Smt. Duropadi Devi vs State of U.P.

Hon''ble Sanjay Misra, J.—Heard Sri O.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Sirish Chandra, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

According to Sri O.P. Srivastava, Respondents No.2, 3, 4 & 5 are proforma-respondents and had not filed objection to the award of compensation granted to the appellant.

This is a First Appeal u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the judgment and decree dated 04.10.1983 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Allahabad, in Land Acquisition Reference No.16 of 1981 (Smt. Draupadi Devi (deceased) through L.R.''s Vs. State of U.P).

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 18.03.1978 and the notification u/s 6 of the Act was issued on 08.04.1978. Possession of the land was taken on 06.10.1978 and the Land Acquisition Officer gave his award on 22.07.1980.

According to him the land acquired consisted of a large Plot No.348 situate in Baski Uparhar, Pargana & Tehsil Chayal, District Allahabad (now more popularly known as Allahpur). The appellant was bhoomidhar of an area of 6 bishwa 19 dismil (949.37 sq. yard) whereas the total land acquired in the larger plot was 2 bigha 13 bishwa 16 decimal. He has submitted that exemplars were filed by the appellant with respect to the sale of the adjacent land but all the exemplars were rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer for the reason that they were land of different nature and different location. He submits that in a reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act the Reference Court had framed three issues with respect to adequacy of compensation and the bar u/s 25(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. Insofar as the issue regarding bar u/s 25(2) of the Land Acquisition Act is concerned, it was not press. However, on Issues No.1 and 3 regarding adequacy of compensation and the claim of the appellant the Reference Court has illegally rejected the exemplars of the neighbouring land and has relied upon the judgement dated 28.01.1983 in Land Acquisition Reference No.15 of 1991 (Hori Lal & others Vs. State of U.P. & others) and illegally held that the compensation awarded to Hori Lal has attained finality and hence when the land of the appellant was also situate on the very same larger plot as the land of Hori Lal, therefore, the said judgment would be a valid evidence in this reference. According to learned counsel the circle rate of the land in question was also pleaded before the Reference Court but that plea has been illegally rejected for the reason that the circle rate under the Stamp Act is fixed for the purpose of stamp duty and cannot be taken as an evidence for fixing value of the land in land acquisition proceedings. Learned counsel further argues that there is an escalation in the value of the land in question which is situate next to the railway line and, therefore, the compensation @ Rs.8.94 per sq. yard requires to be enhanced.

Sri Sirish Chandra, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has determined the compensation on the report made by the departmental authority, who found that the land in question at the time of inspection was sub-merged in water and the Reference Court has considered all the exemplars filed by the appellant and has rightly rejected them for the reason that the exemplars related to the plots having an area of 151 sq. yard or lesser which could not be a proper exemplar for a larger plot of the appellant. He has also submitted that the Reference Court has rightly considered the judgment dated 28.01.1983 passed in Reference No.15 of 1981 (Hori Lal and others Vs. State of U.P. & others) since the land of Hori Lal was also a part of the larger plot No.348. Learned Standing Counsel states that insofar as the decision of the Reference Court on the pleading regarding valuation fixed under the Stamp Act is concerned, the same cannot be made a ground for assessing the value of the land because it relates to realization of revenue and avoidance of the stamp duty on conveyance or transfer of land or property. According to him the land acquisition proceedings cannot be equated with a transaction of conveyance or transfer.

In the rejoinder argument Sri O.P. Srivastava has referred to the site map which he has filed alongwith his dates and events in this appeal. He refers to the land in question marked with red lines as also the land of Hori Lal marked with green lines and states that the land of Hori Lal was admittedly adjacent to the water logged tank and was not accessible by the main road whereas the land of the appellant was next to the railway line and on the West Baghambari Road existed and, therefore, the findings recorded by the Reference Court and the Special Land Acquisition Officer are clearly illegal.

Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it will be seen that admittedly the land of the appellant is a part of the larger Plot No.348. Hori Lal''s plot is situated in the larger plot and is adjacent to the water logged tank whereas the appellant''s plot is not next to or adjacent to the water logged tank. Plot No.235 is in the neighbourhood of Hori Lal''s plot and that plot was the subject matter of a sale deed dated 02.11.1977 executed by Smt. Manju Lata @ Rs.45.50 per sq. yard. The area of plot no.235 was 136 sq. yard. Clearly the plot no.235 was situated next to the plot of Hori Lal and it was near the water logged tank whereas the appellant''s plot is towards the West of the larger plot and bordered by the Baghambari Road on one side and land and railway track on the other side. It indicates that on the northern side of the appellant''s plot there is a railway line and buxi bandh road whereas Hori Lal''s plot is more or less in the centre of the larger plot no.348 and is not bordered by the Baghambari road or by the railway line, therefore, there is a difference in the location of the plot of Hori Lal and Plot No.235 on the one hand and the appellant''s plot on the other. Consequently, insofar as the rejection of the exemplar sale deed dated 02.11.1977 relating to the plot no.235 is concerned the only ground taken by the Reference Court is that the area of the plot is small and the area of the appellant''s plot is larger. It will be seen from the record that the area of Plot No.235 is about 136 sq. yard and the area of appellant''s plot is about 950 sq. yard. The principle laid down regarding compensation that when the plot is larger the compensation is lesser and when the plot is smaller the compensation is more, relates to acquisition made where entire abadis and agricultural land situate in village or villages are the subject matter of notification. In those cases where large tract of land is acquired the land holder having very large holding cannot be equated with a small land holder. But the present case is a case of land situate in the municipal limit of the city and the smallest piece of land acquired is 136 sq. yards and largest piece of land acquired is 950 sq. yards. The said principle clearly could not have been strictly adopted by the reference court when acquisition relates to such small pieces of land. The aforesaid reasoning given by the reference court and the Special Land Acquisition Officer, therefore, cannot be accepted. The appellant was entitled to compensation as awarded to the other plot namely Plot No.235 area 136 sq. yards and on the basis of larger area of 950 sq. yards only a minimum deduction could have been made even upon adopting the principle. The compensation given for plot no.235 was Rs.45.50 per sq. yard whereas the compensation for the appellants plot was Rs.8.94 per sq. yard. Apart from the finding on the size of two plots the exemplar sale deed of Manju Lata has not been rejected on any other grounds. There was a 36 feet wide Baghambari road towards West of the land of the appellant and the land of plot no.235 was situate on a side road hardly 6 feet wide then it cannot be held that plot no.235 was in any manner better allocated than the plot of the appellant. Baghambari road is about 36 feet wide whereas the plot no.235 is not situate of such a wide road. The rejection of the exemplar sale deed of Smt. Manju Lata to that extent is clearly illegal and cannot be upheld.

Insofar as the submission regarding circle rate of the land in question is concerned, admittedly on the date of acquisition the circle rate of the larger plot no.348 was Rs.66-77 per sq. yard. The submission of learned Standing Counsel that the circle rate under the Stamp Act cannot be made the basis of valuing land under the Land Acquisition Act appears to have substance, however, although the circle rate cannot be made the basis of valuation but the circle rate can be always looked into for the purpose of determining market value of the land in question. The record indicates that the market value of the land in question on the date of acquisition was Rs.66-77 per sq. yard whereas the compensation of Rs.8.94 per sq. yard is given to the appellant on the date when the market value of the land in question was Rs.66.77 per sq. yard. Clearly, the same was required to be considered for the purpose of adjudging the proper compensation and its rejection was unjustified. The value of the land cannot be determined on the sole basis of circle rate but the same can be looked into to find out whether the compensation awarded is adequate or not. In the present case clearly when the market value of the land was Rs.66-77 per sq. yard and the compensation awarded is Rs.8.94 per sq. yard appears to be inadequate and there was an error while computing the compensation payable to the appellant. As such although the circle rate of the land in question cannot made the basis for valuing the market value of the land but it is recorded that the compensation of Rs.8.94 per sq. yard is extremely inadequate.

10.The land in question is situated near a railway line that travels from the Prayag Railway Station to Prayagghat Railway Station and is situate towards the South of the railway line. On the Northern side of the railway line there is Baghambari road. The Baghambari road has been constructed over a bandh (dam) for the purpose of saving land in the locality from the flood in the river Ganga during rainy season. Towards West of the land of the appellant there is a 36 feet wide road, therefore, the land of the appellant is open on two sides i.e. West and the North. Towards the South and East there is abadi. The water logged tank is towards further East of Hori Lal''s plot and Hori Lal''s plot is not adjacent to the appellants land. The water found on the land when inspection was made was the collection due to seasonal rains and it was also pumped out hence it cannot be held that the land is perennially water logged. Admittedly, the neighbouring land was at a higher level. When plot no.235 which is adjacent to Hori Lal''s land has been given compensation of Rs.45.50 per sq. yard there was no reason to grant only Rs.8.94 per sq. yard to the appellant''s land only for the reason of difference in size. Such difference was not related to large tract of agricultural land but it related a small plot of abadi land situate within municipal limits of the city. Therefore, the submission of learned Standing Counsel with respect to the judgment given in reference no.15 of 1991 in Hori Lal''s case could not apply in the case of the appellant.

Insofar as the submission of appellant with respect to bhoomidhari rights and zamindari rights over the land in question is concerned, a perusal of the order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer clearly indicates that he has considered such submission and granted more compensation for bhoomidhari land and lesser compensation for zamindari land and as such no benefit can be given to the appellant on that submission.

Having so recorded this Court finds that the compensation of Rs.8.94 per sq. yard is extremely inadequate and requires to be enhanced.

While considering the sale deed of plot no.235 it will be seen that the same is situated towards the South-West of the water logged tank whereas the plot of the appellant is situated at a distance towards West of the water logged tank. The plot of the appellant appears to be opening on the Baghambari road which is a main road and 36 feet wide Consequently, the appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation in accordance with the plot no.235 with a deduction on the basis that plot no.235 has an area of 136 sq. yard whereas the plot of the appellant has an area of approximately 950 sq. yard. Therefore, while accepting the submission of learned Standing Counsel with respect to the lesser compensation for larger area this Court finds it fit to grant compensation to the appellant @ Rs.36 per sq. yard by increasing the compensation four times instead of five times as was done while awarding compensation for plot no.235.

The appeal is therefore allowed. The judgement and decree dated 04.10.1983 and 10.10.1983 and award dated 22.07.1980 are set aside and a sum of Rs.36 per sq. yard is awarded to the appellant as compensation for acquisition of the land in question. Any amount already paid or withdrawn by the appellant shall be given due adjustment.

The appeal stands allowed.

No order is passed as to costs.