U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad vs Sri M.L. Vali and Others

Rajesh Tandon, J.—Heard Sri K.S. Mehta counsel for the appellant and Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 8.

Present appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 28.5.1994 passed by the Additional District Judge, Dehradun in Land Acquisition Case No. 406 of 1987.

Briefly stated that the land in question was acquired by the respondent No. 8 for the planned residential development. Notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 15.7.1972. The possession of the land in question was taken on 28.1.1981 and the award was given on 23.3.1985. Against the award reference has been filed before the District Judge, Dehradun. The State has filed 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?

Whether the method of belting system adopted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in this case is erroneous?

To what amount of compensation, if any, is the claimant entitled to receive for the land acquired?

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 0.58 Acre. The Land Acquisition Officer has granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 50,239.79 per acre while compensation awarded by the reference court is Rs. 6,31620.00

The Land Acquisition Officer has adopted belting system while the compensation should have been assessed on the flat rates.

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.

At the time of fixing compensation for the acquired for construction of residential colony, the question whether the building site has potential value or not has to be considered.

The Apex Court in the case The State of Punjab Vs. Harchal Singh (Dead) through LRs., has held that acquired land situated quite close to the area already under development for urban estate and found fit for the purpose it can sought to be acquired. The Apex Court has held as under:

The High Court on a consideration of the exhibits filed and marked before it and the oral evidence came to the conclusion that "Phases X and XI of Urban Estate Mohali have come up in the land of Village Kambali earlier and the claimants'' land is at a distance of three killas from Phase XI and the situation of the acquired land admittedly is quite close to the area already under development of the urban estate". In the instant case, the very purpose for acquisition of this land is for expansion of the industrial focal point, which itself implies that the acquired land of the claimant was fit for industrial purposes or expansion of similar kind of construction, etc.

Thus considering the all above aspects of the case the rate of compensation fixed by the reference Court appears just and proper. The counsel for the appellant 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.