State of U.P. 136 vs Bagwana and Others

Hon''ble Sanjay Misra, J.—Heard Sri Sirish Chandra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A.M. Zaidi, learned counsel for the respondents.

This first appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 12.12.1988 passed in Land Acquisition Reference No.201 of 1987 (Bhagwana & others Vs. State of U.P. & others) by the First Additional District Judge, Bijnor.

According to learned Standing Counsel, large tract of land was acquired in village Aurangpur, Nandlal, District Bijnor, under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. He states that notification u/s 4 of the Act was issued on 12.12.1983 and the notification u/s 6 of the Act was issued on 17.12.1983. The possession of the land was taken on 22.09.1986 and the award whereof was given by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 23.10.1986. Learned counsel has pointed out that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has fixed rates for acquisition of different types of land. For Sawai Awal he has fixed Rs.10,000/-per acre, for Mohara God he has fixed Rs.8941.20p per acre, for Sawai Doyam he has fixed Rs.6983.80p and for Madiyar he has fixed Rs.3031.07p per acre.

Learned Standing Counsel states that the claimant-respondent had demanded Rs.55,000/-per acre as compensation for the land acquired. According to him, the total land acquired under the said notification was 28.92 acres whereas the claimant-respondent''s land acquired was of an area of 2.498 acres. Learned counsel states that the Reference Court in a reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act has enhanced the compensation to Rs.15,000/-per acre. He has disputed the said enhancement for the reason that while considering the Issue No.1 with respect to amount of compensation to be awarded it has considered the exemplar sale deed dated 27.01.1982 of the same village, however, it has not been relied upon for the reason that it was executed more than one year prior to the acquisition. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the Reference Court then took into consideration a sale deed dated 25.10.1982 executed with respect to land of a neighbouring village Khumera of an area of 3 vishwa 18 dismil which was sold @ Rs.17,000/-per acre. Learned Standing Counsel points out that the area of the land subject matter of the sale deed dated 25.10.1982 was very small and therefore could not be a good exemplar, however, the Reference Court has without any evidence whatsoever proceeded to enhance the compensation @ Rs.15,000/-per acre.

His submission is that the exemplar sale deed dated 25.10.1982 relates to the very small piece of land having an area of 0-3-18 whereas the land acquired from the claimant-respondent was a large tract of land being 2.498 acres. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of ''Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Chandra Bhan & others'', which was decided with a bunch of other first appeals reported in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Chandra Bhan and Others, and refers to paragraph 15 therein.

Learned Standing Counsel while placing reliance on a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Zila Singh & others, reported in 2003(10) SCC 166 states that market value of a small area would not be a determinative factor for deciding the market value of a vast stretch of land. He further submits that the door was open to the claimants to lead evidence for determination of market value but they failed to do so.

Learned Standing Counsel further placed reliance on a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Kummari Veeraiah and Others Vs. State of A.P., for the same proposition and further that while considering the market value of a larger area a finding has to be recorded regarding similar nature of the land and special advantageous features so as to arrive at a reasonable conclusion. Learned Standing Counsel has also placed reliance on a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Chaturbhuja Modi and Others Vs. State of Orissa and Another, and placed reliance on paragraph 10 therein.

Paragraph 10 is quoted hereunder:

The High Court appears to have taken notice of the aforementioned criteria and has given some discount in Compensation on as the land under Exhibit 1 is a very small piece of land and the land acquired in the case in hand is much larger in size. After giving the said discount, the High Court computed the compensation at the rate of Rs.3,00,000 per acre for the acquired land. While determining compensation, some conjecture is unavoidable as it is generally not possible to have any documentary evidence of sale of land of similar nature and in the near vicinity of the acquired land. The value shown in Exhibit 1 cannot be assessed as the value of the acquired land for the reason that the said land which is sold under Exhibit 1 is a very small piece of land, whereas the acquired land being a large tract of land. This Court has held in Administrator Sukhnandan Saran Dinesh Kumar and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , that where large tracts of land are required to be valued, valuation in transactions with regard to small plots is not to be taken as the real basis for determining the compensation of large tracts of land. It follows that where the market value of large block of land is determined on the basis of sale transactions for smaller property, appropriate deduction has to be made for making allowance for the loss of the acquired land required to be used for internal development such as construction of roads, drains, sewers, open spaces and the expenditure involved in providing other amenities like water, electricity etc. The extent of area required to be set apart has to be assessed by the Court having regard to the shape, size and situation of the concerned block of land.

From a perusal of the impugned award it appears that the Reference Court while considering a very small piece of land having an area of 3 vishwa 18 dismil has found that the market value of the land is increasing every year and therefore when the sale deed was executed on 25.10.1982 and acquisition of the claimants land was made on 12.12.1983 the value of the land must have increased and hence since village Khumera was adjacent village of Aurangapur, therefore, the value of the land has to be increased. He has increased the value of the land to Rs.15,000/-per acre. A perusal of the judgment indicates that there is no reason given by the Reference Court nor any evidence is available for determining the value @ Rs.15,000/-per acre. The enhancement has been made only for the reason that the value of the land must have increased after one year. Such finding recorded by the Reference Court is not based on any evidence. Moreover, he has wrongly relied upon the price of the land subject matter of the sale deed of the land having a small area of 3 vishwa and 18 dismil while determining compensation for a large tract of land having an area of 2.498 acres. As such the enhancement of compensation appears to be clearly without any evidence and hence cannot be sustained.

In view of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Chaturbhuja Modi (Supra) it is quite clear that two things were required to be done. One was that the sale deed relating to the small piece of land could not be made an exemplar for determining compensation of large piece of land and the second is that for enhancing compensation the Reference Court ought to have given valid reasons for enhancing the same by taking into consideration the special advantageous factors and similarity of the land acquired. Neither of the two considerations have been made by the Reference Court. Moreover, in case the Reference Court was relying upon the sale deed with respect to a very small piece of land for the purpose of determining compensation of a large tract of land he ought to have considered making deductions in the value which has not been done in the present case.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this appeal stands allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 12.12.1988 passed by the Ist Additional District Judge, Bijnor, in Land Acquisition Reference No.201 of 1987 (Bhagwana & others Vs. State of U.P.) is set aside.

No order is passed as to costs.