ORDER
1. These three appeals have arisen against the decisions of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Srivilliputhur, in references under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, Act 2 of 1894.
2. We will first notice the details relating to A.S.No.891 of 1989 which is against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur, in L.A.O.P.No.72 of 1987. The Special Tahsildar, Vembakottai Reservoir Scheme, Unit-I, Srivilliputhur is the appellant. Irrigated garden lands in small
bits in S.Nos.1041/2-B belonging to the respondent were acquired. Section 4(1) Notification was published on 10.8.1983 and the award was passed on 26.5.1986 in Award No.12 of 1986. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the value per acre at Rs.5,000 and worked out the award amount at Rs.6,786.70. At the instance of the respondent there was a reference to the Subordinate Judge’s Court under section 18 of the Act. The learned Subordinate Judge fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.60,000 per acre. Aggrieved the appeal has been filed. The Land Acquisition Officer relied on a sale deed Ex.B-5 dated 17.11.1981 which was in respect of an extent of 1.11 acres in S.No.817. The Subordinate Judge relied on Ex.A-1 dated 16.9.1982 which was in respect of 2 1/2 cents in S.No.1357/5 and fixed the compensation at Rs.60,000 per acre.
3. It is the submission of the learned Additional Government Pleader that the reliance placed on Ex.A-1 by the learned Subordinate Judge was clearly wrong as the sale was in respect of a small extent of land of 2 1/2 cents whereas the land acquired was of a total extent of 83 cents. The learned Government Pleader relied on the following two decisions in support of his contention:
(1) Sri Saunu v. Collector, Land Acquisition, and (2) Pehlad Singh and another v. Union of India, .
According to the learned Additional Government Pleader the property acquired was agricultural land whereas Ex.A-1 land relied on by the learned Subordinate Judge was non-agricultural land situate in a different village and it was in respect of a small bit of 2 1/2 cents, which could not be a proper guide for fixing the compensation for the lands acquired. There was no demand for house site in the small hamlet where the acquired lands were situate. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, the claimant/respondent had himself given a written statement that the lands were worth Rs.20,000 per acre. All the other owners had also accepted the award and the respondent/claimant alone had questioned the award. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that the present land acquisition was different from other cases where the land owners and the beneficiaries were different, while in the present case the canals and field bothies benefited directly the land through which they passed. Only a fraction of the extent acquired was utilized as canal and field bothies. A major portion continued to be under the actual possession and enjoyment of the land owners though they received compensation also for their portion.
4. Mr.Mohanram, countering the arguments of the learned Additional Government Pleader, submitted that the Subordinate Judge had fixed the compensation on the basis that the lands acquired were potential house sites and this was spoken to by the claimant as P.W.I and P.W.2, the vendee under Ex.A-1 relied on by the claimant. The witnesses on the side of the claimant had spoken to the existence of several match factories and dynamite factories in and around the village and that the village was not a small hamlet as claimed by the Land Acquisition Officer, but it had a population of five
thousand people. The learned counsel also submitted that as against the evidence on the side of the claimant, the Land Acquisition Officer did not lead any evidence to controvert the evidence on the side of the claimant. Neither the vendor nor the vendee under Ex.B-3 on the basis of which the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation was examined. There was absolutely no rebuttal evidence and in view of that, the compensation awarded by the Subordinate Judge should be confirmed.
5. Before proceeding further, it would be worthwhile to refer to the legal principles to be followed for fixing the compensation in respect of the lands acquired. From a survey of the various decisions of the Supreme Court, this Court and the other High Courts, the broad guidelines that emerge for quantifying the compensation can be tabulated as under. The tabulation is not exhaustive, but has been done more with a view to serve as an aid to arrive at a decision in the three cases under consideration.
(1) Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not an appeal, but an independent proceeding in which the value of the land must be proved by evidence before Court. Materials relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be relied on unless those materials are produced and proved before court.
(a) Chimanlal v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona, ; (b) Major Pakhar Singh Atwal v. State of Punjab, and (c) Unreported decision dated 25.10.1989 in A.S.No.447 of 1987 and Memorandum of Cross-objec-tions.
(2) The amount offered by the Land Acquisition Officer forms an offer and it is for the claimants – on whom is the onus, to adduce relevant and material evidence to establish that the acquired lands are capable of fetching higher market value and that the amount offered by the Collec-tor was inadequate and that he proceeded on a wrong premise or principle. Once this initial burden is discharged, the burden shifts to the Collector to adduce sufficient evidence to sustain the award.
(a) Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. STate of Kerala, ; (b) Parameshwari Devi v. P.S.E.B., ; (c) Special Land Acquisition Officer and another v. Sidappa Omanna Tumari and others, .
(3) ‘Comparable sales method of valuation of land’ is one of the three recognized methods for arriving at fair market value of the land acquired, the other two being opinion of experts and capitalization method. The underlying principle to fix a fair and reasonable market value with reference to comparable sale is to reduce the element of speculation. In a comparable sale the features are:
(i) It must be within a reasonable time of the date of the notification;
(ii) It should be a bona fide transaction;
(iii) It should be a sale of the land acquired or land adjacent to the land acquired; and
(iv) It should possess similar advantages location, size, shape, tenure, potentiality, etc. of land under comparable sale should be compared favourable with the acquired land. These should be established by adduction of material evidence by examining either the vendor or the vendee or persons having personal knowledge of the sale transactions.
(a) Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala, ; (b) Printers House Pvt. Ltd. v. Saiyadan, and (c) Union of India and others v. Sunil Chandran Saha and another, .
(4) The sale statement by itself without examining either vendors or vendees or persons attesting sale deeds is not admissible in evidence.
The Collector, Raigarh v. Dr.Harisingh Thakur and another,
(5) The guiding star or acid test would be the conduct of a hypothetical willing vendor who would offer the lands and a willing purchaser in normal human conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market conditions as on the date of the Notification under section 4(1), but not an anxious buyer dealing at arm’s length nor facade of sale or fictitious sales brought about in quick succession or otherwise to inflate the market value.
(a) Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala, and (b) Gulzara Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, .
(6) The note of caution administered by the Supreme Court has also to be referred to. In land acquisition references before Civil Courts, when witnesses give oral evidence in support of the claims of claimants for higher compensation, the ineffective cross-examination of such witnesses is not an uncommon feature if regard is had to the manner in which claims for enhanced compensation in land acquisition cases are defended in courts on behalf of the State. The courts are not obligated to accept such statements of witnesses as true if tested on the touchstone of probabilities, they become unreliable.
(a) Chatrubhuj Pande v. Collector, and (b) P.Ram Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority and others, .
(7) The decision must be based on sound discretion. Stray sale deeds of small extents of lands cannot be applied to large tract of lands for projects. It is the duty of the Court to maintain balance between diverse interests.
K.Posayya and others v. Special Tahsildar,
However, when genuine and reliable sale deeds of small extents are considered to determine market value, the same will not form sole basis to determine market value of large tracts of land. Sufficient deduction should be made to arrive at just and fair market value of large tract of lands. Sale value
of even a small developed plot of land can form basis for determining value of a large tract of acquired land if it is also fully developed with all facilities requiring little or no further development.
Bhagwathula Samanna and others v. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer,
(8) If the land in dispute is within the municipal limit and located just on the edge of an inhabited locality of the town, it would be sufficient to establish its potential value as building sites.
Dadu Yogendrenath Singh and others v. The Collector, Seoni,
(9) The land has to be valued not only with reference to its condition at the time of the declaration under section 4 of the Act, but its potential value also has to be taken into consideration.
(a) Tribeni Devi and others v. Collector of Ranchi, ; (b) Hasanali Walimchand (dead) by L.Rs. v. State of Maharashtra, .
(10) It is the paramount duty of the Judge to keep before him the even scales to adopt pragmatic approach without indulging in figment of imagination and assess the value, which is capable to fetch reasonable market value. The market value of the land acquired cannot also be freezed at the rate fixed for similar land acquired about a year previously.
Kanjit Singh and others v. Union Territory of Chandigarh,
(11) The market value as determined by the High Court in another case can be admitted in evidence provided it is a previous and not a subsequent one and if it is shown that it could furnish basis of determining market value of the acquired land.
Pal Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh,
(12) The Court of appeal would not normally interfere with the assessment of compensation unless there is wrong application or misapplication of the relevant factors or principles of compensation. Generally speaking, the Appellate Court interferes not when the judgment under appeal is not right, but only when it is shown to be wrong.
Food Corporation of India v. Makhan Singh,
6. Bearing the above principles in mind if we examine the materials on record, it would be found as follows;
The sale deed relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer is in respect of a property far away from the acquired land as would be evident from Ex.B-1 plan. It is also to be noticed that the Land Acquisition Officer has not examined either the vendor or the vendee or the attestor to Ex.B-3 to support the valuation arrived at by him. We are therefore left with Ex.A-1, which is nearly a year prior to section 4(1) Notification. That sale is in respect of 2 1/2 cents and
in the year 1983. The value for an acre on the basis of Ex.A-1 works out to
more than Rs.63,200. No doubt, the sale under Ex.A-1 is in respect of 2 1/2
cents. But, the lands sought to be acquired are also in bits varying from 11
cents to 24 cents, the total adding up to 83 cents. They are indeed irrigated
garden lands. However, P.Ws.l and 2 have spoken to the potential value of the
acquired land as house sites. But, this evidence has to be taken with a pinch of
salt. Just because there was no contra evidence we cannot base our conclusion
merely on the value found in Ex.A-1. From the plan it is seen and it is also
referred to by the learned Subordinate Judge that Ex.A-1 land is nearer to the
acquired land than Ex.B-3 land. It is also to be noticed that irrigation facility
was being extended and it is very doubtful whether it could have been possible
to sell the acquired lands as house sites. The sale of small bits of lands can be
taken as the standard for the acquired lands provided necessary reduction is
made. The sale under Ex.A-1 as already stated was nearly a year prior to
section 4(1) Notification. The price works out at the rate of Rs.63,200 per acre.
A year hence if we hike the price by 12%, it would come to Rs.70,584 per acre
and if we make a reduction of 40% the value would work out to Rs.42,350 per
acre.
7. We have already noticed that the oral evidence on the side of the
claimant remains uncontroverted. We have also noticed that match factories
and dynamite factories had sprung up in and around the village. Though
suggestions had been put to the witnesses and the witnesses had denied those
suggestions, the Land Acquisition Officer had not adduced any independent
evidence.
8. In these circumstances, taking into consideration the various principles which have evolved over the years, I am of the view that Rs.42,350 per acre would be a fair and reasonable compensation in respect of the acquired lands. The decision of the Subordinate Judge will stand modified and the appeal will stand allowed to the extent indicated above.
9. So far as the other two appeals are concerned, the learned Subordinate Judge has fixed the compensation on the basis of the value arrived at in L.A.O.P.No.72 of 1987. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court already referred to, I hold that the value fixed in A.S.No.891 of 1989 can be fixed for the lands covered by A.S.Nos.832 of 1990 and 833 of 1990 also. The decisions of the learned Subordinate Judge in those two cases will stand modified to the extent indicated in A.S.No.891 of 1989, that is to say, the value of the lands will be worked out at the rate of Rs.42,350 per acre. There will be no order as to costs in all the appeals.