Manikant Singh and Others vs The State of Bihar

Honourable Mr. Justice Mungeshwar Sahoo

Out of 11 Land Reference Cases decided by this common judgment and award dated 23.12.1981, the claimants of only 4 Land Reference Cases i.e. Land Acquisition Case Nos.26/1978, 25/1978, 27/1978 and 28/1978 have filed these four First Appeals being First Appeal No.125 of 1982, 119 of 1982, 120 of 1982 and 121 of 1982 respectively. The State of Bihar acquired 79.86 acres of land of Mauja Banmankhi, P.S. Dhamdaha, District- Purnea for the purpose of rehabilitation of East Pakistan Refugees. Notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 19.01.1976. In Land Acquisition Case No.26 of 1978 giving rise to First Appeal No.125 of 1982 lands involved is 9.35 acres for which total compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is Rs.48,138.94. Likewise, in First Appeal No.119 of 1982 arising out of Land Acquisition Case No.25 of 1978 lands involved is 8.80 acres and the total compensation paid by the Land Acquisition Officer is Rs.38, 306.77. In First Appeal No.120 of 1982 arising out of Land Acquisition Case No.27 of 1978, lands involved is 7.67 acres and the total amount of compensation paid by Land Acquisition Officer is Rs.35,989.15 whereas in Land Acquisition Case No.28 of 1978 giving rise to First Appeal No.121 of 1982, total land involved is 1.05 acres and the total compensation paid by Land Acquisition Officer is Rs.3, 604.39. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded the aforesaid compensation fixing the market value of the land at Rs.1, 990 per acre for Bhit II, Bansbari and orchard land. Dhanhar II and Dhanhar I land was fixed at Rs.2, 985 per acre and Parti land was fixed at Rs.995 per acre. Out of total 79.86 acres of land acquired, Dhanhar I land was 48.65 acres, Bhit II land was 28.03 acres. Bhit II, Bansbari and Mango Orchard land was 1.94 acres, Parti land was 0.87 acres. House was on 0.37 acres. In all the cases, the claimants were claiming for fixation of the prevalent market value at Rs.33, 721 per acre.

The claimants filed application u/s 18 of the L.A. Act before the Land Acquisition Officer claiming enhancement of compensation on the ground that possession of the lands have already been taken in the month of May, 1975. The compensation given by the Land Acquisition Officer is very low and the cost of 51 Mango trees at the rate of Rs.500 per tree, cost of bamboos of 300 clumps amounting to Rs.22,500 and the cost of the building and Well worth Rs.10,000 has not been given by the Land Acquisition Officer. The claimants claimed aforesaid compensation on the ground that at the time of acquisition of the land, the town of Banmankhi which is near the lands acquired has a big market. There are Sugar Mills, Tyre Manufacturing Factory, Block Development Office, Railway Junction, Koshi Project Division, Drainage Division, Agricultural Marketing Yard, Branch Office of State Bank of India, Cooperative Bank and Bus Stand was there and a weekly Cattle Hat was also held at Banmankhi. The acquired lands consist of 2 big blocks, one block measuring 45.32 acres and the other block measuring 34.54 acres. The first block is near cold storage and residential houses by the side of main road. The second block is at a little distance.

The State of Bihar alleged that compensation has been assessed on the basis of sale figures obtained from Registration Office, local enquiry and market value of similar land in the vicinity of the acquired land. Both the parties adduced their evidences. After considering minutely all the oral as well as documentary evidences, the learned Land Acquisition Judge recorded a finding that the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is just and proper.

However, regarding cost of Mango trees, bamboos, buildings and Well was allowed by the Land Acquisition Judge and accordingly, the learned Land Acquisition Judge rejected the claim of value of the lands acquired and allowed the claim for cost of the trees and houses. Thus, the award was modified. Against the said award, the present appeals have been filed claiming enhancement of market value at the rate of Rs.33,000 and odd per acre.

The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Land Acquisition Judge has failed to appreciate the sale deeds, Exhibit 1 series produced by the claimants in right prospective and discarded the sale deeds on flimsy grounds. The learned Land Acquisition Judge should have fixed the market value of the land on the basis of the sale instances, i.e., the sale deeds produced by the appellants. The learned court below also did not consider the oral evidences properly. On these grounds, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned judgment and award are liable to be set aside and the appeals may be allowed fixing the market value of the land at Rs.33,000 per acre.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State of Bihar, respondent submitted that all the sale deeds produced by the claimants have been considered by the Land Acquisition Judge and it was found that in all the sale deeds very small area were involved and the lands were purchased for the purpose of construction of the building which were near the town whereas very large chunk of land has been acquired in the present case. In such circumstances, the Exhibit 1 series cannot be the criteria for fixing market value of the land acquired particularly when the State of Bihar has produced more than 42 sale instances of the lands similar in nature and the learned Land Acquisition Officer considering those instances fixed the market value of the land. So far oral evidences are concerned, the market value cannot be fixed on the basis of oral evidence. On these grounds, the learned counsel submitted that the First Appeals are liable to be dismissed.

In view of the above contentions of the parties, the only point arises for consideration in these appeals is "whether the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and confirmed by the Land Acquisition Judge is just, proper and correct compensation" or "whether the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation on the basis of the rate which they are claiming?"

It appears that 9 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the applicants. A.W.1, A.W.2, A.W.3, A.W.5, A.W.7 have proved the sale deeds, Exhibit 1 series. Exhibit 1 is registered sale deed dated 27.05.1974 by which 11 1/4 decimals of land of Mauja Banmankhi was purchased for Rs.3,500. The witness no.1 is the purchaser. On calculation, the valuation of the lands comes to Rs.35,000 per acre. Admittedly, so far this land is concerned, it is very small piece of land and according to A.W.1, he purchased the lands for residential purposes and after purchase, he has built a house and is residing there. He has admitted that this land is situated in densely populated area. Exhibit 1/ka is sale deed dated 22.01.1974 for 38 decimal of said Mauja purchased by A.W.2 for Rs.19,500. In this Exhibit 1/ka, it is specifically mentioned that he purchased the land for construction of residential building and after purchase, they are residing there, after construction of house. Exhibit 1/kha is dated 23.08.1974 by which A.W.3 purchased 55 decimals of land of Mauja Banmankhi for Rs.29,000. This land also relates to small area of land. Likewise, Exhibit 1/Ga is sale deed dated 17.12.1971 whereby 2 katthas 5 dhurs land was purchased for Rs.8,500. A.W.5 has admitted that he has purchased the small piece of land for residential purpose and it is by the side of pitch road. Exhibit 1/Gha is dated 16.05.1969 whereby 1.05 acres of land of Mauja Chakla was purchased by Vyapar Mandal for Rs.30,421. Therefore, this land is of another Mauja. It was for business purpose purchased by Vyapar Mandal.

The other two witnesses, A.W.4 and A.W.6 have stated that they have lands in the vicinity of the lands acquired. According to them, they used to cultivate Sugarcane, Tobacco, Chilli and Potato and their annual income is Rs.4,000 to Rs.5,000 per acre. The applicants have been examined as A.W.8 and A.W.9. Their evidences are similar to that of A.W.4 and A.W.6. These are the evidences produced by the applicants. From the sale deeds produced by the claimants, it is clear that those sale deeds relate to very small piece of land and were purchased for the purpose of construction of residential houses. Some of the lands situated in the thickly populated area. From perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned court below found from the order sheet dated 12.04.1977 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer that the lands acquired is situated at about 1 mile from Banmankhi Main Bazar and major portion of the lands acquired are agricultural lands. It may be mentioned here that the lands have been acquired for the purpose of rehabilitation of refugees. Therefore, the lands acquired were required to be developed for the purpose of residence, i.e., road, drainage, spaces and other provisions are to be made.

In the case of Land Acquisition Officer, Kammarapally Village, Nizamabad District, Andhra Pradesh vs. Nookala Rajamallu and Ors. in (2003) 12 Supreme Court Cases 334, the Apex Court at paragraph 6 and 7 has held as follows:

Where large area is the subject-matter of acquisition, rate at which small plots are sold cannot be said to be a safe criterion. Reference in this context may be made to few decisions of this Court in The Collector of Lakhimpur Vs. Bhuban Chandra Dutta, , Prithvi Raj Taneja (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, and Smt. Kausalya Devi Bogra and Others Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad and Another, .

It cannot, however, be laid down as an absolute proposition that the rates fixed for the small plots cannot be the basis for fixation of the rate. For example, where there is no other material, it may in appropriate cases be open to the adjudicating Court to make comparison of the prices paid for small plots of land. However, in such cases necessary deductions/adjustments have to be made while determining the prices.

This decision of the Apex Court has been followed in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another Vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb, . In view of this settled proposition of law, no doubt, the rate fixed for small plots can also be looked into and considered for the fixation of large chunk of land but if there are no other material and sale instances. Therefore, in appropriate case, it is open to the adjudicating court to make comparison of the prices paid for small plots of land. However, in such case, necessary deductions/adjustments have to be made while determining the prices.

In the case of Smt. Basavva and others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 3168, the Apex Court has held that the court has to consider whether sales relating to smaller pieces of land are genuine and reliable and whether they are in respect of comparable lands. In case the said requirements are met, sufficient deduction should be made to arrive at a just and fair market value of large tracks of land. Further, the court stated that the time lag for real development and the waiting period for development were also relevant factors to be considered in determining compensation. The court added that each case depend on its own facts. In the said case, based on the particular facts and circumstances, court made a total deduction of 65% for determination of compensation.

In the present case at our hand, it is the case of the claimants that the lands are agricultural lands. It is situated 1 mile away from the main market. The State of Bihar has produced Exhibit B, i.e., the sale figures obtained from the Registration Office. In this Exhibit B, there are about 48 sale figures. The Land Acquisition Officer adopted the sale figures in serial no.42 which is found to be the sale instance of similar land near the vicinity of the lands acquired. The Land Acquisition Judge also found that the sale deeds at serial no.44, 45 and 46 are unusually high in comparison of the prevalent market rate of land in that area. It appears that the notification itself was issued on 19.01.1976 and the sale deeds of these serial numbers are dated 17.01.1976.

In the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Ram Kumari Devi(Smt.) and others, (1996)8 Supreme Court Cases 577, the Hon''ble Supreme Court at paragraph 4 has held as follows:

It is seen that small pieces of land of an extent of 60'' x 20'', 40'' x 40'' and 1600 sq. ft. were sold by the claimants, obviously on coming to know of the proposed acquisition. It is common knowledge that acquisition proposal would be made at an earlier point of time and finalisation of acquisition would take a long time. In the process, on becoming aware of the acquisition, obviously, these sale deeds have been brought into existence to inflate the market value. It is laid down by this Court which is a well-settled principle that it is the duty of the court to assess reasonable compensation. Burden is on the owner to prove the prevailing market value. On adduction of evidence by the parties, the acid test which the court has to adopt is that the court has to sit in the armchair of a prudent purchaser, eschew feats of imagination and consider whether a reasonable prudent purchaser in the open market would offer the same price which the court is intending to fix the market value in respect of the acquired land. Since it is a compulsory acquisition, it is but the solemn duty of the court to assess reasonable compensation so as to allow the same to the owner of the land whose property has been acquired by compulsory acquisition and also to avoid needless burden on public exchequer. No feats of imagination would require to bog the mind that when 13.75 acres of land was offered for sale in an open market, no prudent man would have credulity to purchase that land on square foot basis.

In Hookiyar Singh etc.etc. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Moradabad and another, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that it is settled law that the burden of proof of market value prevailing as on the date of publication of notification u/s 4(1) of the L.A. Act is always on the claimants. The Hon''ble Supreme Court has also held that though the Apathy and Blatant lapse on the part of the acquiring officer to adduce evidence and also improper or ineffective or lack of interest on the part of counsel for the State to examine the witnesses, on material facts it is the duty of the court to carefully scrutinize the evidence and determine just and adequate compensation. All these decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court clearly speaks that it is the burden of the claimants to satisfy the Court that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate.

In view of the above discussion, it appears that the State of Bihar produced the sale instances before the court below. The sale instances in serial no.42 is dated 23.12.1975 i.e., just one month prior to acquisition of the land and it relates to sell of 67 decimals of land. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the findings of the Land Acquisition Officer as well as Land Acquisition Judge. There is no reason as to why this sale instance should not be accepted. We have seen above that the sale instances produced by the claimants are of very small area and are for residential purposes or business purposes in one sale deed which was purchased by Vyapar Mandal of another village. Therefore, these sale deeds cannot be made the basis for determination of prevalent market value particularly when the sale instances of similar nature of land were before the court below.

In view of my above discussion, I find that the rates fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer appear to be just and proper and, therefore, the learned Land Acquisition Judge has rightly confirmed the same. In the result, all these First Appeals are dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.