Smt. Man Dassi vs Collector Land Acquisition, & Anr.

The challenge in this appeal is of limited nature. Claim with regard to the enhancement though have been raised in various grounds, however, during the course of arguments the same have been restricted to the question of escalation. However, before proceeding to determine the said question certain facts may be noticed.

The respondents on 2.4.2005 issued a notification No.P.B.W./B/A (7) 1-64/04 under Section 4 of the Act for acquiring the property of the claimant(s) and other persons. This notification was given wide publicity through Field Agency and by publishing the same in daily newspapers. The notification was published in Rajpatra on 13.06.2005; Amar Ujala on 14.4.2005; Hindustan Times on 15.04.2005, public notice was made on 12.5.2005. Notification under Sections 6 & 7 was issued on 10.11.2005 and was published in Rajpatra on 26.11.2005, Times of India on 27.11.2005, Amar Ujala on 27.11.2005 and public notice was made on 31.1.2006. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded a sum of Rs.3,32,68,516/- as market value of the houses/structures. Besides this, 30% solatium, 12% additional amount was also awarded.

The petitioner filed reference petitioner under Sections 18 & 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) on the ground that the value of the building as had been assessed was low, inadequate and unreasonable.

The learned Court below vide its award dated 18.3.2011 allowed the reference petition with cost and the petitioner was held entitled to the original estimated cost of houses assessed by Public Works Department without any depreciation i.e. 4,53,760 + 36,25,390 + 15,84,266 with increase at the rate of 25% on this amount. Further, the petitioner was held entitled to the other statutory benefits as envisaged under the Act.

There is no dispute with regards to the number of superstructures standing on the land, which have been assessed by the Public Works Department and, therefore, the only question required to be determined is whether the escalation awarded at the rate of 25% is adequate or is required to be suitably enhanced.

It is further not in dispute that the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 02.04.2005, whereas the award came to be passed on 12.01.2007 and the value of the building was assessed as per HPSR Rate-1999.

It is a matter of common knowledge that there is general trend of increase in cost of construction and this fact has been admitted by RW-1 examined by the respondents, who has unequivocally stated that there has been an escalation in price from 1998 to 2005 i.e. a period of 7 years. Therefore, to my mind, the lump sum enhancement of 25% as awarded by the learned Court below is grossly inadequate.

This Court in NHPC v. Smt. Samudri & Ors., 2007 (3) SLJ (HP) 2021 observed as under:-

"16.It is common knowledge that there is general trend of increase in cost of construction. The State has acquired land and structures under different notifications for construction of reservoir of Chamera Dam. In RFA No. 72 of 1998, alongwith RFAs No. 75, 56 and 63 of 1998 decided on 30.5.2007 and RFA No. 127 of 1998 decided on Ist June, 2007, this Court has approved 50% increase in market value of the structures over and above the 1987 schedule of rates. The land and structures in those cases were also acquired for construction of reservoir of Chamera Project on the basis of notifications under Section 4 of the Act dated 6.6.1992 and 16.6.1992. In the present case, the notification under Section 4 is of 13.6.1992, therefore, 50% increase given by the District Judge for assessing the market value of the structures over and above the 1987 schedule of rates is just, reasonable and not arbitrary. The claimants/petitioners have not otherwise independently proved that at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act what was the value of their superstructure standing on the acquired land."

There can be no quarrel with the proposition that the market value of the superstructures had to be assessed on the basis of the schedule rates as were prevalent in the year, 2005 and not as per the year, 1999. Therefore, the escalation, in the given facts and circumstances, ought to have been granted at least @ 40% and not 25% as awarded by the learned Court below, as the increase in the market value in the rural areas would at best be around 5 to 7.5% per annum. (Ref.: General Manager, ONGC, Ltd. vs. Rameshbai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr., 2008 (14) SCC 745).

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appellant is held entitled to 40% of the amount to its super structure instead of 25%. In this manner, the appellant shall be entitled to a lump sum enhancement of 40% on the estimated cost of the house i.e. Rs.4,53,760 + 36,25,390 + 15,84,266.

The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.