Sheo Kumar Ram and Others vs State of Bihar

Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.—By the common judgment and decree the Land Acquisition Case No. 72 of 1976 and Land Acquisition Case No. 73 of 1976 were disposed of by the learned Land Acquisition Judge. The claimants of both the land acquisition cases filed separate appeals. The claimants of Land Acquisition Case No. 73 of 1976 filed first appeal which has been numbered as First Appeal No. 318 of 1981 and the other claimants filed first appeal which has been numbered as First Appeal No. 319 of 1981.

Since both the first appeals arise out of the common judgment and decree, both are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

In Land Acquisition Case No. 73 of 1976 giving rise to First Appeal No. 318 of 1981, 61 decimals of land was acquired by the State Government and in the other Land Acquisition Case i.e. Land Acquisition Case No. 72 of 1976 giving rise to First Appeal No. 319 of 1981, 1.46 acres of land was acquired by the State Government for construction of staff quarters of the Collectorate, Sasaram. Notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Gazette on 16.7.1975. The Collector awarded compensation of Rs. 13,857.50 paise for the land measuring 61 decimals involved in First Appeal No. 318 of 1981 and likewise compensation of Rs. 31,402.64 paise was awarded for the land measuring 1.46 acres involved in the First Appeal No. 319 of 1981.

Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Collector the respective Appellants-claimants filed application u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and prayed for reference to the Land Acquisition Judge. The claim-ants of First Appeal No. 318 of 1981 claimed compensation of Rs. 1,41,450/-for 61 decimal land whereas the Appellants-claimants of First Appeal No. 319 of 1981 claimed Rs. 3,40,400/- for 1.46 acres of land acquired.

According to the claimants, the value of the lands acquired was Rs. 6,000/-per kattha on the date of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and, therefore, the compensation awarded by the Collector is meager amount. The claimants also stated that similar nature of lands were sold in the year 1971-73 @ Rs. 6,000/- per kattha and, therefore, the learned Collector should have considered this valuation and awarded the compensation accordingly, but the Collector ignoring the market value awarded a very meager amount of compensation. The claimants stated that the land acquisition officer failed to consider the prevailing market value of the lands acquired.

The State of Bihar did not file any written statement. From perusal of the records, it appears that the State of Bihar adduced evidence oral as well as documentary.

After trial the learned court below found that the lands acquired in the both the cases are orchard containing Bair fruits bearing trees and on the basis of the annual income multiplied the same by 10 years purchase value and fixed the amount/So far compensation awarded by the Collector for 61 decimals land is concerned, the learned Land Acquisition Judge confirmed the same and for land measuring 1.46 acres is concerned, the value of the orchard land was enhanced to Rs. 32,000/-.

The Learned Counsel Mr. Bajrangi Lal appearing on behalf of the Appellants submitted that the learned Land Acquisition Judge has not considered the fact that out of the acquired land, some part of the lands were agricultural land but the Collector as well as the Land Acquisition Judge fixed the compensation classifying, the land as Bair Bagh and, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree are liable to be set aside. The Learned Counsel further submitted that the learned Land Acquisition Judge should have relied upon three sale deeds, which have been produced by the-appellants and marked as Exts.-4, 4(a) and 4(b). According to the Learned Counsel, the nature of the land involved in three sales deeds and the nature of the land acquired in land acquisition cases are same and similar and, therefore, the sale deeds were important piece of evidence. The Learned Counsel further submitted that the land of the claimants-appellants situated either in the back portion or adjacent of the lands involved in three sale deeds.

Learned Counsel further submitted that the State of Bihar has not filed any objection to the claim of the Appellants and, therefore, the court below should have enhanced the compensation.

The learned A.A.G.-7 appearing on behalf of the State-respondent submit-ted that the learned court below has considered every piece of evidence, oral and documentary, and found that by three sale deeds only small piece of land was sold and, therefore, the learned court below has rightly not, relied upon the said sale deeds. The Learned Counsel further sub-mitted that the claim of the claimants-appellants is that the lands acquired are orchard and, therefore, the value of the orchard cannot be equated with either value of the agricultural or value of the homestead land and moreover the land involved in the three sales deeds were just by the side of Grand Trunk Road and, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and order. Accordingly it is submitted that both the appeals are liable to be dismissed.

In view of the above rival contentions of the parties, the points arise for consideration is:

Point No. 1--As to whether the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Judge is just and proper or whether the claimants-appellants are entitled for enhanced compensation and if so, to what extent.

Point No. 2--Whether the impugned judgment and decree are sustainable in the eye of law.

As stated above both the land reference cases were heard together and joint evidences were recorded oral as well as documentary. The claimants have adduced 13 witnesses. Most of the witnesses have proved various documents. The material witnesses AW-1 Sri Ram Khatik, AW-3 Dhaneshwar Mahto, AW-5 Radha Mahto, AW-7 Ram Narain Singh, AW-10 Ram Chandra, the Appellant in one appeal and AW-13 Advocate Commissioner have stated that the lands also contained agricultural lands and there were sign of cultivation on the lands acquired. So far this evidence is concerned, from perusal of the impugned judgment it appears that it was not the case of the claimants in any claim cases. Their claim is that the Collector has awarded meager compensation for the Bair Bagh and agricultural land. There is no specification about the area of agricultural land. In other words, out of 61 decimal and out of 1.46 acres what is the area of agricultural land and what crops are cultivated on those lands. From perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned court below found that the applicants-appellants claimed Rs. 10,000/-as value of timber and Rs. 4,000/- as cost of fruits in the Land Acquisition Case No. 72 of 1976 whereas in other Land Acquisition Case No. 73 of 1976, the Appellants-claimants claimed Rs. 2,000/- as cost of the timber and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of the fruits.

So far Ext.-4 the sale deed is concerned, it appears that in that case only 1 kattha 1 dhur 10 dhurki was sold and the said land was just by the side of G.T. Road, and likewise only 2.5 katthas land was sold in Ext.-4/A. This land was also just in the north side of the G.T. Road. So far Ext.-4/B is concerned, only 12 dhurs of land was sold with house on it which was also just north of G.T. Road. In view of this fact it appears that those lands are homestead land and very small piece of area was involved. In the present case in one case 61 decimals and in another case 1.46 acres of lands is in volved.

In a decision reported in State of Uttar Pradesh etc. Vs. Smt. Ram Kumari Devi etc., the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held at paragraph 4 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 claim-ants, 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. The High Court as well as the District Judge have com-mitted a grave error in not applying the above acid test while considering the case. They merely proceeded by accepting the sale deeds which were obviously brought into existence to inflate the market value and determined the compensation on the price settled by them. Thus, we hold that both the courts have applied a wrong principle of law in determining the compensation."

Therefore, no feats of imagination would require to bog the mind that when more that 2 acres of land was offered for sale in an open market, no prudent man would have credulity to purchase that land on kattha or dhur basis. Moreover, in the present case the lands are orchard land.

In State of Haryana Vs. Gurcharan Singh and another etc., the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that under no circumstances, the multiplier should be more than 8 years multiplier. When the market value is deter-mined on the basis of the yield from trees or plantation 8 years multiplier shall be appropriate multiplier. For agricultural land 12 years multiplier shall be suitable multiplier. However, in the present case it appears that the learned court below has applied 10 years multiplier. The State of Bihar has not filed any cross-objection.

In the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn., etc. etc. Vs. Shardaben and others, etc. etc., the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that the burden is on the claimants to prove by adducing reliable evidence that the compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate and the lands are capable of fetching higher market value. It is the duty of the Court to closely scrutinize the evidence, apply the test of prudent and willing purchaser i.e. whether he would be willing to purchase in open and normal market, conditions of the acquired lands and then determine just and adequate compensation.

In another decision reported in Hookiyar Singh etc.etc. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Moradabad and another, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that the burden of proof of market value prevailing 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.

In the present case at our hand, the claimants themselves have proved Exts.-1 and 1/C the Pattas through which the acquired land were given in settlement to AW-1 Sri Ram Khatik. 1.46 decimals was settled with him for the year 1973-74 and 1970-71 for Rs. 4,000/- per year. Exts.-1-A and 1-B are the Sada settlement Patta regarding settlement of 61 decimals for year 1970-71 and 1973-74. AW-1, AW-5 and AW-7 have supported this fact. Now therefore, the claimants claimed that the lands acquired are the orchard land. It appears that at the time of evidence the claimants developed their cases and claimed that some agricultural lands were also acquired. However, no such claim was made in their application u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. There-fore, the learned Land Acquisition Judge has rightly not relied upon the said case. The Land Acquisition Judge accordingly relying upon the evidences of the applicants-appellants themselves i.e. the yearly income of the Appellants from the orchard which is evident from the above said pattas multiplied by 10 and calculated total compensation for the amount.

In view of the decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court and the fact that the Appellants themselves proved the fact that their yearly income from acquired land was Rs. 4,000/- per year the learned court below has rightly multiplied by 10 and deducted 20% for the maintenance of the orchard.

In view of my above discussion, I find no illegality in the impugned judgment and order. Accordingly, the findings of the learned Land Acquisition Judge on these points are hereby confirmed. In the result, I find no merit in both the first appeals and accordingly, both the first appeals are dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.