State of M.P. vs Smt. Krishna Devi

This appeal has been filed by the appellant/state u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the award dated 18.11.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sironj, District Vidisha (Shri G.S. Kakodia) in M.J.C. No. 01.2005. The facts in brief of the case are that the agricultural land of the respondent situated in Village Rusiya Tehsil Lateri District Vidisha bearing Survey No. 340/1 area 0.893 hectare, Survey No. 341/1 area 2.099 hectare, Survey No. 337/2/3 area 1.770 Hectare Min Area 0.380, Survey No. 338 area 0.847 Hectare min 0.807 hectare and Survey No. 339 Min area 0.594 total area 4.766 Hectare was acquired by the appellant/State vide notification u/s 4 of the Act on 15.05.2004. Thereafter, the notification u/s 6 of the Act was also issued on 1.8.2004. The possession of the land was taken and Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation of the irrigated land at Rs. 1,05,000/- per hectare and for unirrigated land at Rs. 70,000/- per hectare and passed an award on 3.9.2004 under different heads. Thereafter, the respondent submitted an application before the Land Acquisition Officer u/s 18 of the Act for making reference before the District Judge stating therein that the amount of compensation was too meagre and the compensation had wrongly been assessed without considering proper price of the land on the date of notification u/s 6 of the Act. The respondent had further averred that the market value of the land and number of trees standing on the acquired land as well as the well existing on the land have not been taken into account in the assessment of the amount of compensation. Hence, prayed for additional compensation and interest thereon @ 12% per annum u/s 23(1-A) of the Act including solatium and 9% interest from the date of acquisition of land.

On notice being issued, appellant/state put in an appearance and filed reply denying the allegations made in the said application further stating that the land was not irrigated land and no tree was in existence on the land on the date of acquisition. It was submitted that the compensation was rightly assessed and hence, prayed for dismissal of the application.

Learned Court below recording statements of the parties but without calling the relevant record from Land Acquisition Officer, has enhanced the compensation, hence, this appeal.

The following question arises for consideration in this appeal whether, the impugned award and findings are based on proper appreciation of evidence?

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation assessed by the trial court being totally arbitrary illegal and against the recorded evidence deserves to be set-aside as no document showing actual price of the adjacent land of the acquired land was produced on record by the respondent. Only oral statements have been made basis for assessing compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,14,500/- per hectare. The guidelines fixed by the Collector for registry purpose cannot be a basis for assessing the compensation in this case as the said guideline is made only for collecting the stamp duty for registration purpose. To bolster his submission, he relied on the judgment P. Ram Reddy Vs. Land Acquisition Officer . Learned Dy. Advocate General further submits that the cost of the well and the trees have also been fixed arbitrarily as no credible evidence in this regard has been produced on record by the respondent.

Per contra, learned Sr. counsel for the respondent submits that the appellant/state''s witness S.L. Soni SDO Lateri has admitted in para 10 that during the year 2003-2004, rate of irrigated agricultural land as per guideline fixed by the Collector was Rs. 2,14,500/- per hectare and the said guideline may be relied upon for assessing the compensation as held by Hon. Apex Court in the Lal Chand Vs. Union of India and Another AIR 2009 SCW 5810. Learned counsel further submits that though the interest @ 12% per annum has been granted in the impugned award not as per section 23(1-A) of the Act, it can be modified as per section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. Learned counsel for the respondent also citing unreported judgments in FA No. 21 of 2009 State of M.P. Vs. Tularam and others passed on 25.6.2009 and FA No. 8 of 2009 State of M.P. Vs. Babulal passed on 9.1.2009 has submitted that the said appeals were filed by the State against the award pertaining to the acquired land of the same village under the same scheme and the award passed by reference Court in which cost of irrigated land having been determined to be Rs. 2,14,500/- per Hectare and unirrigated land at the rate of Rs. 1,34,000/- per hectare was maintained by the High Court. The said appeals were dismissed by this Court and price of the land determined by the reference Court is the same as is disputed in this appeal.

Heard the arguments of the both the parties and perused the record.

On behalf of the respondent/applicant, four witnesses Smt. Krishna Devi (PW 1), Kailash Babu (PW 2), Saiyyad Sanabbar Ali (PW 3) and Kailash S/o Chironjilal (PW 4) were examined. Smt. Krishna Devi has only proved the document of Power of Attorney executed in favour of his son Kailash Babu (PW 2). However, other three witnesses have unequivocally deposed in their statements that the acquired land was irrigated and it''s price was Rs. 75,000/- Per Bigha i.e. Rs. 3,75,000/- Per Hectare. However, it is true that no document regarding the purchase of adjacent land at the rate of Rs. 75,000/- Per Bigha has been produced on record. Entire case is based on oral evidence, but the defendant''s witness S.L. Soni himself has admitted in para 10 that during the acquisition period, the price of irrigated agricultural land as per guideline Ex. P/3 fixed by Collector was Rs. 2,14,500/- per Hectare. The said evidence is a piece of evidence which can be considered in assessing the market value of the acquired land. The said statement corroborates the applicant''s witnesses'' statements. In view of the said statement in the instant case, the price of the acquired agricultural land fixed by learned trial Court in para 7 of the impugned award cannot be deemed to be arbitrary. In Lal Chand Vs. Union of India and Another (Supra), the Hon. Apex Court has held that in assessing the market value, the rate fixed by the Collector in guideline can be made the basis of market value. The Hon. Apex Court having considered the various earlier judgments, has propounded the aforesaid view as follows:

When the guideline market values, that is, minimum rates for registration of properties, are so evaluated and determined by expert committees as per statutory procedure, there is no reason why such rates should not be a relevant piece of evidence for determination of market value. One of the recognized methods for determination of market value is with reference to opinion of experts. The estimation of market value by such statutorily constituted expert committees, as expert evidence can therefore form the basis for determining the market value in land acquisition cases, as a relevant piece of evidence.

On the basis of general experience, it would be apt to mention here that the guideline fixed by the Collector every year for collecting stamp duty for registration purpose is based on the price of the land taken into account in the registries of the previous year. Normally, buyer and seller do not get the sale deed executed on the actual price of the sell for saving the stamp duty actually payable. Hence, the price fixed in the guideline cannot be deemed to be excessive. Though the learned Dy. Advocate General has relied on P. Ram Reddy Vs. Land Acquisition Officer (Supra) but the said judgment is related to the small building plots, hence, quite distinguishable on facts as in the instant case, the acquired land is agricultural land being acquired on the large scale.

It is further pertinent to mention here that unreported judgments cited by learned counsel for the respondent have not been challenged by the State Government before the Supreme Court. Thus, it is concluded that the cost of Rs. 2,14,500/- per Hectare for irrigated land determined by the reference Court has been maintained by this Court in the said appeals which were related to the land of same scheme and of the same village acquired for the same purpose by the State Government.

Cost of trees and building as well as the well is also not on the higher side. It is true that the rate of interest @ 12% is contrary to the provisions of Section 23(1-A) of the Act which is required to be modified.

Therefore, modifying the impugned award and setting aside the rate of interest fixed @ 12% per annum, it is ordered that the rate of interest shall be payable as per Section 23(1-A) of the Act and the remaining award is maintained. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to the costs.