AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jayant Patel, J.—The present appeals arise against the common judgment and award passed by the Reference Court dated 23.10.2002 whereby the Reference Court has awarded additional compensation of Rs. 7/sq.mtr. plus the statutory benefits under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as ''the Act'').
The relevant facts are that the lands at Kalol, Dist. Panchmahals were to be acquired for construction of residential quarters of the employees of the Narmada Project. The notification u/s 4 of the Act was published on 01.06.1989 and the notification u/s 6 of the Act was published on 09.11.1989. The award was passed u/s 11 of the Act on 27.03.1991 and the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs. 6/sq.mtr. As the claimants were not satisfied with the compensation, they raised disputes u/s 18 of the Act and demanded compensation at Rs. 100/sq.mtr. Such disputes were referred to the Reference Court for adjudication being Land Acquisition Case Nos. 199/93 to 202/93. The Reference Court, at the conclusion of the references, awarded additional compensation at Rs. 7/sq.mtr., plus statutory benefits as per the above referred judgment and award. Under the circumstances, the present appeals before us.
Theperusal of the judgment of the Reference Court shows that on behalf of the claimants evidence was led for the fertility of the lands and four sale instances of other plots of the nearby area. The Reference Court declined to consider applying of yield method on the ground that there was no satisfactory evidence produce on record. However, so far as the sale instances are concerned, the Reference Court also observed that they are of the non-agricultural lands and in the instant case the lands are agricultural lands and, therefore, the applicants-claimants were not entitled to get the additional compensation on basis of the said sale instances. However, subsequently, the Reference Court has opined that the claimants would be entitled to get the additional compensation at Rs. 7/sq.mtr. and accordingly the award has been passed.
In our view, the approach on the part of the Reference Court of discarding the sale instances on a mere ground that they were pertaining to non-agricultural land cannot be countenanced. It is by now well settled that if a comparison is to be made in the market value of the agricultural land with the non-agricultural land it may attract reduction in the price but to say that since the sale instances are of non-agricultural lands the same cannot be considered, in our view, is erroneous and we find that it was required to be considered by the Reference Court.
The aforesaid takes us to the examination of the sale instances produced on behalf of the claimants at Exh.30 and Exh.31 (which are wrongly typed in the impugned judgment as Exh.40 and Exh.41). The first sale instance Exh.30 is dated 21.04.1989 and the another is dated 28.01.1988. Since the sale instance dated 21.04.1989 is of the recent past, inasmuch as the notification u/s 4 of the Act in the present case has been published on 01.06.1989, the same should be taken into consideration for the purpose of considering the market value of the lands in question. The perusal of the document at Exh.30 of the said sale instance shows that the consideration is Rs. 37,000/- and the area of the land is admeasuring 268-30-50 sq.mtrs., if rounded off, 269 sq.mtrs. Therefore, per sq.mtr. the price would come to Rs. 137/- . However, it appears that in the impugned judgment the Reference Court has wrongly mentioned as Rs. 115/sq.mtr. It further appears from the sale deed at Exh.30 that the land was located at Kalol Co-operative Housing Society Limited and it was the full-fledged developed society and nearby the plot the construction of the other houses were also there and the said aspect is apparent from the boundary shown of the plot. It has also come in evidence before the Reference Court in the cross-examination of the original claimants that the claimants had admitted that the lands are located at 2 KMs. distance from Kalol. Such would show that the lands, though located in the revenue limits of Kalol, are slightly away from the city limit and though may be adjacent to the land of Kalol Co-operative Housing Society Limited. The another aspect is that the sale instance, upon which reliance has been placed on behalf of the claimants by showing the document at Exh.30 is of the area of 269 sq.mtrs., whereas the acquisition in the present case, even if considered in individual holding of the each claimant, it is in any case more than 12-13 times. Considering the aforesaid we find that in any case for non-agricultural factor the deduction would be required to be made of 30% and further the deduction would be required to be made keeping in view the small size of the plot and acquisition of the larger area and the development already made of the lands forming part of the sale instance as against the development of the lands to be made which are under acquisition. Under the circumstances, we find that it would be appropriate to make deduction of 60% from the sale instance so as to find out approximate market value of the land. Further 60% of Rs. 137/- would come to Rs. 82.20 and if deducted from Rs. 137/- net amount would come to Rs. 55/sq.mtr. Out of the said amount, amount of Rs. 6/sq.mtr. has already been awarded as compensation. Under the circumstances, the claimants would be entitled to the additional compensation at Rs. 49/sq.mtr., if round off, it would be Rs. 50/sq.mtr. As against the same, the Reference Court has awarded compensation at Rs. 7/sq.mtr. Under the circumstances, the judgment and award of the Reference Court would be required to be modified accordingly.
The other benefits conferred by the Reference Court are in the nature of statutory benefits, except that in the operative portion of the impugned judgment instead of Section 23(1A) of the Act it has been wrongly mentioned as Section 23(1) of the Act.
In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, it is observed and directed that the original claimants, the Appellants herein, shall be entitled to additional compensation at Rs. 50/sq.mtr. (Rs. 7/- awarded by the Reference Court plus Rs. 43/- ). It is also observed that the original claimants, the Appellants herein, shall be entitled to increase in the market value u/s 23(1A) of the Act, solatium u/s 23(2) of the Act and the interest u/s 28 of the Act.
The judgment and award of the Reference Court shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The appeals are partly allowed. Considering the facts and circumstances there shall be no order as to costs.
The amount of additional compensation, if not deposited, shall be deposited with the Reference Court within 08 (eight) weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment of this Court.
Registry to place a copy of this order in connected matters.