JUDGMENT
1. These appeals are being disposed of by a common
judgment since question of law and fact, which arise for
consideration are same and similar.
2. On 26.9.1980 a notification under Section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as
the Act) was issued expressing intention of the Government
to acquire land situate in village Jharoda-Kalan at public
expense for public purpose, namely, construction of
“Duphia – Chaudani Out Fall Drain “Simultaneously
emergency provisions were invoked and declaration under
Section 6 and notification under Section 17 of the Act
were issued. Collector Land Acquisition on 6.8.1981 made
his award offering compensation to the claimants by
classifying land in three categories A, B and C and fixing
their respective market value at Rs.3,750/- Rs.3,200/- and
Rs.1,800/-per bigha. Feeling dis-satisfied claimants
sought references. The reference court by the impugned
awards determined the fair market value of categories A
and B land at Rs.9,000/- and Rs.7,640/- per bigha
respectively. Still feeling dis-satisfied the claimants
have sought further enhancement in these appeals filed
under Section 54 of the Act. Their claim is to allow
compensation at a flatrate Rs.25,000/- per bigha,
irrespective of classification of land.
3. By a subsequent notification issued under
Section 4 of the Act on 14.7.1982 and simultaneously
issuing declaration under Section 6 and notification under
Section 17 of the Act another parcel of the land situate
in village Jahroda-Kalan was acquired at public expense
for public purpose, namely, construction of Police
Training School. The Collector Land Acquisition on
10.8.1983 passed his award No. 31/83-84 by classifying land
in three categories A, B and C and offering compensation @
Rs.5,800/-, Rs.4,800/- and Rs.2,400/- per bigha
respectively. Feeling dis-satisfied the claimants sought
references. The reference court by impugned awards
assessed fair market value at Rs.9,750/- per bigha. Still
feeling dis-satisfied the claimants have filed the appeals
seeking further enhancement in the amount of compensation.
4. We had heard learned counsel for the parties and
been taken through the record. Similar evidence was led
on behalf of the claimants and by the respondents before
the reference court in the two sets of cases. Reliance on
behalf of the claimants was placed on four sale deeds and
on behalf of respondents on one sale deed, particulars of
which are as under:-
———————————————————-
Ex. Date of sale Consideration Area
deed (in Rs.)
———————————————————-
A-1 18.2.1974 4,800/- 0-6 bighas
A-2 7.2.1976 20,000/- 4-16 bighas
A-3 7.2.1976 30,000/- 6-0 bighas
X-1 10.9.1980 38,640/- 4-4 bighas
R-1 7.2.1976 20,000/- 4-16 bighas
———————————————————-
5. In addition to the afore mentioned sale
transaction reliance was also placed on behalf of the
respondents on a copy of award No. 29/80-81 by which
compensation had been offered by the Collector for land,
which was acquired through notification issued under
Section 4 of the Act on 24.3.1977. Reliance was also
placed during course of arguments by learned counsel for
the claimant/appellants on the amount of compensation,
which was offered by the respondent to Shri Lakhi s/o Shri
Kanha of village Tikri Kalan, whose land had also been
acquired on the basis of notification issued on 26.11.1981
situate in village Tikri Kalan. The matter was taken in
Lok Adalat held in High Court on 5.11.1992 and
compensation was offered at Rs.22,000/- perbigha.
Claimants thus urged that they should be allowed
compensation at the same rate.
6. The reference court while assessing market value
for the lands, which were acquired through notification
dated 26.9.1980 placed reliance upon the sale deed dated
10.9.1980 being close to the date of issuance of
notification under Section 4 of the Act by which 4-4 bigha
land had been sold for Rs.38,640/- and discarded the
remaining evidence. The reference court instead of taking
sale consideration to be the one, as reflected in the sale
deed, took the sale consideration at Rs.36,640/-, which
was the amount paid before the Sub Registrar at the time
of registration of sale deed and did not take notice of
the additional amount of Rs.2,000/-, which admittedly had
been received by the vendor from the vendee prior to the
execution of sale deed, as per recital in the sale deed
and thus proceeded to assess the market value accordingly.
7. The reference court in our view failed to
properly appreciate the evidence adduced on record. The
sale deed itself recited payment of Rs.2,000/- as advance
and reflected a total sale consideration of Rs.38,640/-.
At the time of registration of sale deed, the vendor also
admitted having received a sum of Rs.2,000/- in advance
and also admitted receipt of the balance amount of
Rs.36,640/- before the Sub Registrar. The reference court
also failed to take notice of another important recital in
the sale deed that the vendee had paid a sum of Rs.3,120/-
towards the stamp duty etc. Thus the vendee had to pay a
sum of Rs.41,760/- in order to purchase 4 bigha 4biswas
land. The land purchased was an undivided share in the
land to the extent of 4 bigha 4 biswas. In addition the
vendee had also to pay for registration charges. Thus the
amount spent by the vendee in acquiring title to 4 bigha 4
biswas was Rs.41,800/-, which was wrongly taken
Rs.36,640/-. As such Rs.41,800/- would reflect fair and
reasonable market value of 4 bigha 4 biswas land in the
revenue estate concerned in the month of September, 1980.
8. We are not in a position to appreciate the
submission made on behalf of the appellants that they
should be paid similar compensation since in Lok Adalat
settlement market rate of Rs.22,000/- per bigha had been
offered. That was the amount offered in settlement in Lok
Adalat and cannot be treated as reflecting the true market
value to which a claimant would be entitled on acquisition
of his property. The instances relied upon by the
respondents cannot furnish a true guide in arriving at the
market value being too remote in point of time. The
reference court was justified in taking the sale deed of
10.9.1980 to be the basis in arriving at the fair market
value but erred in not taking the full amount paid to be
the sale consideration.
9. As regards the land which was acquired by
sub sequent notification dated 14.7.1982 the reference
court also upon the sale deed of 10.9.1980 and the market
value reflected on that day and allowed an increase @ 5%
p.a. Though the principle applied was correct but sale
consideration and rate of appreciation were not correctly
taken. In our view for the period from 26.9.1980 to
14.7.1982 appreciation ought to have been allowed at least
at the rate of 8% p.a.
10. The reference court was also not justified in
continuing with the categories as had been made by the
Collector Land Acquisition on the basis of classification
as made in revenue records. In assessing fair market
value by taking average price there was no lawful
justification in having continued with the classifications
as made in the revenue records.
11. Thus we are of the view that for the land which
was acquired through notification dated 26.9.1980 fair
amount market value would be Rs.9,500/- per bigha
irrespective of classification of the lands and for the
land which was acquired through notification dated
14.7.1982 the fair market value would be Rs.11,500/- per
bigha.
12. We have noticed that the reference court in
these cases in which the land was acquired through
notification dated 26.9.1980 and for which the Collector
had made his award on 6.8.1981 has also allowed, in
addition to the other statutory amounts, the additional
amount under Section 23(1A) of the Act, which in view of
the decision of Supreme Court in K.S. Paripoornan vs.
State of Kerala ought not to have been
allowed.
13. Consequently the appeals are allowed with
proportionate costs and the awards of the reference court
are modified. The claimants whose lands were acquired
through notification dated 26.9.1980 are held entitled to
compensation @ Rs.9,500/- per bigha and whose lands were
acquired through notification dated 14.7.1982 are held
entitled to compensation@ Rs.11,500/- per bigha. In
addition the claimants are held entitled to solarium @ 30%
on the enhanced market value and interest @ 9% p.a. for a
period of one year from the date of Collector taking
possession and there after @ 15% p.a. till the date of
payment. Claimants whose lands were acquired through
notification dated 26.9.1980 are held not entitled to the
additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.
Claimants whose lands were acquired through notification
dated 14.7.1982 will be paid additional amount under
Section 23(1A) of the Act. In addition the claimants will
also be paid interest on solarium and wherever additional
amount is payable interest on additional amount as well in
view of decision of Supreme Court in Sunder vs. Union of
India 93 (2001) DLT 569.