State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others vs Harishankar

The appellants have filed the present appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the award dated 03.07.2001 passed in the Land Acquisition Case No.06/2000 by 1st Additional District Judge, Shajapur in favour of the respondent/land owners.

Facts of the case in short are as under:

The Executive Engineer, PWD, National Highway Division, Bioara vide letter dated 23.12.1989 requested the State Government for acquisition of the private land for construction of road to Railway Over Bridge in Village Maksi, Tehsil and District Shajapur. The proposal was send for acquisition of 1.457 hectare non- government land. The land Acquisition Officer issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 30.04.1993 and thereafter notification under Section 6 and 11 were issued. The land Acquisition Officer passed an award dated 05.08.1985 of Rs.1,59,155/- for the land 1.457 hectare alongwith interest under Section 23(2) and the solatium @ 30%. In the aforesaid proceeding, the land belonging to the respondent bearing Survey No.737 area 0.90 are out of 0.596 are was also acquired. He was awarded compensation of Rs.9,157/-. Being dissatisfied with the less amount of compensation he sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The reference was send to the District Judge, Shajapur for adjudication.

The District Judge registered it as a Case No.6/2000 (Land acquisition) and referred it to the 1st Additional District Judge, Shajapur for adjudication. The respondent filed the claim before the ADJ for enhancement on the ground that the land bearing Survey No.737 of Village Maksi is located a residential area. The Village Maksi has been developed as Industrial area in the year 1980 and the market value of the land has been increased exorbitantly, therefore, he is entitled for compensation @ Rs.50 per sq.ft. According to him, he has dugged a tube well for which he spent Rs.25,000/-. In the acquired land there were three big trees for which also he is entitled for compensation of Rs.20,000/-.

In support of his claim for enhancement, he examined Shakuntala Bai as PW1, Harishankar as PW2, Mishrilal as PW3, Motilal as PW4. The land owner/respondent got exhibited 7 sale deeds of the relevant period as Ex.P/1 to P/7 in order to claim the compensation @ Rs.50 per sq.ft. The appellant examined Amin Mohd. Kureshi (Revenue Inspector) as DW1. . The learned ADJ after examining the documentary as well as oral evidence came to the conclusion that the respondent is entitled for compensation of his land @ Rs.25/- per sq.ft. alongwith the interest and solatium as per law. Learned ADJ has also awarded the compensation @ Rs.10,000/- for three big trees and Rs.25,000/- for tube well and accordingly enhanced the compensation @ Rs.6,20,000/-.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. By order dated 08.01.2002 notices were issued to the respondent. Thereafter, on 14.03.2005 the delay was condoned. Since, no stay was granted, the appellant has deposited the sum of Rs.9,05,311/- and which has been withdrawn by the respondent. Vide order dated 22.03.2005, the remaining part of the award was stayed.

Shri Pawan Sharma, learned GA for the appellant/State submitted that learned Reference Court has wrongly enhanced the amount of compensation exorbitantly without any evidence. The Land Acquisition Officer had rightly assessed the compensation on the basis of the market value of the land. Without any documentary evidence, the Court has wrongly granted the compensation for trees and tube well. The Exhibit P/1 to P/7 filed by the respondent are the sale deed in which the lands were sold for smaller area whereas the land of the respondent is 15,000 sq.ft. The learned District Judge without examining the sale deeds has enhanced the compensation @ Rs.25/- without giving any reason. There is no discussion in respect of the material available on record. The award is non-speaking and findings are perverse. Each and every sale deed filed as Exhibit P/1 to P/7 ought to have been examined and considered, hence, award is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention he has placed reliance over the judgement passed by the Division Bench of this Court in F.A.No.553/2001 (Union of India Vs. Ram Chandra) in which value of the land at the relevant time was assessed as Rs.17/- per sq.ft., hence, the award is liable to be set aside.

No one is appearing on behalf of the respondent, despite service of notice to him.

Conclusion...

In the present case, notification under Section 4 was issued in the year 1993 for acquisition of the land for construction of road to Railway Over Bridge in Village Maksi and award was passed in the year 1995, therefore, the value of the land is liable to be considered which was prevailing at the time issuance of notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act i.e. in the year 1993.

Before construction of Railway Over Bridge in the National Highway No.3 in the Maksi Village, large area of the land was acquired by the Union of India for construction of Maksi -Indore Railway Line. The notification under Section 4 was issued in the year 1990 and the award was passed in the year 1992 by granting compensation @ Rs.30,000/- per hectare. The reference was sought by various land owners and the District Judge enhanced the compensation. Thereafter, various first appeals were filed by Union of India as well as by the land owners. All the first appeals have been decided by this Court vide order dated 29.06.2017 compensation @ Rs.19/- per sq.ft has been assessed fro the land. The relevant para of the order is reproduced below:

"29. In the present case the land which was acquired by the Railway was agricultural land. It is true that the land in question is within the Municipal Council of Maksi Municipality. Maksi is a commercial town, number of Industries are also there, Agra-Bombay Road and Ujjain-Bhopal Railway line is near to the land acquired by the Railway. Number of witnesses have deposed that at the time of acquisition of land the value of the land was Rs.15 to 20 square feet.

Considering the aforesaid so also the admission made by the witnesses of the respondents / land owners and sale deed, filed before the Reference Court, we are arrived at the conclusion that at the time of notification the market value of the land in question was Rs.25 per square feet. When the value of a large extent of agricultural land has to be determined with reference to the price fetched by sale of a small residential plot, it is necessary to make an appropriate deduction towards the development cost, to arrive at the value of the large tract of land. The deduction towards development cost may vary from 20% to 75% depending upon various factors. Even if the acquired lands have situational advantages, the minimum deduction from the market value of a small plot, to arrive at the market value of a larger agricultural land, is in the usual course, will be in the range of 25%. In this case, we deduct 25% of the value of the land and after deduction of the same the value of the land at that time would be Rs.19/- per square feet. We, therefore, of the view that the value arrived at by the Reference Court was hypothetical and, therefore, we modify the order of the Reference Court by awarding the compensation to the land owners at the rate of Rs.19/- per square feet.

In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chandrashekar & Ors. v. Addl. Special Land Acquisition officer(supra), we allow the prayer for enhancement of compensation of the landowners who have reduced the valuation of their appeal. The same shall be worked out along with interest and solatium as awarded by the reference Court in the impugned judgment. It is made clear that the enhanced compensation which is now been directed to pay to the claimants/landowners who are respondents in this appeal and the same shall be paid if the respondents - landowners shall deposit the requisite court fees on the aforesaid enhanced amount within 3 months from the date of supply of copy of this order to this Court. It is also made clear that they are entitled for enhanced amount of compensation only after payment of deficit court fees to the High Court. If the deficit court fees is paid within specified time as fixed by this Court, the Registry will issue necessary certificate to them and then only they will be entitled for the enhanced amount of compensation.

In view of the above, the first appeal No.553 of 2001 filed by the Union of India is allowed in part. The appeals filed by the claimants-land owners are also allowed in part and the compensation is increased from Rs.75,000/- per hectare to Rs.19/- per square feet. We reiterate that the claimants will be entitled to all statutory benefits as awarded by the Reference Court, i.e., additional amount under Section 23 (1-A), solatium under Section 23 (2) and interest under Section 28 of the Act"

In the present case, notification under Section 4 was issued in the year 1993 and the award was passed in the year 1995. By that time the Railway line had already been constructed & Maksi Village had been developed as an Industrial area. The value of the land has been increased drastically because of the construction of Railway line and the land in question is situated adjacent the A.B. Road in Maksi Village. There is a difference of 3 years in the notification issued for construction of Railway line in the year 1990 and notification here in the case for construction of road to the Railway Over Bridge near Railway Line. In case of Railway line the compensation has been assessed @ Rs.19/- per sq.ft. therefore, after three years the rate of the land is bound to increase, hence, the reference Court has rightly assessed the compensation @ Rs.25/- per sq.ft. So far as the award of compensation for tube well, the amount of Rs.25,000/- has rightly been awarded and likewise for the three big trees amount of compensation of Rs.10,000/- has rightly been awarded.

Therefore, in view of the above discussion, I do not find any ground to interfere with the award, hence, first appeal is accordingly dismissed.