TEJKARAN & ANOTHER vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS

The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the award dated 07.05.2003 passed by the 7th

Additional District Judge, Indore against Reference Case No.108/2001.

Facts of the case in brief are as under:

The appellant was owner of land bearing Survey No.448/1 (area 0-176 hectare) & 448/2 (area 0-021 hectare) of Gram Budhi Barlai, Tehsil -

Sanwer, District Indore.

That the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the gazette notification dated 02.12.1989 for acquiring the

land of Village Budhi Barlai for the purpose of widening of Indore-Dewas National Highway No.3. Thereafter, notification under Section 6 of the

Land Acquisition Act was published in the gazette notification dated 09.02.1990 by which the land of the petitioner as described above had been

acquired. On the basis of material available at the relevant time, the Land Acquisition Officer passed the award dated 30.10.1991 in Land

Acquisition Case No.31-A-82/89-90 by assessing the amount of compensation of Rs.15,661/-/- @ Rs.79,500/-/- per hectare.

Being dissatisfied with the less amount of compensation, the appellant sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The

said reference was send to the District Judge, Indore. The claimant sought enhancement of compensation @ 5.00 lakh per Hect.. before the

reference Court on the ground that market value of the land at the relevant time was Rs.5.00 lac per hectare.

The appellant not only claimed the compensation @ Rs.5,00,000/- per hectare but also claimed for loss of crops, well, house , trees etc.. The

appellants had placed reliance over four sale deeds Exb.P-1 to Exb.P-4. The appellant did not filed the certified copies of all the sale deeds hence

the ld. court did not took cognizance but placed the reliance over the sale deeds filed in the Ref. Case No. 50/2000.The learned Additional District

Judge has discarded all the four sale deeds as all the sale deeds were of the period after the date of notification. The ld. Reference Court has

assessed the market value of the land @ 1,14,000/-per Hect. The appellant have also been granted the interest under section 23/1-A on enhanced

amount @12% from the date of notification under sec 4 till award passed by the LAO or dated of taking possession.. The appellant have also

been granted solatium @ 30% under section 23(2) and further interest under section 28, @ 9% from the date of taking possession till date of

payment.

Being aggrieved by the award dated 07.05.2003, the appellant has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation Rs. 93,187/- in

total @ Rs.6,17,500/- per hectare and has paid court fee accordingly .

This Court at the earlier occasion decided all the identical appeals by the common judgment dated 26th February, 2008 in (F.A. No.520/2003

in the matter of Kashiram Vs. State of MP) relating to acquisition of land of village Pirkaradia, Budhi Barlai, Dakachaya, Raukhedi, Arjun Badoda

of District Indore had determined the market value on the date of Sec.4 Notification at the flat rate of Rs.6.00 lac per hectare to each land owner

irrespective of the nature of the land and its use prior to the acquisition. The aforesaid order of this court became subject matter of Civil Appeal

No.9915/2010 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No.4785/2009) State of MP and another Vs. Kashiram (Dead) by L.R. Gopilal and other connected

Civil Appeals. The Hon''ble Supreme Court by the order dated 23/11/2010 has set aside the judgment of this court dated 26th February, 2008

since several infirmities were found in the judgment and remanded all appeals to High Court to decide afresh. The Apex Court has held that in

absence of any classification with reference to villages, nature of land and consideration of evidence with reference to the land in each village, the

common judgment of this court awarding a uniform high rate was found to be unsustainable, therefore, while setting aside the judgment and

remanding the matter back to this court, with the direction for assessment of the market value in accordance with the law keeping in view the

observations made in the order. However, it has been clarified in the operative part that nothing stated in the order will be construed as expression

of any final opinion in regard to the actual market value and this court is required to assess the market value with reference to the land.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court has observed following the infirmities in the judgment of this court :-

On a perusal of the judgment of the High court, we find the following glaring infirmities:

(i) The lands acquired were situated in different villages. They did not form a contiguous compact block. On the other hand, the

acquired lands were situated one after another, as the acquisitions were for laying a road. The lands acquired formed a thin strip

spread over several villages. As a result, the lands acquired in the village at one end and the lands acquired in other village at other

end, were far away from each other and could not be considered as contiguous lands with the same value. This is evident from the

judgment of the Reference Court which awarded compensation at rates ranging from as little as Rs.75,000/- per hectare to

Rs.3,45,800/- per hectare, depending upon their respective market value. There was no evidence that all the acquired lands were

similarly situated or of similar value or had similar potential for development. Though the acquisitions related to six villages and though

the Reference Court had determined different market values for lands in different villages, the High Court, without any acceptable or

valid reason, has determined a uniform high rate of Rupees Six Lakhs per hectare. The market value with reference to Ex.P2 even if

acceptable can obviously apply only to the nearby lands in that village and cannot be applied to six villages.

(ii) Most of the acquired lands were agricultural lands. Some lands were small plots with structures. The High Court has treated both

agricultural lands and the nonagricultural plots with structure on the same footing and awarded the same compensation to all the

acquired lands which is obviously erroneous.

(iii) The High Court has awarded compensation at a uniform rate of Rupees six lakhs per hectare based on a single sale transaction

dated 9.3.1989 relating to a residential plot of 1506 sq.feet which was sold for Rs.10,000/- (which works out to Rs.7,14,285/- per

hectare). It is now well settled that if the sale deed relating to a small developed plot of land is to be the basis for determining the

market value or large undeveloped areas, appropriate deductions will have to be made towards development cost which may vary

from 20% to 75% of the price of the developed plot (that is upto 40% of the land area for roads, drains, parks, civic amenities etc.,

and upto 35% towards the actual cost of development). The percentage of deduction will depend upon the situation of the lands, the

nature of development, etc. (See Lal Chand Vs. Union of India - 2009(15) SCC 769 at paras 13 to 22). The Court cannot

arbitrarily deduct a small lump sum from the value of a small developed plot, to arrive at the value of an undeveloped rural lands. The

deduction that is made by the High Court is hardly 15% to 16% of the value of the small developed plot. Having regard to the

situation of the lands in question and other circumstances, it would appear that the deduction should be in the range of about 40% to

50% from the value of the small and developed plot. Of course, the above percentage and the percentage of deduction require to be

determined after consideration of the relevant evidence. The High court has not even referred to this aspect nor has it made an

appropriate deduction towards the development.

(iv) Most of the land owners had claimed only about Rupees Four Lakhs per hectare (except some land owners in Peer Karadia and

Rau Khedi who appear too have claimed Rupees Five Lakhs per hectare). They were permitted to amend the claim to Rs.6,17,000/-

without proper consideration of the question as to such amendment was warranted.

(v) The parties had exhibited sale deeds relating to Peer Karadia and Dkachya. The appellants had also relied upon two sale deeds

relating to sale of one acre of land each in Budhi Barlai (Ex D4 and D5 dated 14.12.1989) showing that the market value was only

around Rs.38000/- to Rs.42000/- per acre. These were not considered though referred by the High Court"".

In view of the aforesaid order of the Supreme Court, now the appeals in respect of each village are being decided separately in the light of the

evidence which has come on record keeping in view the nature of land, the evidence about the market value and other relevant factors.

The present appeal is arising out of the acquisition of land of Village: Budhi Barlai in which the notification under Section 4 was issued on

2.12.1989.

That the appellant has placed reliance over the four sale deeds in respect of the sale of land of the nearby villages executed at the time of

issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act but did not filed the certified copies of these sale deeds despite that ld.

Court helped him by take cognizance of sale deeds filed by others land owners in other reference case.

In order to determine the adequate the market value of larger area, the sale deed of smaller area can also be considered in absence of other

cogent material , but while relying on the sale deed for a smaller area, a suitable percentage is to be deducted for determining the market value of

the larger area.

The appellant has filed Exhibit P/1, sale deed dated 9.3.1989 of Village Budhi Barlai by which the land having area 0.014 hectare was sold in

10,000/- @ Rs.7,14,285/- per acre. The appellant has also filed sale deed dated 01.05.1991 of Gram Budhi Barlai as Exhibit P/3 in which the

land having area 0.015 Hect was sold in Rs 29,000/- @ Rs.17,05,882 per acre. The Exhibit P/3 and P/4 of different village were filed hence same

are liable to be ignored .

That Exb.P-1 can be treated as best exemplar which can be form the basis for calculating the market value because it was executed in the year

1989 and the village is same but the area is smaller than the area of the land of the appellant.The state Government had also filed the copy of the

sale deed dated 9.3.1989 as Exb.D-1 of the Village : Budhi barlai by which unirrigated land measuring 0.015 was sold in Rs 10,000.00/-

In the matter of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs. Bipin Kumar and another reported in (2004) 2 SCC 283, the supreme court has accepted 15%

per annum as the rate of increase in the price of land.

This Court also in the matter of Sitabai and others Vs. State of MP and others reported in 2010(1) MANISHA 33(MP) had followed the

same principle and enhanced 15% per annum as appreciation of the rate of land for a period of one year six months and 12 days which was the

period between the date of best exemplar and the date of Sec.4 Notification.

The supreme Court in the order dated 23/11/2010 has observed that having regard to the situation of land in question and other circumstances,

the deduction should be in the range of 40-50% from the value of the small land and developed plot, but it has been left for determination of the

percentage of deduction after considering all relevant evidence.

In addition to the market price of the land which has been arrived at by this court as above, the appellants/land holders will also be entitled to

the further amount which has been awarded by the Reference Court under different heads at the same rate.

In view of the above 15% is required to be added in the value of the land mention in Ex.P-1 from the date of Exb.P-1 i.i 9.3.1989 till date of

notification U/Sec.4 i.e.2.12.1989. Since the land of the appellant is irrigated hence multiplier of 1.5 is required to be applied in the value of land of

Exb.P-1.

Having regard to the remand order of the Supreme court of India dated 23.11.2010 and situation of the land and size sold in Exb.P-1 the

deduction of the 20% is required to be made.

The amount awarded by the Reference court under other heads are here by maintained in this appeal.

In view of the above amount of compensation of the land of the appellant as discussed above is hereby enhanced . Since appellant has

confined the valuation of the appeal upto Rs 93,187/- and paid the court fee hence the enhancement in this appeal is restricted to the Rs 93,187/- .

Therefore, this appeal is partly allowed.