FIRST APPEAL No. 158 OF 1993
URMILA DEVI .......... Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ......... Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 159 OF 1993
LAKSHMI DEVI .......... Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ......... Respondents
Both the appeals are directed against the common judgment and award
dated 21.1.1993 passed by Sri J.N.Sharma, the Land Acquisition Judge,
Biharsharif, Nalanda in Land Acquisition Case No. 1 of 1992 and 2 of 1992.
********
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Sr. Advocate(in both the
First Appeals)
Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Ms. G. Nisha, Advocate, A.C. to A.A.G. 7
Dated : 7th day of October, 2010
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO
JUDGMENT
Mungeshwar Both the First Appeals have been filed by the respective
Sahoo, J
land owners against the common judgment and award dated
21.01.1993 passed by Sri J.N.Sharma, Land Acquisition Judge,
Biharsharif, Nalanda by which the Land Acquisition Case No. 1 of
1992 and 2 of 1992 were disposed of.
-2-
(2) It may be mentioned here that First Appeal No. 158 of
1993, arises out of L.A. Case No. 1 of 1992 and First Appeal No.
159 of 1993, arises out of L.A. Case No. 2 of 1992. The State of
Bihar, respondent acquired the lands of the appellants of both the
First Appeals for the purpose of 33/11 K.V. Sub Station and
construction of staff quarters for the Electricity Department. The
notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was
published in Gazette on 16.1.1991. Notification under Section 9
was issued on 09.10.1991. Total land was 1.4 acre, which has
been acquired by the State of Bihar. In First Appeal No. 158 of
1993, arising out of L.A. Case No. 1 of 1992, the land involved is
0.935 acre whereas in First Appeal No. 159 of 1993, arising out of
L.A. Case No. 2 of 1992, the land involved is 0.4225 acre. The
land owners claimed before the Collector for compensation at the
rate of Rs.18,000 to Rs.20,000 per Katha. The Collector awarded
total compensation of Rs.60,888.37 in First Appeal No. 158 of
1993 whereas in First Appeal No. 159 of 1993, the Collector
awarded Rs.27,440.36 including all statutory benefits. The value
of the land was fixed at Rs.1,481.46 per katha.
(3) On being dissatisfied with the award of the Land
Acquisition Officer, the claimants filed application under Section 18
of the L.A. Act which was referred by the Land Acquisition Officer
to the Land Acquisition Judge. The claimants claimed Rs.20,000
per katha for the lands acquired. Before the Land Acquisition
Judge, the claimants adduced oral as well as documentary
evidences. It may be mentioned here that the State of Bihar did
not file any written statement.
-3-
(4) The claim of Urmila Devi who is appellant in First
Appeal No. 158 of 1993 is that the market value of the land in the
vicinity is not less than Rs.7064 to Rs.10,500 per decimal. In the
year 1966, the Circle Officer had assessed the price of the land in
the vicinity at Rs.20,000 per katha and therefore, the market value
of the lands acquired in the year 1991 cannot be less than the said
value. The further case is that the lands acquired are adjacent to
the municipal area and town is extending towards the said land.
Therefore, there is future potentiality of the land. There is
sufficient irrigation facility on the acquired land and the appellant
was earning Rs.16,000 per acre per annum from the agricultural
yield. At the time of taking possession on 16.1.1991, there was
paddy crops on the acquired land which was destroyed. Therefore,
in addition to the value of the land Rs.200 per katha was claimed
for the crops. The claim of Lakshmi Devi who is appellant of First
Apeal No. 159 of 1993 is on the same line.
(5) The appellants adduced oral as well as documentary
evidences in the Court below. After trial, the learned Land
Acquisition Judge in First Appeal No. 158 of 1993 enhanced total
compensation including the statutory benefits to Rs.4,72,000 and
odd in addition to award of the Collector. The rate of the land was
fixed at Rs.11,000 per katha whereas in First Appeal No. 159 of
1993, the total compensation was fixed at Rs.2,14,215.47.
Therefore, the market value of the land which was fixed by the
Collector at Rs.1,481.46 was enhanced to Rs.11,000 per katha.
(6) The claimants filed these First Appeals claiming
enhancement of the compensation on the ground that the Land
-4-
Acquisition Judge should have fixed the market value of the land
acquired at Rs.20,000 per katha and in no case, it should be less
than the said amount.
(7) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submitted that the learned Court below has not properly
assessed the evidence and has wrongly not relied upon the sale
deeds which amply proves the market value of the land acquired to
be Rs.20,000 per katha. The learned counsel further submitted
that admittedly lands acquired are just by the side of main road
i.e. Patna-Ranchi Highway and it is in the developed area and
moreover, the lands were acquired for the purpose of construction
of power-station and for construction of staff’s quarters and
therefore, the compensation should be enhanced.
(8) On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the State-respondent submitted that the compensation
awarded by the Land Acquisition Judge is adequate, just and
proper and cannot be interfered with in this First Appeal. The
learned counsel further submitted that considering everything i.e.
the nature of the land, for the purpose of which the lands were
acquired and the market value in the vicinity, the learned Land
Acquisition Judge has enhanced the value from Rs.1481 and odd
per katha to Rs.11,000 per katha and therefore, the total
compensation including the statutory benefits have been increased
to Rs.4,72,000 and odd in addition to award of Collector for 94
decimals land in First Appeal No. 158 of 1993 whereas
compensation in First Appeal No. 159 of 1993 where 42 decimals
of land is involved has been enhanced from Rs.27,440 and odd to
-5-
Rs.2,14,215 in addition to award of Collector. On these grounds,
the learned counsel submitted that the First Appeals are liable to
be dismissed with cost.
(9) In view of the submission of the parties, the points
arises for consideration in this appeal is as to “whether the
compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Judge is just,
proper, adequate or not or “whether the appellants are entitled to
more compensation?”
(10) P.W. 1 is Suresh Prasad who is husband of Urmila
Devi, appellant in First Appeal No. 158 of 1993. He is power of
attorney holder of Urmila Devi. He has stated that 94 decimals of
land has been acquired by the State of Bihar which is just by the
side of Patna-Ranchi road and the said land is fit for construction of
houses and shops. He himself has purchased the said land for
construction of a glass factory prior to the acquisition. There is
police line, petrol pump, hotels etc. in the said area. The award
given by the collector is very low. At the time of taking
possession, the crops worth Rs.6,000-7,000 was destroyed. He
has further stated that he had produced the sale deeds before the
Collector and the witness has proved his application under Section
18. P.W. 3 is Brahamdeo Prasad, who is husband of Lakshmi Devi,
appellant in First Appeal No. 159 of 1993. He has proved the
power of attorney as Exhibit 3. He has stated that 42 ¼ decimals
land have been acquired. The said land is by the side of road and
at a distance of 50 yard by the side of the said land and houses
are there. On one portion of the acquired land, house was there
and a tenant was inducted and thereafter he filed eviction suit
-6-
against him which was decreed. This witness has further stated
that at the time of acquisition of the land, the market value of the
land was Rs.25,000 to Rs.30,000 per katha. P.W. 4 has proved
the sale deeds Exhibit-2 series. P.W. 2 has stated that he has
purchased lands in the vicinity. His sale deed has been marked as
Exhibit-2 and 2/1. P.W. 6, Misri Lal has stated that the lands
acquired are situated near the Ranchi-Patna road and adjacent to
this land, he has purchased the land for construction of house.
The town is expanding to that side. The certified copy of the sale
deed has been marked Exhibit-4.
(11) From perusal of the evidences of the witnesses as
discussed above, it appears that the area is developed area. There
are buildings, hotels, petrol pump, shops and houses in the
locality. Further, the land is situated adjacent to Patna-Ranchi
road and is near to municipality. In my opinion, therefore, it
appears that the learned Court below has rightly found that the
market value of the land fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is
very low. However, the sale deed, Exhibit-2 series have been
produced by the appellants to show the market value of the land.
Exhibit-2 is dated 5.12.1990 for Rs.4,950 by which 6 Dhurs land
was purchased and likewise, Exhibit 2/1 is dated 7.4.1992 for
Rs.16,000 and the land sold is 16 Dhurs. Exhibit-2/2 is dated
5.10.1990 for Rs.21,000 and the land sold was 14 ½ Dhurs.
Exhibit-2/3 is dated 5.10.1990 for Rs.21,000 and the lands sold
was 14 ½ Dhurs. Likewise, Exhibit 2/4 is dated 22.7.1985 for
Rs.30,000 and the lands sold was 5 ½ decimals. From the above
sale deeds, it appears that very small area was transferred
-7-
through the said sale deeds. As stated above, in the present case,
near about 1.5 acres of land has been acquired. Therefore, it
cannot be said that when the lands acquired was offered for the
sell in open market could have fetched the same value. In the case
of State of U.P. and others vs. Ram Kumari Devi and ors., the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is common knowledge that
acquisition proposal would be made at an earlier point of time and
finalization of acquisition would take a long time. In the process
on becoming aware of the acquisition, obviously, the sale deeds
are brought into existence to inflate the market value. In the said
decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that it is the duty
of the Court to assess reasonable compensation and the acid test
which the Court has to adopt is that the Court has to sit in the
armchair of a prudent purchaser, eschew feats of imagination and
consider whether a reasonable prudent purchaser in the open
market would offer the same price which the Court is intending to
fix the market value in respect of the acquired land. Since it is a
compulsory acquisition, it is but the solemn duty of the Court to
assess reasonable compensation so as to allow the same to the
owner of the land whose property has been acquired and also to
avoid needless burden on public exchequer.
(12) From perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears
that the Land Acquisition Judge has noticed that the area is
developed area and the lands are by the side of Ranchi-Patna road
and there are constructions and electricity line in the locality. The
learned Land Acquisition Judge also noticed the sale deeds,
Exhibit-2 series.
-8-
(13) Admittedly, the lands have been acquired for the
purpose of construction of power house and staff’s quarters and
therefore, appropriate deduction for development of the land by
providing enough space for roads, sewage and drains are to be
taken into account. The lands involve in the sale deeds are of very
small area and therefore, the price cannot be equated in the
present case with the lands acquired. In the case of Ahad
brothers vs. State of M.P. and ors reported in 2005, Vol. 1,
Supreme Court Cases 545, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that it
would be just and proper to deduct 30% towards development
charges. In the case of Sharadamma vs. Special Land
Acquisition Officer reported in 2007 AIR SCW 1109, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court taking note of the fact that the acquired
land in that case was surrounded by factories and there was
industrial potentialities and the land acquired was adjoining the
national highway and better locality fixed the compensation at the
rate of Rs.20 per square yard.
(14) In view of the above facts and circumstances,
regard being had to the situation of the land and the prevailing
market value as would be evident from sale deeds, Exhibit-2
series, I find that the learned Court below has rightly fixed the
market value of the lands acquired at Rs.11,000 per katha.
(15) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
the learned Court below has awarded Rs.100 per katha for damage
of the crop. It may be mentioned here that for determination of
compensation some guess work is essential. The claimants were
claiming Rs.200 per katha and the learned Court below has
-9-
awarded Rs.100 per katha for damage of the crops. In my
opinion, it is just compensation. Now, the total compensation
awarded by the Land Acquisition Judge is Rs.4,72,715.69 in
addition to the award of the Collector which has already been paid
and likewise, in other First Appeal, the total compensation is
Rs.2,13,001.33 in addition to the award of the Collector of
Rs.27,440.36 already paid to the appellant. In my opinion, this
amount enhanced by the Land Acquisition Judge is just, proper and
is the prevailing market value of the land acquired. I, therefore,
find no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Court
below.
(16) In the result, I find no merit in both the First
Appeals and accordingly, both the First Appeals are dismissed. In
the facts and circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs.
Patna High Court (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.) Dated 7th October, 2010 N.A.F.R./Saurabh