higher compensation, there was no reason for discarding those documents from evidence. That apart, there were other evidence on record to support the rate of land noted in Exts.1 to 4. The land Acquisition Officer himself produced and proved his own note to the A.D.M., Ext. E and the sales statistics prepared by the Land Acquisition Office, Ext. F. In Ext. E, the Land Acquisition Collector has given a note to the A.D.M. that Sarad lands in Srikona and neighbouring villages were being sold at the rates ranging from Rs. 20,184/- to Rs. 3 lakhs per acre. In the sales statistics, Ext. F, large number of sale transactions has been noted. No doubt some of the transactions noted show that the lands of the village were also being sold for Rs. 20.000/, Rs. 30,000/, Rs. 50,000/- per acre etc., but equally large number of sale transactions noted show that the lands of the village were also being sold at the rate of Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 3 lakh per acre. The Land Acquisition Collector took note of the sale transaction where the lands were sold at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per acre, but did not take note of the other sale transitions where the lands had been sold at higher rate although law demands that all the sales statistics should be taken into consideration and normally higher rates are to be applied in awarding compensation. Since many of the sale transactions noted in Ext. F reveals that the lands were also being sold at Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 3 lakh per acre and there were sale deeds produced by the claimants-Respondent where lands had been sold at the rate of Rs. 1 lakh per acre, learned referral Court committed no error in discarding the rate noted in the solitary sale deed, Ext.A produced by the Land Acquisition Collector and lower rate noted in Ext.F. It is worthwhile to mention here that the certified copies of the registered sale deeds Exts.12 to 16 and the sale deeds produced by the other claimants in other Misc. Cases also reveal sale transactions of lands of the same village made at the rate of Rs. 1 lakh approximately per acre. When the documents produced by the claimants as well as by the Land Acquisition Collector reveal that Sarad lands were being sold in the village for Rs. 1 lakh and more, learned referral Court had every justification of holding that the market rate of lands in village Srikona in the year 1994 was Rs. 1 lakh per acre approximately.

Mr. Sangram Das, argued that even if the rates noted in the sale deeds produced by the claimants-Respondents are accepted, yet the same rate cannot be applied to the acquired lands involved in the present appeals because the rates noted in the sale deeds and sale statistics relate to small pieces of lands, whereas the acquired lands were bigger patches. In the case of Shanmugam alias Kulandaivelu (supra), it was observed that while determining the market value of bigger patches of lands by using the market rate of a smaller patch of land rate noted for smaller patches of land should be slashed by 1/3rd. There is no quarrel about this legal proposition. No doubt, Exts. 1 to 4, 14 and other sale deeds relate to small patches of lands, but that principle cannot be applied to all the cases at hand because the table in paragraph 2 shows that many of the lands acquired are very small patches of lands. In such cases, there was thus, no scope of slashing the rate of lands available on the sale documents. However, the rates of small patches of land cannot be adopted in case where acquired lands measure more than one acre in which case the rate has to be reduced by 1/3rd or at least 20%.

Strenuous argument was offered by the learned Addl. Standing Counsel that the rate of developed lands is not applicable to undeveloped lands, even if the said lands might have adequate potency, and reliance was placed on the ratio of Kasturi and Ors. v. State of Haryana (supra). In Kasturi''s case it was said that the market rate of developed lands cannot be applied to the agricultural undeveloped lands although such land might have potential value for housing and commercial purposes because in developing such lands for housing or commercial purposes, road, drainage, water supply, electricity etc. are to be provided, which involve considerable expenses. It was therefore, observed that for determining the market value of such agricultural lands having potential value, the rate of developed lands nearby can be used after reducing it rate by 1/3rd or 20%. In the present case, the sale statistics noted in Ext.F or the sale deeds produced by the claimants-Respondents do not involve developed lands having all infrastructural facilities. Therefore, there was no occasion for slashing the rate available on the sale deeds and sales statistics. Since the lands were similar in nature, learned referral Court rightly adopted the rate of Rs. 1 lakh per acre in the year 1994.

After determining the market rate of Sarad lands in village Srikona at Rs. 1 lakh per acre for the year 1994, learned referral Court observed that the land price being on the rise, rate of such lands must have gone up and taking note of the price index, assessed the market value of Sarad-I land at Rs. 1,25,000/- and Sarad-II land at Rs. 1,15,000/- per acre for the year 1995. It is now alleged by the Appellant that the enhancement in the rate was unsupported by evidence or material and so such conclusion cannot be sustained. In support of such plea, the case of Gopal Das v. Collector of Varanasi (supra) was cited. In Gopal Das''s case, the land was purchased by the claimant in 1945 for Rs. 45,000/-. This land was acquired in the year 1947 and compensation of Rs. 45,000/- was only awarded. The claimant went to the High Court, but the High Court confirmed the award. When the matter came up before the apex Court, the Court observed that since there was no evidence regarding enhancement of the value and rate of the land, the High Court was justified in awarding Rs. 45,000/- as compensation. The said order relates to the particular facts and circumstances of the case and lays no ratio. Moreover, the situation 1945 and 1947 were different than the present days. On cannot over look the stiff rise in the market value of the lands in the recent years. There are many instances where the market value of the agricultural lands near the human habitation is increasing virtually every day. When there was evidence that the acquired lands are situated close to the village and were fit for homestead purpose and had roads, electricity, telephone facilities nearby, a rise of market rate of such land by 5 to 10% within one year can be presumed and such presumption cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary or far fetched as in determining the market value of lands some amount of guess work and presumption are permissible.

Once all the above noted evidence, circumstance and legal factors are clubbed with some amount of rational guess work, one can safely arrive at a conclusion that the market rates of small pieces of Sarad-I and Sarad-II variety of lands measuring less than one acre was Rs. 1,20,000/- and Rs. 1,10,000/- per acre respectively at the time of acquisition in 1995. For the larger patches of land measuring more than one acre, however, this rate would go down to some extent and accordingly, it can be inferred that larger patches of acquired lands measuring more than one acre had market value of Rs. 1 lakh per acre when the acquisitions were made irrespective of their variety.

In the result, therefore, the impugned composite award is modified to the extent that the claimants-Respondents whose acquired lands measure less than one acre would get compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,20,000/- for Sarad-I and Rs. 1,10,000/- for Sarad-II lands per acre and the claimants whose lands measure more than one acre would get compensation at the rate of Rs. 1 lakh per acre. Such compensation to the claimants would be paid along with all the statutory benefits provided under the amended L.A. Act.

The appeals are thus allowed in pan on contest, but in the peculiar circumstances, parties are directed to bear their own cost.