National Highway Authority of India vs Gangadharayya Pattadswamy Hiremath

Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.—These appeals are directed against the common judgment, dated 3.4.2012 passed by the Court of the District Judge, Haveri in Arbitration Suit Nos. 34/2010, 35/2010, 36/2010, 40/2010, 39/2010, 38/2010 and 197/2010 respectively.

The facts of the case in brief are that the lands in question along with the other lands were acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 for "Golden Quadrilateral" project linking Calcutta, Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore and Chennai. The competent authority determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 84.77 per sq. mtr. Contending that the same is on the lower side, the respondent-claimants initiated the arbitration proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner who, by his arbitral award, dated 30.12.2009 raised it to Rs. 1291.68 per sq. mtr. Aggrieved by the said enhancement, the appellant filed the arbitration suits. By its judgment, dated 3.4.2012, the District Court, Haveri dismissed the arbitration suits by confirming the awards made by the Deputy Commissioner, Haveri.

Sri R.V. Naik, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the lands in question are agricultural lands. They do not have the non-agricultural or residential potentiality. Even the RTC extracts and the Joint Measurement Certificate show that they are agricultural lands only. He submits that both the Arbitrator and the District Court have committed concurrent errors holding that they have non-agricultural potentiality. He would contend that even if they are taken as non-agricultural lands, certain amounts ought to have been deducted towards the conversion fee and development-cost.

He submits that the Arbitrator has erred in doubling the market value based on the Sub-Registrar''s endorsement. Because the said endorsement has application for the lands lying on the either side of existing road. In the instant case, the lands in question are not being acquired for the widening of the existing road. They are required for the formation of an altogether new road.

He also has the grievance over the Arbitrator not giving opportunities to the appellant to lead its evidence. He also draws our attention to the sketch and the map of Haveri to show that the proposed road is outside the town; the road does not pass through the said town. He submits that the District Court has allowed similar arbitration suits by remanding the matter to the Arbitrator.

He read out the provisions contained in Section 3G(7)(a) of the said Act to show that what has to be determined is the market value as on the date of the publication of the notification under Section 3A of the Act.

Per contra, Sri S.S. Patil, learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per the appellant''s circular, dated 6.9.2010, these appeals ought not to have been filed at all. Clause (l) of the said circular reads as follows:-

"(1) Cases where Award declared by CALA (Competent Authority of Land Acquisition) has been challenged by landowners, whereupon the Arbitrator has enhanced compensation and his Arbitral Award has been upheld by a Court, also ought not to be pursued into a higher Court."

Sri Patil further submits that the highest authority of the appellant-organization has already accorded the approval for satisfying the arbitral award. He submits that these appeals are not filed by the authorized functionary of the National Highways.

Sri S.M. Kalwad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in M.F.A. Nos.22911, 22912 and 22913/2012 would support the order under appeal and prays for the dismissal of these appeals.

The submissions of the learned counsel have received our thoughtful consideration. Even when Sri Naik''s submission that as per the records, the lands in question are agricultural lands is correct, the determination of market value can not be only on the basis of entries in the revenue records. In taking this view, we are fortified by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Jagga Singh (Deceased) through L.Rs. and Another, , wherein it is held that the market value has to be determined on the basis of potentiality for urban development and not on the basis of revenue or agricultural classification of land as done by the Collector, because the acquired land had great potential value for urban purposes. It is also worthwhile to notice that the appellant''s Competent Authority for Land Acquisition has determined the market value showing the lands as ''PNA'' (Potential non-agricultural lands). As far as non-deduction of the amounts towards the conversion fees and the cost of developing the land are concerned, no specific grounds are taken in the arbitration suits. Arguments cannot be raised for the first time at the appellate stage on a factual aspect of the matter without there being any foundation for the same. It is also profitable to refer to this Court''s decision in the case of The Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Vyjanath Since Dead by LRs. Siddappa Patil, , wherein it is held that the deduction for civic amenities is to be made when the land is acquired for housing purpose. When the acquired land will be fully utilised, no deduction towards civic amenities is permissible. In the said reported case, the land was acquired for the purpose of widening the railway track.

We also do not find any substance in the submission urged on behalf of the appellant that the appellant was not given enough opportunities to lead its evidence. The Arbitrator has stated in the award itself that sufficient opportunities are indeed given to both the sides for leading the evidence. This statement has not been controverted by the appellant in the arbitration suit proceedings.

We also notice with concern that no amounts whatsoever are awarded under the head of Section 3G(7)(c) of the Act, which reads as follows:-

"(c) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his order immovable property in any manner, or his earnings."

It is not that the land losers have not sought the compensation under this head. Paragraph No. 8 of their arbitration petition reads as under:-

"8).............................. petitioners are also entitle to have compensation by way of damages for the entire land of petitioners, because due to acquisition of prime portion of the total land of petitioners, the remaining unacquired portion becomes useless and valueless . (Sic.)"

This assertion of the claimants is not specifically denied by the appellant. The appellant was merely content saying that the land losers are not entitled to compensation. But there is no categorical averment to the effect that the unacquired portion of the immovable property is not injured. What follows from this position is that it may be possible for the land-losers to contend that they are not adequately compensated.

Yet another aspect of the matter which weighs with us is that the appellant has not deposited any amount other than what is awarded by the Competent Authority. The appellant has not satisfied even a small part of the Arbitrator''s award.

We are also not persuaded to remand the matter at the instance of the appellant. The request for remand of the matter to the Arbitrator is on the basis of the award made in Arbitration Suit Nos. 12 to 17, 20, 22, 25, 26, 29 and 47/2009. In those cases, the matter came to be remanded because of fixation of different rates for the similarly placed adjoining lands. Such is not the position as far as these appeals are concerned. Besides, the remand order passed in a particular factual matrix does constitute a binding precedent for the subsequent cases.

As held by the Apex Court in the case of K. Krishna Reddy and Others Vs. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Unit II, Lmd Karimnagar, Andhra Pradesh, , money is what it buys. It cannot be said that the market value which was prevailing in 2001 can be given in 2014. It should not be a case of too little and too late. The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereinbelow:

"...........After all money is what money buys. What the claimants could have bought with the compensation in 1977 cannot do in 1988. Perhaps, not even one half of it. It is a common experience that the purchasing power of rupee is dwindling. With rising inflation, the delayed payment may lose all charm and utility of the compensation. In some cases, the delay may be detrimental to the interests of claimants. The Indian agriculturists generally have no avocation. They totally depend upon land. If uprooted, they will find themselves nowhere. They are left high and dry. They have no savings to draw. They have nothing to fall back upon. They know no other work. They may even face starvation unless rehabilitated. In all such cases, it is of utmost importance that the award should be made without delay. The enhanced compensation must be determined without loss of time. The appellate power of remand, at any rate ought not to be exercised lightly. It shall not be resorted to unless the award is wholly unintelligible. It shall not be exercised unless there is total lack of evidence. If remand is imperative, and if the claim for enhanced compensation is tenable, it would be proper for the appellate court to do modest best to mitigate hardships. The appellate court may direct some interim payment to claimants subject to adjustment in the eventual award."

We may also usefully refer to the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Tukaram Kana Joshi and Others thr. Power of Attorney Holder Vs. M.I.D.C. and Others, . It has this to say in para 17 of its decision:

"...........Even under valid acquisition proceedings, there is a legal obligation on the part of the authorities to complete such acquisition proceedings at the earliest, and to make payment of requisite compensation. The appeals etc. are required to be decided expeditiously, for the sole reason that, if a person is not paid compensation in time, he will be unable to purchase any land or other immovable property, for the amount of compensation that is likely to be paid to him at a belated stage."

It is trite that the fixation of the compensation for the acquired land involves certain amount of guesswork. The determination of the market value cannot be done with any mathematical precision. When the two forums below - Arbitrator and the District Court have applied their mind to the materials placed on record and arrived at the market value of Rs. 1291.68 per sq.meter, we need not take a different view.

In the result, we dismiss these appeals. No order as to costs.