JUDGMENT
B.D. Singh, J.
1. These three appeals are directed against the common judgment of the Additional District Judge passed under reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). First Appeal No. 79 of 1964 arises out of Land Acquisition Case No, 716/163 of 1961/62 whereas First Appeals Nos. 80 and 81 of 1964 arise out of Land Acquisition Cases Nos. 715/162 of 1961/62 and 714/161 of 1961/62 respectively. Before the learned Additional District Judge there were two other references arising out of Land Acquisition Cases Nos. 712 and 713 of 1961, but it seems that no appeal has been preferred in this Court by the awardees of the said two land acquisition cases. By notification under
Section 4 of the Act dated 7-5-1960 which was published on the 8th April, 1960, 20.343 acres of land were acquired in four villages namely, Bakhtiarpur, Bulan Buzmg, Bawaich and Hakikatpur. The object of the acquisition was for junction arrangement in connection with the construction of broad-guage railway line at Bakhliarpur A total area of 9.43 acres of land was acquired in Bulan Buzrug but under the reference arising out of land acquisition cases Nos. 713, 714 and 716 the subject matter of the total area was only about 2.241 acres in the said village. Similarly in village Hakikatpur the total a.ea of land acquired was 3.013 acres but the reference arising out of Land Acquisition Cases Nos. 712 and 715 was confined to an area about 2.33 acres only.
2. The Land Acquisition Collector classified the lands under the two heads namely Bhit-1 and 2 for ascertaining their market value. The Bhit-1 lands, according to the Land Acquisition Collector were near the residential part of the village and they were also better in quality than the lands under Bhit-2. He was of the opinion that Bhit-1 lands of village Bakhtiarpur were similar in quality to the lands of Bulan Buzurg and Hakikatpur. He fixed the market value of those lands under Bhit-1 at the rate of Rupees 300/- per katha on the basis of a sale deed dated the 13th July, 1957 (Ext. F/) under which one katha of land was sold for Rupees 300/- which comes to Rupees 9,600 per acre. Accordingly he awarded the market value of Bhit-1 lands at the rate of Rupees 9,600/- per acre. The lands which were the subject-matter of Land Acquisition Case No. 713 were classified as Bhit-2 lands and the Land Acquisition Collector fixed the market value at the rate of Rupees 3,913/- per acre but as mentioned earlier no appeal has been preferred in this Court arising out of Land Acquisition Case No. 713. Therefore, we are not required to consider the market value of Bhit-Land No. 2.
3. The lands acquired under Land Acquisition Cases Nos. 716, 714 and 715 with which these three appeals are concerned were classified as Bhit-1 lands. Therefore the Land Acquisition Collector fixed their market value at the rate of Rupees 300/- per katha. The land acquired in Land Acquisition Case No 716 was only 0.07 acre, namely 7 decimal, in survey plot No. 2194 bearing touzi No. 7867 in village Bulan Buzrug and the Collector fixed the market value at the rate specified above. The Land Acquisition Collector, therefore, awarded Rs. 807.81 paise only, to the awardee of that case. The land of Must. Deokal Kuer acquired under Land Acquisition case No. 714 was 1.21 acres comprised under plot Nos. 165 and 166 bearing touzi No. 7867 situated in the same village Bulan Buzrug. In Land Acquisition case No. 715 also it was her lands measuring 1.294 acres comprised in survey plot Nos. 151, 148, 155, 157 and 161 which
were in village Hakikatpur bearing Khata No. 2/2 and touzi No, 8537. The Land Acquisition Collector as mentioned earlier had awarded compensation for her lands at the same rate, that is at the rate of Rs. 300/- per katha. In Land Acquisition Case No. 715 the Land Acquisition Collector had also awarded Rs. 1161/- as compensation for the tubewell and the pump-house on her land.
4. The awardees were not satisfied with the compensation of their lands fixed by the Collector. Under the reference before the learned Additional District Judge they claimed the valuation of their lands at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per katha. They contended that their lands produced three crops in a year and were irrigated by electric tube-well. The lands were close according to them to the Bakhtiarpur railway station, the Bazar, Dakbunglow and School, and those lands were suitable for building purposes. In Land Acquisition Case No. 174 Must. Deokal Kuer claimed that there were six palm trees and one mango tree on her land which were acquired, but the Collector did not award any compensation to her for those trees. In Land Acquisition case No. 715 she claimed Rs. 18,000/- for her tube-well and electric pump. She also claimed damages for rever-ance in respect of her land comprised in six plots referred to above. According to her, she was entitled to compensation for her land at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per katha.
5. On behalf of the State it was urged that the market value fixed by the Collector was in accordance with law.
6. On behalf of both parties oral and documentary evidences were adduced. The learned Additional District Judge after considering the evidence on the record held that the Collector had rightly taken the sale deed dated 13-7-1957 (Ext. F/3) as the basis for fixing the market value. Accordingly the learned Additional District Judge confirmed the order of the Collector so far as the lands acquired under Land Acquisition Case No. 716 was concerned. However, for the lands under Land Acquisition Cases Nos. 714 and 715 he observed that the Collector was not right in fixing the valuation at the rate of Rs. 300/-per katha for the lands of Must. Deokal Kuer who had set up a tube-well on her land for irrigation purpose and thereby the productivity of her land had increased. Therefore he fixed the valuation at the rate of Rs. 450/- per katha equivalent to Rs. 14,400/-per acre, for her land acquired under both the land acquisition cases. (Vide paragraph 14 of his judgment). In Land Acquisition Case No. 714 he also awarded compensation for her six palm trees at the rate of Rs. 25/- each and Rs. 100/- for her one mango tree, the total being Rs. 250/-. In Land Acquisition Case No. 715 he did not accede to her claim of Rs. 18,000/- for the tube-well and electric motor pump. He however confirmed the payment of compensation of Rs. 1161/- being the price of the tube-
well and pump house as awarded by the Collector. In this case she was also allowed Rs. 5.76 paise as damages for severance. In both the cases the learned Additional District Judge allowed her statutory compensation of 15 per cent, on the excess amount to which she was held to be entitled. She was also allowed interest from the date of possession till the date of payment of the excess amount held payable to her at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum.
7. Mr. Kailash Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in all the three appeals assailed the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge and contended that he had failed to appreciate the evidence on the record. According to him, there were sufficient materials to hold that the appellants were entitled to receive compensation at least at the rate of Rs. 1500/-per katha. He placed before us the extracts of various sale deeds which were filed on behalf of the appellants. He pointed out that Ext, 1 was the sale deed executed by one Must. Kapura Kuar widow of Deo Sharma, in favour of Dholan Prasad Singh with regard to 3 1/2 decimal of land for Rs. 1,000/- on 7-12-1959. He submitted that the sale rate in this sale deed works out at Rs. 1,000/- per katha. The land under the said deed comprises in plot No. 168. The other sale deed Ext. 1 (a) was executed by Must. Deokal Kuer (who is the appellant in the two appeals in this Court) in favour of Harbansh Narain Singh on 2-12-1959 in respect of 3 decimals in plot No. 194 for Rs. 1,000/-. The sale rate in this sale deed also therefore works out at about Rs. 1,000/- per katha.
8. Mr. Roy urged that the learned Additional District Judge has not given valid grounds for not considering those sale deeds as basis for fixing the valuation of the land acquired. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on the 8th of April, 1960. The sale under Exts. 1 and 1 (a) also took place in December, 1959. Therefore the two transactions were very close to the period of the notification under Section 4; hence they were relevant. That apart he submitted that the land under Ext. 1 (a) was comprised in survey plot No. 194 out of which the land was acquired under Land Acquisition Case No. 716. Therefore the land which was sold under Ext. 1 (a) was contiguous to the land under the said acquisition. In my opinion this submission of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. The learned Additional District Judge has given valid reasons for not relying on Exts. 1 and 1 (a). The order sheet Ext. E of the present land acquisition proceeding shows that the first order is dated 9-11-1959 when the Land Acquisition Officer had directed H.S. Upadhya to prepare a draft notification and draft declaration after getting the land for acquisition measured. The order dated 15-12-1959 indicates that measurement of the lands was also made as per demarcation made by the railway authorities. Reference may also be made to Ext. A which is
a petition dated the 4th of June, 1960 filed by a large number of persons of the locality including Mahabir Sharma (A. W. 5) and Chandrika Singh (A. W. 4) objecting to the acquisition of the lands in question. In the petition inter alia they requested the authorities to arrange for another piece of land for extension of the railway yard. The above materials clearly indicate that the people of the locality might have known about the impending acquisition before the notification Under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published. Besides, Must. Deokal Kuer who is the vendor under Ext. 1 (a), as mentioned earlier, is the awardee in Land Acquisition case Nos. 714 and 715. In my view, therefore, the learned Additional District Judge has rightly not relied upon Exts. 1 and 1 (a).
9. Mr. Roy then referred to the sale deed Ext. 1 (b) dated the 24th of February, 1960. The vendor in this sale-deed is Musst. Hasina and the vendee is Surendra Kumar Sinha, who purchased 1 katha 10 dhurs of land for Rs. 2,000/-, which works out at Rs. 1,300/- per katha. Mr. Roy contended that the learned Additional District Judge ought to have taken it as the basis for fixing the valuation of the land. In my judgment this submission of Mr. Roy is also not tenable. The land which was the subject-matter of sale under Ext. 1 (b) is situate in village Madhopur, whereas the lands under the present acquisition are situate in villages Bulan Buzrug and Hakikatpur. In this connection Mr. Roy referred to the evidence of A. W. 2 who stated that Madhopur is situate to the east of the acquired land. In my view that is not sufficient to hold that the land under Ext. 1 (b) was contiguous to the land under acquisition or in any way close to it. In my opinion Ext. 1 (b) also cannot be taken as the criteria for fixing the valuation of the land under consideration.
10. Mr. Roy then placed before us Ext. 1 (c) which is another sale-deed dated the 23rd September, 1954 which was executed by Dakho Kuer wife of Raghu Singh in favour of Sasank Dhar Pd. Singh who had purchased 2 1/2 decimals of land for Rupees 2,000/-. The sale rate under this sale deed works out at Rs. 2400/- per katha. Learned counsel also referred to Ext. 1 (d) which is still another sale deed executed by Ram-chandra Patwa in favour of Sohagdhar Prasad Singh who had purchased one decimal of land for Rs. 500/- on the 22nd of December, 1952. Learned counsel pointed out that the sale rate under this sale deed works out at Rs. 1500/- per katha. In my opinion the transaction of these two sale deeds cannot be taken as the guide-line for the purposes of the present case, on two grounds namely :–
(1) It is well established that the valuation of petty extents cannot be made to govern the valuation for acquisition of large extents (vide in the case of M.S.O.S.P.V. Velayudam Chettair v. Special Tashildar for Land. Acquisition Madurai, AIR 1959 Mad
462). In the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of the Collector of Lakhipur v. Bhuban Chandra Dutta, (AIR 1971 SC 2015) their Lordships held that in determining compensation, the value fetched for small plot of land cannot be applied to the lands covering a very large extent. The large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are sold
(2) In the case of State of Bihar v. Jotirmoyee Devi an unreported judgment of this Court in First Appeal No. 441 of 1962 decided on 11-9-1967 (Pat) their Lordships A. B. N. Sinha and M. P. Verma, JJ. observed that the sale deeds removed from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act by more than three years could not be taken into consideration. It may be noticed that the sale deed Ext. 1 (c) is dated the 23rd September, 1954, whereas the sale deed Ext. 1 (d) is of 22nd December, 1952; they are obviously more than three years prior to the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, which was published in the present case on the 8th of April, 1960. Therefore, in my view, there is no merit in the contention of Mr. Roy so far these two sale-deeds are concerned.
11. Mr. Roy then referred to Ext. 1 (e) which is a sale deed dated the 11th of June, 1960 executed by Jadu Nandan Prasad Singh in favour of Gobind Sao in respect of 1 katha 12 dhurs and 7 dhurki of lands for Rs. 2,000/- at the rate of about Rs. 1,240/-per katha. Exts. 1 (f) and 1 (g) are two other sale deeds of the same date that is 16-12-61. The executant of both the sale deeds is the same person Ram Prasad Singh and in favour of the same persons Jagarnath Mistry and Lakhan Mistry. Under both the sale deeds an equal area of land namely 1 khatha 7 dhurs 10 dhurkis were sold at the rate of Rs. 1485 per katha. It may be noticed that all the three sale deeds referred to above were executed subsequent to the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, that is, after 8th of April, 1960. Learned counsel however submitted that simply because those sale deeds came into existence after the publication of the notification the Court below erred in not taking them into consideration for fixing the valuation of the lands under acquisition. I am conscious of the case of Assistant Development Officer, Trombay v. Tayaballi Allibhoy Bohori, (AIR 1933 Bom 361) where Rangnekar and Broom Field, JJ. had occasion to consider the provision contained in Sections 23 and 24 of the Act. Broom Field, J. had delivered the judgment for the Court and observed at page 363;
“The learned counsel who appeared for the respondents in most of these appeals has conceded that the transactions in 1923 are not valuable as evidence. But transactions only a month or two after the notification may sometimes perhaps have some value as evidence. It must largely depend on the purpose of the acquisition. If lands have been
acquired as in the present case, for the development of a locality and the improvement of its communications and amenities, it is a reasonable inference that the value of property will increase, and the Court, I think, must consider that factor, even though it is not directly proved that the transactions in question have been affected by the notification. Direct proof would hardly ever be available. I would therefore not exclude sales in 1922 entirely from consideration, but I would treat them as evidence of rather doubtful value.”
In view of the above observation in my opinion the sale-deeds 1 (f) and 1 (g) were rightly ignored since there was a gap of about nine months after the notification. It is true that the gap between the execution of sale deed Ext. 1 (e) and the notification was only about two months and it should not be excluded entirely from consideration but I would treat it as evidence of rather doubtful value and it would not be safe to treat it as the criteria for fixing the valuation in the present case.
12. Mr. Roy in the alternative then suggested that an average may be worked out by taking into consideration all the sale deeds filed by the appellant and the respondent. According to him the average will work out approximately at the rate of Rs. 964/- per acre. Reference was made to the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer v. T. Adina-rayan Setty, (AIR 1959 SC 429) where it was observed that compensation may be fixed on the basis of average price in different sale deeds of the relevant time. In my view the method pointed cannot be adopted in the present case. I have already discussed above the various sale-deeds which were filed on behalf of the appellants and I have given reasons why they cannot be considered as a criteria for fixing the valuation in the present case. In that view of the matter those sale deeds therefore, cannot be adopted for working out the average, either. The average method, in my opinion can be adopted in those cases where there are more than one sale-deeds which are relevant for consideration in point of time, situation and quality.
13. Mr. Roy then drew our attention to Ext. 4 which is the certified copy of the order sheet of the Land Acquisition Collector in Land Acquisition Case No. 127 of 1957/58 relating to the acquisition of land for construction of P. W. D. Godown at Bakhtiarpur. The market value of the acquired land in that case was fixed at Rs. 1,250/- per katha. It was contended that the acquired lands in the present case are also situate near P. W. D. Godown and therefore Ext. 4 should serve as a criterion for fixing the valuation in the present case. In my view the valuation fixed in that case cannot be considered as criterion in the present case. The appellants have not filed survey map to show that the lands which were acquired in that case were contiguous to those in the present case. It is common knowledge that even if two pieces of land
are contiguous, the piece of land which opens on the front of a road fetches far better price than the other piece which is on the back of it though contiguous. Therefore the price of land mostly depends on the location.
14. Mr. Birendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the State in making reference to Ext. 4 pointed out that in that case inspection was made and the land was found situated in between Patna-Ranchi road and Eastern Railway line. Therefore the land of that case was located at an important place. Counsel for the State referred to the evidence of A. W. 1 who stated that Patna-Ranchi Road would be at a distance of about 100 steps from the acquired land. In the above circumstances I am not inclined to adopt Ext. 4 as a criteria for fixing the valuation in the present case.
15. Mr. Roy then referred to Ext. 2 which is a certified copy of judgment of land acquisition case Nos. 6 to 24 of 1962. He submitted that in that case notice under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published on 14-5-1958 and the lands of that case were also close to the lands of the present case. In that case the valuation was fixed at Rs. 700/- per katha. On that basis according to him the Court below in the present case also ought to have fixed the valuation at least at Rupees 700/- per katha although according to him it could not be less than Rs. 1,000/- per katha considering the trend in rise of prices which have gone up since 1958. The notification in the present case was made two years after the notification in that case. Learned counsel pointed out that the Court below had not taken Ext. 2 into consideration as at that time First Appeals Nos. 276 to 288 and 290 to 292 of 1963 (State of Bihar v. Bindeshwari Singh) against the judgment in Land Acquisition Cases Nos. 6 to 24 of 1962, were pending in this Court. Now by the judgment dated the 25th of June, 1963, the judgment, Ext. 2 has been affirmed and this Court has approved the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 700/- per katha. Learned Counsel also submitted that on the materials on record this Court should take judicial notice of the trend in rise of prices of the lands in general, and particularly in the locality where the lands were acquired in the present case. In the case of The All India Tea and Trading Co. Ltd. v. The Collector of Darrang, (AIR 1971 SC 1253) it was observed that the evidence relating to gradual rise in prices in area under acquisition should be considered in determining the amount of compensation. Their Lordships in that case further held at page 1254:
“Moreover, this land is very similar to the Hat land in the connected appeals i. e. C. As. 1781 and 1979 of 1966 in which judgment has been delivered today and for which we have upheld an award at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per bigha.”
Therefore Mr. Roy submitted that the rate of compensation at the rate of Rs. 700 which was affirmed by this Court in that land acquisition case should now be considered as the basis for fixation of valuation in the present case. On the other hand Mr. Birendra Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the State contended that the Court below has rightly fixed the compensation of the land in Land Acquisition Case No. 716 on the basis of the sale-deed Ext. F (3) which was filed by the State. In Land Acquisition Case Nos. 714 and 715 Mr. Sinha urged that the learned Additional District Judge was already liberal in increasing the rate of compensation of the lands from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 450/- per katha on mere guess. He further pointed out that the appellants should not be allowed to take the advantage of the judgment, Ext. 2, which was affirmed by this Court. He referred to the evidence of A. W. 1 who stated in examination-in-chief that land for the N. E. S. Block was acquired at a distance of 150 to 200 steps from the lands acquired. On the basis of his evidence he urged that Ext. 2 also could not have been made criteria for fixation of the valuation in the three cases with which we are concerned.
16. In my opinion the valuation of immovable property is not an exact science. In this connection it will be relevant to give an extract of the judgment of their Lordships of the Madras High Court in AIR 1959 Mad 462 (supra) at p. 463 :
“There is nothing secret or mysterious about the value of land. Tt is a commodity commonly dealt in and like every other commodity it has a price which can be ascertained within certain limits. This price, however, constantly varies according to the variations of the supply, and demand and it is impossible to fix it at any given time with mathematical accuracy. Valuation of immovable property is not exact science. It is an enquiry relating to a subject abounding in uncertainties, where there is more than ordinary guess work and where it would be very unfair to require an exact exposition of reasons for the conclusions arrived at.
It has been held repeatedly that in all valuations judicial or otherwise, there must be room for inference and inclinations of opinion which being more or less conjectural are difficult to reduce to exact reasoning or to explain to others and it is unfair to require an exact exposition of reasons for the conclusions arrived at. In short, the question of fair compensation is not an algebraic problem which would be solved by an abstract formula. Certain methods of valuation have however been recognised by the various judicial decisions viz., (a) the price paid, within a reasonable time for the land (b) rents and profits of the land received shortly before the acquisition, (c) price paid for adjacent lands possessing similar advantages and (d) the opinion of valuators or experts.”
I have already discussed the documentary evidence filed by the parties and have also referred to oral evidence of some of the witnesses examined on behalf of the appellants
which were relevant on the point. Mr. Roy further referred to the evidence of Suraj Kumar Soni, O. P. W. 1 who was Additional Land Acquisition Officer. He stated in his evidence that the acquired lands which have been placed in Bhit-1 class of land yielded three crops in a year. He further stated that he had not considered the feasibility of constructing a house while fixing the price of the acquired land. He also stated that the acquired land was near the land which was acquired for the godown of P. W. D. Mr. Roy emphasised therefore, that the land which was acquired for godown of P. W. D. under Ext. 4 was near the land acquired in the present case. He also pointed out that the witness deposed that Bakhtiarpur railway station was also very near the acquired land. In my opinion from his evidence also we cannot gather the exact location of the acquired land in absence of the survey map. It may be noticed that this witness also stated that without seeing the sketch map he could not say at what distance the land of N. E. S. block was from the acquired land. He further stated that the acquired land may be at a distance of 100 yards from Patna-Ranchi Road. It may be recalled that Ext. 1 (a) was sold to Harbans Narain Singh who was examined as A. W. 7 on behalf of the appellants. I have already given reasons why Ext. 1 (a) should not be considered as criterion for fixing the valuation in the present case. This witness has stated in cross-examination that he had not seen any other document other than Ext. 1 (a) in respect of the neighbouring land which would show the rate of sale at Rs. 1,000/- per katha.
17. Keeping all these facts as well as the observations of their Lordships made in various cases referred to above I increase the rate of compensation fixed by the learned Additional District Judge from Rs. 300/-to Rs. 550/- per katha in Land Acquisition Case No. 716; and from Rs. 450/- to Rupees 675/- per katha for the lands acquired under Land Acquisition Cases Nos. 714 and 715, as lands under acquisition in these cases are situated at some distance, from the land which was the subject matter of the acquisition under Ext. 2. I have maintained the difference between the rate of compensation in Land Acquisition Cases No. 716 on the one hand, and 714 and 715 on the other, because the Court below had found that the lands under Land Acquisition Cases Nos. 714 and 715 were of better quality, than that under Land Acquisition Case No. 716. The appellants shall also be entitled to statutory compensation of 15 per cent on the excess of the amount to which they have been held to be entitled. They shall also receive interest till the date of payment of the excess amount payable to them, at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum. I confirm the order of the Court below as regards the compensation for the trees as well as tubewell and the pump house referred to above in Land Acquisition Case No. 715.
18. In the result all the three appeals are allowed in part, and the judgment and the award of the learned Additional District Judge is modified to the extent noted above. The parties shall bear their own costs of this Court.
Anwar Ahmad, J.
I agree.