State of M.P. vs Rajesh Kumar Chokse

This appeal is preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh Collector (Land Acquisition Officer) Shivpuri and Executive Engineer, Sindh Pariyojna, Irrigation Department, district Shivpuri being aggrieved by the Award dated 11.7.2005 passed jointly in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 3/13, 6/04 to 18/04, by which the learned Additional District Judge enhanced the compensation awarded by the learned Acquisition Officer in all the cases.

By the impugned order, the Second Additional District Judge, Shivpuri, enhanced the compensation in different cases as given in table below:-

3.The learned Acquisition Officer acquired the lands of the respondent alongwith other persons for construction of Madikhera Dam in village Sosa Tehsil Karera, District Shivpuri and paid compensation u/s 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act., 1984. However, the respondent and other land owners challenged the order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer (dated 29.01.2003) as regarding the compensations by way of reference before the Additional District Judge, Shivpuri. Learned Additional District Judge, Shivpuri, after considering the reference pronounced the impugned order dated 11.7.2005.

The State of Madhya Pradesh and the Executive Engineer, Sindh Pariyojana, has filed this appeal against Respondent Rajesh Kumar Choukse on several grounds. It is contended that the impugned judgment is illegal and against the settled principles of law. The learned Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence. The Land Acquisition Officer asserted the value of the land on the basis of guidelines issued by the Govt. The learned Trial Court while assessing the value of the acquired land, considered sale of land situated at village Surviya which is a irrigated land and is during the period commencing from 28.09.2000 till 27.09.2001, not a single sale deed of irrigated land has been executed nearby village Surviya. The learned Additional District Judge applied the sale of irrigated land for ascertaining the Award. As per the Govt. guidelines, the value of the land situated in village Sosa is Rs. 68,000/- per hectare, while acquired the land, the Land Acquisition Officer calculated the compensation as Rs. 70,000/- per hectare whereas learned Additional District Judge ascertained the value as Rs. 75,000/- per hectare. Therefore, the impugned judgment deserves to be set-aside.

Perused the record and the record of the Land Acquisition Officer. It would be pertinent to mention here that the appellant has challenged as regarding the land Acquisition Case No. 3/03, Rajesh Kumar Chokse Vs. State of M.P. only. Before the learned Reference Court, the respondent tried to convince that the respondent had 64 mango trees, 42 Guava trees, besides, the timber. He could not use timber. It was contended that out of these mango trees which were planted in the year 1993-1994, he was earning about Rs. 5000/- per tree and he could have earned till the next 50 years. From the Guava trees, he could have earned Rs. 2,500/- per tree totaling Rs. 2,62,500/- from 42 Gova trees. He also contended that he could have used the timber of the mango trees which is very valuable. 30 cubic feet from each tree could have fetched him. Rs. 15,000/- per tree that could have another Rs. 9,60,000/-. As regarding the land also, respondent contended before the learned Additional District Judge that the value of the land could have assessed at the rate of Rs. 2,52,000/- per hectare, whereas the State has assessed at a lower rate. Learned Additional District Judge after going through the revenue records panchsala Khasra Exhibits P-1 to P-5, Khatoni Exhibit P-6 and the registered sale deed of land of nearby area which are marked as Exhibit P-12 to Exhibit P-15. The learned Additional District Judge also considered the well, trees and kachha house situated in the acquired land. Summing up the different aspects and the value mentioned in the registered sale deeds of the land situated in nearby villages, opined that for irrigated land, the value could have been Rs. 1,00,000/- per hectare and for unirrigated land Rs. 70,000/- per hectare. The District Registrar, Shivpuri, valued the land situated at village Surviya in the year 2001-2002 as Rs. 1,31,000/- per hectare for irrigated land and Rs. 91,000/- per hectare for unirrigated land.

The value of lands of adjacent villages such as village Sosa, village Narwar were taken into consideration. Learned Additional District Judge, on the basis of the sale deeds assessed that the land acquired should have valued at the rate of Rs. 1,17,000/- for irrigated land Rs. 70,000/- per hectare for unirrigated land.

Resultantly, the irrigated land of the respondent consisting of Survey No. 88 area 0.96 acre, Survey No. 89 area 2.12 acre, Survey No. 111 area 0.50 acre, survey No. 113 area 4.12 land and unirrigated land Survey No. 112 area 0.44 acre totaling 8.14 acres. In assessing the value of the land, the, the learned Additional District Judge assessed Rs. 1,00,000/- for the irrigated land as Rs. 75,000/- per hectare, whereas for non-irrigated land of 0.44 hectare valued the total acquired land as Rs. 9,57,000/- and added 12 % interest as per provision of Sections 23 (1) and (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, a further 30% solatium is awarded as per provision Sections 23(2) of Land Acquisition Act. Thus, total compensation has been calculated to the tune of Rs. 13,10,890/-. As regarding the trees situated in the land, on the basis of admissions made by the Rajesh Kumar Chokse, there was Ramja tree in Survey No. 89 which is valued as 200 rupees. A rubber tree in Survey No. 88, 2 neem trees in survey No. 102 and 3 neem trees in survey No. 113 and a peepal tree in survey No. 111. In all eight trees were situated, a compensation of Rs. 2,362/- was further awarded for these trees. Therefore, considering the guidelines made for compensation of the land, the value of the adjacent lands was taken into consideration which is an established method for assessing the value of the land. That apart, potentiality value forms part of the market value. Therefore, potentiality value of an acquired land taken into account while determining its market value cannot be said to be perverse.

Therefore, appeal filed by the appellant u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition act, 1894 is disallowed.

No order as to costs.