MADANLAL (DECEASED) THROUGH KAMLESH vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS

Appellant (since dead, now represented through legal heirs Kamlesh) have filed this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

against the award dated 10.08.2002 passed by the 7th Additional District Judge, Indore against Reference Case No.25/2000 (Madanlal Vs. State

of M.P.).

Facts of the case in brief are as under:

The appellant was owner of land bearing Survey No.72/1/1 (area 0-17.5 acre) of Gram Rahukhedi, Tehsil - Sanwer, District Indore.

That the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the gazette notification dated 26.05.1989 for acquiring the

land of Village Rahukhedi for the purpose of widening of Indore-Dewas National Highway No.3. Thereafter, notification under Section 6 of the

Land Acquisition Act was published in the gazette notification dated 27.01.1989 by which the land of the petitioner as described above was

acquired. On the basis of material available at the relevant time, the Land Acquisition Officer passed the award dated 04.06.1991 in Land

Acquisition Case No.10-A-82/88-89 by assessing the amount of compensation of Rs.8640/- @ Rs.40,000/- per hectare.

Being dissatisfied with the less amount of compensation, the appellant sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The

said reference was send to the District Judge, Indore for adjudication. The appellant sought enhancement of compensation before the reference

Court on the ground that market value of the land at the relevant time was Rs.5.00 lac per hectare. The compensation of trees, tube-well, well and

pipes have not been granted, hence, claimed the total compensation of Rs.37,232/-.

In support of the claim, the appellant got exhibited four different sale deeds as Exhibit P/1 to P/4 by which land of nearby areas were sold. The

learned Additional District Judge had discarded all the four sale deeds as all the sale deeds were of the period after the date of notification under

Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act but the learned Additional District Judge took some assistance from the Exhibit P/1 in which the market

value of the land is Rs.1,50,293/- per acre and enhanced the compensation by calculating the market value @ Rs.65,000/- per acre. The appellant

have also been granted the interest under section 23/1-A on enhanced amount @12% from the date of notification under sec 4 till award passed

by the LAO or dated of taking possession.. The appellant have also been granted solesioum @ 30% under section 23(2) and further interest under

section 28, @ 9% from the date of taking possession till date of payment.

Being aggrieved by the award dated 10.08.2002, the appellant has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation Rs.31,952/- @

Rs.5,50,000/- per hectare and paid the court fee accordingly.

This Court at the earlier occasion decided all the identical appeals by the common judgment dated 26th February, 2008 in (F.A. No.520/2003

in the matter of Kashiram Vs. State of MP) relating to acquisition of land of village Pirkaradia, Budhi Barlai, Dakachaya, Raukhedi, Arjun Badoda

of District Indore had determined the market value on the date of Sec.4 Notification at the flat rate of Rs.6.00 lac per hectare to each land owner

irrespective of the nature of the land and its use prior to the acquisition. The aforesaid order of this court became subject matter of Civil Appeal

No.9915/2010 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No.4785/2009) State of MP and another Vs. Kashiram (Dead) by L.R. Gopilal and other connected

Civil Appeals. The Hon''ble Supreme Court by the order dated 23/11/2010 has set aside the judgment of this court dated 26th February, 2008

since several infirmities were found in the judgment and remanded all appeals to High Court to decide afresh. The Apex Court has held that in

absence of any classification with reference to villages, nature of land and consideration of evidence with reference to the land in each village, the

common judgment of this court awarding a uniform high rate was found to be unsustainable, therefore, while setting aside the judgment and

remanding the matter back to this court, with the direction for assessment of the market value in accordance with the law keeping in view the

observations made in the order. However, it has been clarified in the operative part that nothing stated in the order will be construed as expression

of any final opinion in regard to the actual market value and this court is required to assess the market value with reference to the land.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court has observed following the infirmities in the judgment of this court :-

On a perusal of the judgment of the High court, we find the following glaring infirmities:

(i) The lands acquired were situated in different villages. They did not form a contiguous compact block. On the other hand, the acquired lands

were situated one after another, as the acquisitions were for laying a road. The lands acquired formed a thin strip spread over several villages. As a

result, the lands acquired in the village at one end and the lands acquired in other village at other end, were far away from each other and could not

be considered as contiguous lands with the same value. This is evident from the judgment of the Reference Court which awarded compensation at

rates ranging from as little as Rs.75,000/- per hectare to Rs.3,45,800/- per hectare, depending upon their respective market value. There was no

evidence that all the acquired lands were similarly situated or of similar value or had similar potential for development. Though the acquisitions

related to six villages and though the Reference Court had determined different market values for lands in different villages, the High Court, without

any acceptable or valid reason, has determined a uniform high rate of Rupees Six Lakhs per hectare. The market value with reference to Ex.P2

even if acceptable can obviously apply only to the nearby lands in that village and cannot be applied to six villages.

(ii) Most of the acquired lands were agricultural lands. Some lands were small plots with structures. The High Court has treated both agricultural

lands and the nonagricultural plots with structure on the same footing and awarded the same compensation to all the acquired lands which is

obviously erroneous.

(iii) The High Court has awarded compensation at a uniform rate of Rupees six lakhs per hectare based on a single sale transaction dated 9.3.1989

relating to a residential plot of 1506 sq.feet which was sold for Rs.10,000/- (which works out to Rs.7,14,285/- per hectare). It is now well settled

that if the sale deed relating to a small developed plot of land is to be the basis for determining the market value or large undeveloped areas,

appropriate deductions will have to be made towards development cost which may vary from 20% to 75% of the price of the developed plot (that

is upto 40% of the land area for roads, drains, parks, civic amenities etc., and upto 35% towards the actual cost of development). The percentage

of deduction will depend upon the situation of the lands, the nature of development, etc. (See Lal Chand Vs. Union of India - 2009(15) SCC 769

at paras 13 to 22). The Court cannot arbitrarily deduct a small lump sum from the value of a small developed plot, to arrive at the value of an

undeveloped rural lands. The deduction that is made by the High Court is hardly 15% to 16% of the value of the small developed plot. Having

regard to the situation of the lands in question and other circumstances, it would appear that the deduction should be in the range of about 40% to

50% from the value of the small and developed plot. Of course, the above percentage and the percentage of deduction require to be determined

after consideration of the relevant evidence. The High court has not even referred to this aspect nor has it made an appropriate deduction towards

the development.

(iv) Most of the land owners had claimed only about Rupees Four Lakhs per hectare (except some land owners in Peer Karadia and Rau Khedi

who appear too have claimed Rupees Five Lakhs per hectare). They were permitted to amend the claim to Rs.6,17,000/- without proper

consideration of the question as to such amendment was warranted.

(v) The parties had exhibited sale deeds relating to Peer Karadia and Dkachya. The appellants had also relied upon two sale deeds relating to sale

of one acre of land each in Budhi Barlai (Ex D4 and D5 dated 14.12.1989) showing that the market value was only around Rs.38000/- to

Rs.42000/- per acre. These were not considered though referred by the High Court"".

In view of the aforesaid order of the Supreme Court, now the appeals in respect of each village are being decided separately in the light of the

evidence which has come on record keeping in view the nature of land, the evidence about the market value and other relevant factors.

The present appeal is arising out of the acquisition of land of Village Rahukhedi in which the notification under Section 4 was issued on

26.05.1989.

That the appellant has placed reliance over the four sale deeds in respect of the sale of land of the nearby villages executed after the date of

issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.

In order to determine the adequate the market value of larger area, the sale deed of smaller area can also be considered in absence of other

cogent material , but while relying on the sale deed for a smaller area, a suitable percentage is to be deducted for determining the market value of

the larger area.

The appellant has filed Exhibit P/1, sale deed dated 21.11.1994 of Village Rahukhedi by which the land having area 0.125 hectare was sold

@ Rs.1,50,293/- per acre. The appellant had also filed sale deed dated 31.05.1993 of Gram Dagachy as Exhibit P/2 in which the land @

Rs.1,66,332/- per acre was sold. The Exhibit P/2 to P/4 have rightly been discarded as the land of the petitioner of Village of Rahukhedi was

acquired and these four sale deeds are of a different village. That ld. Reference court did not rely Exhibit P/1 in its entirety because it was executed

in the year 1994, whereas the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued in the year 1989 . The learned ADJ took some

assistance from the said sale deeds and rightly enhanced the compensation in proportionate manner and assessed the market value @ Rs.65,000/-

per hectare.

Since the appellant has failed to produce any sale deed of the relevant period and of the same village, therefore, no interference is called for so

far as the assessment of market value of the land as calculated by reference court.

The Division Bench of this Court in case of Madanlal Vs. State of M.P. in F.A.No.523/2000 decided on 01.03.20016 has enhanced the

compensation @ Rs.5,50,000/- per hectare for the land of Village of Raukhedi in which the notification under Section 4 was issued on

06.05.1988. In the present appeal the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 26.05.1989 i.e. after 06.05.1988,

therefore, the present appellant are also entitled for enhancement of the compensation @ Rs.5,50,000/- per hectare.

The operative part of the order of Division Bench is reproduced below:

A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ''the Act'') was issued by the Acquiring Authority on 6.5.1988, to

acquire the total 6.443 hectares of land of village Raukhedi, which includes an area of 1.157 of appellant - Smt.Rampyaribai of Survey No.61/1

area 0.445, Survey No.61/2 area 0.648, Survey No.62 area 0.064, for the construction of Four-Lane Indore Bye-Pass road on National

Highway Agra - Bombay road.

After considering the objections of the landowners, the Acquiring Authority has issued declaration under Section 63 of the Act by issuing the

notification on 12.8.1988.

The land acquisition officer has passed an award on 27.11.1990, awarding Rs.45,000/- per hectare, treating the land in question as un-irrigated

land. The reference Court has fixed the compensation @ of Rs.65,000/- per acre, relying on the evidence and documents filed by the landowners.

In other bunch of first appeals, the High Court has enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.5,50,000/- per hectare to each landowner of

the nature of land and its use prior to acquisition. The Apex Court by order dated 20th February, 2014, affirmed the order passed by the High

Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the State. Order dated 20.2.2014 reads as under :-

These appeal are directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, bench at Indore in First

Appeal No.392 of 2002 etc. etc., dated 24.7.2009.

A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, '' the Act'') was issued by the acquiring authority on

6.5.1988 to acquire the extent of lands of village Raukhedi to village Rau Jagir for the construction of a Four Lane Indore Bye-Pass

Road on National Highway Agra-Bombay Road. The area is in the lingth of approximately about 32.6 Kms.

After considering the objections that were filed by the land loosers / agriculturists, the acquiring authority has issued a declaration

under Section 6 of the Act by issuing a notification dated 12.8.1988.

The Land Acquisition Officer/Collector in exercise of his powers under Section 11 of the Act has passed 15 separate awards in

respect of 15 villages. By the said awards, the Land Acquisition Officer / Collector had quantified the compensation payable for

Irrigated lands, un-irrigated lands and barren lands at Rs.1,01,250/-, Rs.67,500/- and Rs.40,000/- per hectare respectively.

Aggrieved by the compensation so awarded, the land loosers/agriculturists had sought for a reference under Section 18 of the Act

before the Reference Court.

After registering the reference and after recording the evidence of the parties, the Reference Court has fixed the compensation at

Rs.3,80,750/- per hectare primarily relying on a sale deed dated 15.1.1989.

The agriculturist/land-loosers approached the High Court for enhancement of the compensation so awarded by the Reference

Court. The acquiring Authority also had filed their cross - objections.

The High Court, by its detailed judgment (s) and order (s), has though it fit to enhance the compensation awarded by the

Reference Court by enhancing the compensation for a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- per hectare. While allowing the appeals, the High Court

has primarily relied upon the judgment of the same court in Kashiram vs. State of Madhya Pradesh.

Aggrieved by the compensation so quantified by the High Court, the landloosers/ agriculturists are before us in this batch of

appeals.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties to this lis.

We have carefully perused the award(s) passed by the Land Acquisition Officer/Collector, the Reference Court as well as the

High Court. In our view, the High Court has not committed any error whatsoever in awarding compensation in a sum of

Rs.5,50,000/- per hectare to the land-looser with all statutory benefits.

We intend to notice here that the outlay for the project could be for a sum of Rs.25/- lacs. This, in our opinion, is too meager

amount which the acquiring authority should not hesitate to pay to the landloosers/ agriculturists as the land-loosers/ agriculturists are

deprived of their bread earning farm lands.

In view of the above, we dismissed these appeals. Ordered accordingly.

In view of the aforesaid, we allow the appeal in part by enhancing the compensation at the rate of Rs.5,50,000/- per hectare as affirmed by the

Apex Court on 20.2.2014.

For these reasons, the impugned judgment dated 2.2.2000 is set aside. F.A.No.523/2000 is allowed in part, but without any orders as to

costs.

Therefore, this appeal is partly allowed. Since, the appellant has claimed the amount of Rs.31,952/-by way of enhancement and paid court

fees accordingly, therefore, the amount of compensation after enhancement is restricted to Rs.31,952/-. No order as to costs.