State of U.P. vs Sri Gajendra Singh and Others

Rajesh Tandon, J.—Heard the Standing counsel for the State.

Present appeal has been directed against the judgment and award dated 28.9.1993 passed by the Additional District Judge, Dehradun.

Briefly stated that .90 Acre land of the respondents situated in village Majra, Tehsil Parwadoon, District Dehradun was acquired by the State vide notification No. 5560/8-, L.L.A.O./81-82 dated 20.1.1982. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the order on 23.3.1984 and assessed the compensation payable to the respondent-claimants, against which a reference was made in the Court of District Judge, Dehradun on the ground that the land of the claimants is irrigated land, which is situated near the road side and it is fully suitable for the construction of houses but the compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer is a meagre amount.

The State has filed the written statement and has submitted that the amount of compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer is just and proper and reference made to the District Judge is liable to be dismissed.

On the basis of pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:

Whether compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate?

To what relief, if any, the claimant is entitled?

The reference court has held that the rate of compensation awarded to the claimants is not sufficient and accordingly enhanced the amount of compensation with 30% solatium and interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of notification till reference.

Feeling aggrieved the State has filed the present appeal.

The total land acquired u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was 8.82 Acre. The Land Acquisition Officer has granted compensation for 6.32 Acre land at the rate of Rs. 1,19,574.58 while compensation for remaining 2.50 Acre land was granted at lower rate, while the plots are adjacent to each other. The reference court has therefore, held that the claimants are entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,19,574.58 per acre.

The Land Acquisition Officer has held that the entire land was not irrigated. However, the claimants have filed bill of Irrigation Department dated 20.10.83, 4.10.88, 25.3.82,16.1.74 and 22.19.81 which unequivocally prove that the land was irrigated.

Market value of the acquired land has to be determined by Comparable sale method as held by the Apex Court in M/s. Printers House Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mst. Saiyadan (Deceased) by L. Rs., and others, . The Apex Court has observed as under:

Where there is evidence of sales or awards of land(s), which could be compared with the acquired land(s), the Court, as a matter of course, adopts the ''Comparable Sales Method of valuation of land'', in preference to other recognised methods of valuation of lands, such as ''Capitalisation of Net Income Method'' or ''Expert Opinion Method'' for determining the market value of the acquired land(s). ''Comparable Sales Method'' is the most favoured method, since the prices paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase or sale of the very acquired land or a portion thereof, or of the lands adjacent to those acquired and possessing similar advantages, could furnish to the court the ''price basis'' for determination of the market value of the acquired land, in that, there can be no better evidence of what the willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it had been sold in ''the open market at the time of publication of preliminary notification''. Evidence of prices fetched by sales of lands similar to the acquired land will be taken by the Court to be the price which a willing purchaser would have paid for the acquired land, if the same had been sold to him in the open market. However, if the price under comparable sale is to be taken by the Court, as furnishing the ''price basis'' for determination of the market value of the acquired land, the comparable sale must, firstly be genuine, secondly it must have taken place at a time proximate to the date of publication of the preliminary notification u/s 4(1) of the Act, thirdly the land sold under the sale must be similar to the acquired land, and fourthly the land sold under the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land. It has, therefore, to be noted that the location, size, shape, tenure, user or potentiality of land under comparable sale, if do not compare favourably with the acquired land, price fetched in comparable sale cannot furnish the ''price basis'' for determining the market value of the acquired land. However, if any differing feature or factor in a land covered by comparable sale admits of adjustment in terms of money, depending on whether it is plus factor or minus factor, the market value of the acquired land is determined either by increasing its price or decreasing its price vis-a-vis the price fetched for land under comparable sale. What applies to comparable sale, equally applies to comparable award, if such award is relied upon as that furnishing a price basis for determination of the market value of the land, cannot be disputed. Thus, the best evidence for determining the market value of the acquired land could be an authentic transaction of sale relating to the very acquired land or a portion thereof or any other land which could be favourably compared with the acquired land. The same would be the position when the available evidence relates to land covered by a previous award.

In the present case the reference Court has considered various exemplars i.e. sale-deed dated 18.10.82, 13.12.82 and 8.12.82 and thereafter fixed the rate of compensation. The State counsel could not point out any illegality or material irregularity in the findings arrived at by the reference Court.

The solatium and interest awarded by the reference Court to the claimants is also just, fair and proper. No interference is required in the findings arrived at by the reference court on the basis of evidence available on record.

The appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.

No order as to costs.