Shri Radha Mohan Goenka and Another vs The Collector of Kamrup

K. Lahiri, A.C.J.

The claimants have preferred appeals u/s 54 of the land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short "the Act", against a common Award made by the Assistant District Judge No. 2, Gauhati in Misc. Cases Nos. 10.11.72. As the appeals ate against the common judgment, involving common questions of law and fact, we propose to dispose of the appeals by a common judgment.

By a Notification dated 2.1.1965 issued u/s 4 of "the Act" the Government of Assam acquired 85B-1K-4L of land in village Modgharia and 12B-2K-15L of land in village Noonmati Fee Simple Grant for the establishment of a Thermal Station of the Assam State Electricity Board. The land belonged to the claimants and others. The Collector of Kamrup assessed compensation to be paid to the land-owner at flat rate of Rs. 4,800 per bigha. A uniform rate was determined as the acquired land was in the same field, had the same nature, quality and advantages. Three sale deed were pressed into service for determining the market value. The first sale deed is dated 7.6.1960 whereby a parcel of land was sold @ Rs. 3731.34 per bigha. The second sale deed dated 29.12.1961 shows sale of land @ Rs. 3333-00 per bigha: whereas the proximate sale deed to the date of Notification u/s 4(1) of the Act is dated 3.8.1962, whereby one bigha of land was sold at Rs. 7,500/-. Although the proximate sale deed should the sale price at Rs. 7,500/- the Collector took the mean sale price of the sale transactions between 1960-62 and determined the market value of the acquired land at a flat rate of Rs. 4,800/- per bigha as on 2.1.1965 and offered payment to the claimants and others. The land-owners, namely, the present claimants and others, being aggrieved by the Award made by the Collector asked for reference. Eleven such Reference cases against the award by the Collector came up for trial before Shri R.C. Bora, Assistant District Judge No. 2, Gauhati in reference Case Nos. 142-152/66. However, the cases of the present claimants - Appellants were left out. In Reference Case Nos. 142-152/66 witnesses were examined, and documents were produced by the parties. For ascertaining the market rate, the Court relied upon the sale transactions, considered the price paid for the land having advantages similar to the lands acquired on or about the date of the Notification (2.1.1965). Sale transactions of lands comparable in time and quality with the acquired land were taken into consideration and thereafter the Court enhanced the market value of the lard from Rs. 4,800/- per bigha to Rs. 10,000/- per bigha. Learned Judge accepted the sale deed dated 3.8.1962 relied by the Collector which evinced sale of land @ Rs. 7,500/- per bigha about three years before the acquisition of toe land. The conclusive finding of the Learned Judge was that the acquired lands were in a compact block. Learned Judge also held that even in 1963 lands were sold @ Rs. 2000/- per Katha, that is, @ Rs. 10,000/- per bigha. In short, the Court determined the market value of the acquired land on the date of Notification u/s 4(1) of the Act on the basis of price paid within a reasonable time in bonafide transactions of purchase of lands adjacent to the lands acquired and endowed with similar advantages and also awarded solatium @ 15% by its judgment and order dated 25.5.1970. It is evident from Ext. 5 (Award List) that the Collector accepted the award, paid the amount awarded by the Civil Court and at the Bar, we were informed that no appeal was preferred by the Collector against the award made in Reference Case Nos. 142-152/66. Later, the cases of the claimants along with another came up before Shri J.L. Singh Chotri, Assistant District Judge No. 2, at Gauhati. In the Reference Cases the Appellants relied on the judgment and award of Reference Case Nos. 142-152/66 which arose out of the same Land Acquisition Case No. 26/64. The judgment and award of the cases were proved and marked as Ext. A and none objected to its use and admissibility. However, when the Appellants desired to prove the certified copies of three sale deeds Marked Exts. 2, 3 and 4 on the date fixed for evidence, those were admitted subject to the objections to be raised on behalf of the counsel for the Collector. The Collector examined one witness and proved the Notification, declaration, justification report, sale Statements, sketch map of the acquired land and the award list. The witness admitted that the Misc. Cases Nos. 142-152/66 as well as pending Reference Cases stemmed from Land Acquisition Case No. 26/64. He admitted that the Civil Court had determined the market value of the land @ Rs. 10,000/- per bigha and stated that the Collector made the payments as awarded by the Civil Court in terms of the judgment of the Civil Court. He deposed that, to his knowledge, no appeal had been taken against the judgment and award. On behalf of the claimants, three witnesses were examined who stated that the market value of the acquired land had been fixed at Rs. 4,890/- per bigha by the Collector, but the land-owners asked for a reference and the Civil Court, determined the market price of the land @ Rs. 10,000/- per bigha. The witness examined on behalf of the claimants stated that the lands of the claimants were of the same nature and quality. Learned Judge held that through in Misc. Case Nos. 412-152/66, the Civil Court had determined the market price of the land at Rs. 10,000/- per bigha yet the claimant was not entitled to such enhancement as the case records of the Cases were not called to show that the lands in these cases were of the same nature and quality with the cases in hand. He relied on the sale statement marked Ext. 3, on the basis of which the Collector had determined the market price of the land at Rs. 4,800/- on the average sale price per bigha of lands sold on 7.6.1960, 29.12.1961 and 3.8.1962. Learned Judge, held that the average of the sale deeds from 1960 to 1962 held that the average of the sale deeds from 1960 to 1962 came to Rs. 4,855.00, and as such, the Collector was justified in awarding compensation @ Rs. 4,800/- per bigha. Learned Judge rejected the sale deeds produced by the claimants as not proved. Learned Judge held that the award made by the Collector was just and proper and upheld the same. However, he held that the Appellants were entitled to interest, @ 6% per annum on the amount from the date of taking over possession of the land by the Collector till the date of payment of such compensation provided they had not been paid.

The main contention of the Appellants is that the judgment and award made by the civil Court relating to similarly situated lands containing determination of the market value of the land was the best evidence to determine the market, value of the acquired land. In short, the contention is that such judgments are relevant under Sections 11 and 13 of the Evidence Act. The other subsidiary point urged is the trial Court was positively wrong in determining the market rate @ Rs. 4,800/- per bigha on the basis of the three sale transaction relied on by the Collector.

We propose to touch the subsidiary point urged and, therefore, decide the main contention. The Court below rejected all the materials including the judgment of Reference Cases Nos. 142-152/66 but relied on the sale transaction referred to in the sale statement on the basis of which the Collector had awarded Rs. 4,800/- per bigha. The Notification u/s 4(1) of the Act was issued on 2.1.1965, which was the deed of 1962 evidencing sale or land @ Rs. 7,500/- per bigha. As such when the trial Court trial Court accepted that the sale deeds were of the comparable lands, there was no reason not to accept the recent sale deed representing the highest price of comparable land. Under these circumstances, the award made by the trial Court @ Rs. 4,800/- per bigha cannot be sustained.

However, Mr. A.S. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam took objection as to the admissibility or the sale statement on the basis of which the trial Court determined the market price of the land. It was contended that the sale statement could not have been used for ascertaining the market value as the sale deeds referred therein were not proved. On the authority of The Collector, Raigarh Vs. Harisingh Thakur and Another, the objection as to the admissibility of the sale statement was taken. In Hari Singh Thakur (Supra), the sale statement was produced by the Revenue Officer on the basis of which Collector had determined the market price of the land. However, the basic documents referred in the sale statement were not proved. The objection as to the admissibility of the sale statement was not taken by the party producing the document. The Supreme Court held that the sale statement produced by the Revenue officer without examining either the vendor or the vendees or the person attesting those sale deeds was not admissible in evidence and could not be relied upon. However, their Lordship held that the sale statements referred to were of 1951 and not relevant to the question in hand. As alluded, in the instant cases the sale statement of comparable lands was admitted without any objection from the Appellants. The Appellants do not of object to its admissibility. The sale statement supports the case of the claimants and it also corroborates the findings reached by the Civil Court in Reference Case Nos. 142/56. It was the prime duty of the Collector in the conduct of inquest by which compensation was ascertained to see that it was just. The Collector ascertained the statement of comparable sales and proved it. The statements therein are admission of the collector about the market price of comparable lands. The Respondent (Collector) is estopped from taking the objection. In the instant case, the documents were admitted and used in evidence, the admissibility thereof was never questioned by the parties before that trial Court. When it was admitted without any objection and more so when it was produced by the party in support of his case, in our opinion, no such objection can be taken by that party about its inadmissibility. The document is not ''per se'' inadmissible. If the sale statement is rejected as inadmissible the award made by the Collector must be held to be without any backing and the impugned judgment and award of the trial Court passed on the sale statement must fail through. In the instant case, the supporting documents referred in the statement of comparable sales were produced and duly proved in the earlier reference cases and on the basis of the documents the market price of comparable lands was determined by the Civil Court. As such, it cannot be said in the instant case that the parties produced the statement of comparable sales only. Alongwith the comparable sales, we have the finding of the Civil Court before which the sale deeds referred in the Statement had been proved and on the basis thereof the Civil Court reached a finding in Reference Case Nos. 142-152 of 1966. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in the instant case the statement of comparable sales does stand alone. The basic documents referred therein were satisfactorily proved in earlier Mics. Cases and taking comparative sale statement along with the judgment, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the statement is in admissible in evidence. Be that as it may, the provision contained in Section 167 of the Evidence Act, lays down that on the ground of improper admission of evidence a party is not entitled to trial or reversal of the decision when independently of the evidence objected to and admitted there is other sufficient evidence. However, we pass over the point as determination of the other contention may effectively dispose of the appeal.

Let us consider the main contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant. It has been contended that the trial Court erred in law in leaving out of consideration the judgment of the previous case which was the best evidence to determine the market value of the land. It has also be argued that when the judgment of the earlier cases was not only more reasoned than the judgment under appeal and when the area was comparable the situation of the lands being the same and all the plots having been acquired under the self same notification, the trial Court should have awarded compensation @ Rs. 10,000/- per bigha, as awarded in Reference Cases No. 142-152/66. The following aspects are not dispute by the parties: (1) that two sets of reference cases stemmed from the Land Acquisition Case No. 26/64 before the Collector, (2) that the judgment of the previous case was a reasoned judgment which took into consideration all relevant evidence and materials (3) that all the plots were acquired under the self same notification and for the same purpose, (4) that the relevant date of the notifications u/s 4(1) of "the Act" is 2.1.65. However, the learned Judge held that there was no material before him to show that the lands were comparable land. The sketch map proved by the Collector and marked a Ex. ''Ja'' clearly shows that the present acquired lands and those of the "reference cases". Obviously, the flat market value was determined by the Collector as they were in the same field having similar nature, quality and advantage. This also could not be denied by the learned Counsel for the Respondents. Further, the statement Ext. ''Ga'' the sale deeds referred thereon and the sketch map, Ext. ''Ja'' were all taken into consideration while making the award in the aforementioned reference cases. Further, the Civil Court considered all the documents referred in Ext. ''Ga'', the sale statements and held that the sale deed of 1962 being proximate to 2.1.65 was most relevant of the three sale deeds contained in the sale statement. The Civil Court also considered another sale deed produced by the claimants (marked Ext. 3) which proved that the market value of nearby comparable lands was Rs. 10,000/- per bigha as on 2.1.1965. Relying on the sale deeds, sale statement produced by the Collector as well as Ext. 3, the Court determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 10,000/- per bigha. It is also not disputed that the civil Court had decided the market value of the land on the basis of market price of comparable lands. Relying on the sale deeds, sale statement produced by the Collector as well as Ext. 3, the Court determined the market value of the land at Rs. 10,000/- per bigha. It is also not disputed that the Civil Court had decided the market value of land on the basis of market price of comparable lands. The said judgment was not appealed against. The Collector accepted the award and accordingly paid compensation to those claimants. It is thus clear that while determining the market price of similarly situated lands, the Civil Court having taken into consideration the market value of comparable lands held that price of similar lands was Rs. 10,000/- per bigha. In the instant case, the learned Judge did not consider the judgment to be inadmissible but it did not use it on the score that the case records of the reference cases were not called and proved. However, the relevant documents in the judgments were produced by the Collector. It may be stated here that in the judgment of the earlier Reference cases, the trial Court relied on the sale deed of 1962 as produced by the Collector. As such, the conclusive findings of the Civil Court was that the market price of the lands adjacent to the present land and falling in a compact area was Rs. 10,000/- per bigha. The judgment was admitted without any objection. It remains unchallenged and unappealed. On perusal of the sketch map as well as the award of the Collector, we have no hesitation in reaching the conclusion that the lands were in the same field. In view of the award made by the Collector awarding uniform rate of compensation, we are of the opinion that the Respondent is estopped from taking a plea that the lands were not comparable lands. We reiterate that there is an admission in the Collector''s award that all these acquired lands being comparable he had awarded an unifrom rate of compensation. The award of the Collector is binding on it. Relying on the authority of the Supreme Court in Khwaja Falizuddin v. State of Hyderabad (Civil Appeal No. 176/92, decided on 10.4.62), a Division Bench of this Court in Collector of Kamrup v. Isphaub Hussain AIR 1978 Gau 50 held that the awards made in previous land acquisition proceedings relating to comparable lands and contemporaneously made are admissible and guiding factors for determining the market value of lands acquired under the Act. In Khwaja Faizuddin (supra), the Supreme Court held that the awards relating to comparable land approximately at the same time are the best evidence to determine the market value of lands acquired subsequently.

In The State of Madras Vs. A.M. Nanjan and Another, the Supreme Court has held that even the awards given by the Collector are relevant materials and may be in the nature of admission with regard to the value of the land on behalf of the State and if the land involved in the awards is comparable land in a reasonable proximity of the acquired land, the rates in the award would be a reliable material to afford a basis to work upon for determination of the compensation at a later date. The present land is adjacent or contiguous to the lands in reference Cases No. 142-152/66. From the awards of the Collector as well as the map, we have no manner of doubt that the acquired lands were of about equal value. The conduct of the State/Collector in not preferring the appeal is an admission that the value which had been determined was the market value of those lands. We have no manner of doubt that the award made in previous land acquisition cases related to comparable lands and it determined the market value of such lands as on 2.1.65. In a line of decisions this Court has held that the awards made in previous land acquisition cases relating to comparable lands and contemporaneously made were admissible and relevant, to wit, in Kallash Chandra Sen v. Collector of Kamrup FA 7/69 decided on 5.1.77 (DB); FA 14-40/78 Collector of Sibsagar v. Jogen Bora decided on 17.12.83; FA 474-49/73 Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup v. on the death af. Md. Kaibartta, decided on 16.3.83. In Land Acquisition Officer, The Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board Vs. H. Narayanaiah and Others, the moot question was whether judgments awarding compensation under the Land Acquisition Act were relevant under the Evidence Act, when they were of "inter parte" decisions, After considering the provisions of Sections 11, 13, 40 and 43 of the Evidence Act, their Lordships have held that the judgments are relevant if they relate to similarly situated properties and contain the determination of value on dates fairly proximate to relevant date. In our opinion when such an award is proved by a party in a Court of law, the burden is on the other side to show that the award should not be taken as a relevant document for determining the market price of similarly situated land.

In our opinion, while considering the market price of land on the basis of the market value of comparable lands fairly proximate to the relevant date, the Court necessarily ascertains the market price of adjacent lands possessing similar advantages. Although in a strict sense it may not be said to be an inter-parte decision but, one of the main function of the Court involve ascertainment of the market price of adjacent lands similarly situated on the date of the Notification. Such an award, therefore, cannot be said to be the determination of the market price of the acquired land only as it also determines the market price of comparable lands adjacent to the lands at the relevant date. Apparently it may be a determination of market price of the acquired land but in fact the Court decides and determines the market price of the adjacent lands, possessing similar advantages. As such, the so-called inter parte judgments cannot be rejected as inadmissible and/or irrelevant. If in a subsequent case, an issue is raised as to the market value of compatible lands, previously acquired; it affords a sure guide for determining the market price. When such judgments are put in evidence it is for the other party to show why it should be excluded from the evidence. Unless good reasons are made out such judgments cannot be declared as inadmissible or irrelevant. Such judgments are relevant when they relate to similarly situated lands and contain the determination of the market value on the dates fairly proximate to the date relevant in a case. As alluded, the appeal lands are comparable to the already acquired land. The Collector had awarded uniform rate of compensation in respect of the lands, the map proved by the Collector shows that the lands of two sets of cases are contiguous and comparable. There is an admission of the Collector that the lands being similarly situated and comparable, he had awarded a uniform market rate which was enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- per bigha in Reference Cases No. 142-152/66. For the foregoing reasons we hold that the judgment in Reference Case No. 142-152/66 is relevant and is a guide to determine the market value of the present case. The area being comparable, the situation also being the same and all the plots having been acquired under the self same notification for the same purpose the judgment is admissible and relevant. It was admitted in evidence without any objection by the Collector. The Collector made no attempt to show that the Appellants were not entitled to compensation at the rate fixed in the judgment. We are constrained to hold that the trial judge was wrong in rejecting the judgment as irrelevant and inadmissible. When all materials go to show that the lands and the date of acquisition was the same, learned judge committed error apparent on the face of the record in leaving out of consideration the judgment in question.

In Krapa Rangiah Vs. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, two parcels of lands were acquired under the same Notification along with 15 other Survey Nos. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 6 per square yard in respect of land comprising in Survey No. 114 and at the rate of Rs. 6.50 per square yard in respect of land covered by Survey 115. The claimant got a reference to the Civil Court which enhanced the compensation at a uniform rate of Rs. 10 per square yard. The State preferred an appeal to the High Court while the claimant also preferred his appeal claiming higher compensation. The High Court dismissed the claimant''s appeal but allowed the State''s appeal granting compensation @ Rs. 7.00 per square yard. The judgment of the High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court. The claimants urged that the High Court had in another claim proceeding in respect of certain lands which had been acquired under the self-same Notification granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 9 per square yard. It was contended that the appeal lands were adjoining lands and, as such, it would be inequitable and discriminatory to grant lesser compensation at the rate of Rs. 7/- per square yard as awarded by the High Court. On behalf of the State, it was contended that the judgment under appeal before the Supreme Court was more reasoned than the judgment of the High Court which had granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 9/- per square yard. Their Lordships rejected the plea of the State, holding that there was nothing to show that the judgment under appeal before the Supreme Court was more reasoned or the judgment of the previous case was any less reasoned than the judgment under appeal. The area being comparable the situation also being the same and all the plots having been acquired under the self-same notification for the same purpose, their Lordships held that it was proper that the same rate of compensation should be awarded to the claimants, and accordingly, their Lordships enhanced the compensation by Rs. 2/- per square yard with consequential increase in solatium and interest. What follows? When a competent Court by reasoned judgment determines market value of comparable land, the situation also being same, all the plots of land having been acquired under the same notification, no two rates of compensation should be given. We have perused the judgment of Reference Cases Nos. 142-152/66 and find that if is more reasoned judgment than the judgment under appeal. The earlier judgment became final and payments have been made in terms thereof. Under these circumstances, these claimants cannot be granted compensation lower than the rate determined in Reference Cases Nos. 142-152/66.

For the foregoing reasons, we enhance the market value of the lands to Rs. 10,000/- per bigha, relying on the award in Reference cases Nos. 142-152/66, with consequential increase in solatium and interest.

In the result, the appeals are allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.