Important Points
1. Oral evidence of local lambardars and zamindars would not furnish any basis for determining market value.
2. Sale instance of smaller piece of land could not furnish basis for determining market value of big chunk of land acquired.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 15 and 23-Market value -Determination of-Land acquired was a big chunk of 642 kanals and 12 marlas-Collector divided land into three categories bearing in mind nature and quality of land as recorded in revenue record-Fixed compensation Rs. 17,000, Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 14,000 per kanal respectively - Awarded separate compensation for fruit bearing trees and structure and tube well-Report of local tehsildar showed market value at Rs. 30,000 per kanal-Claimants relied upon sale instance of comparable land which showed value at Rs. 33,000-District Court and High Court fixed market value at flat rate of Rs. 45,000 per kanal rejecting categorisation of Collector-Held : Sale instance relied upon by claimant which was of a small piece of land could not be basis-Oral evidence of local Lambardars and Zamindars could not furnish any basis for determining market value-Report of local tehsildar alone, on facts, would form basis-Claimant not entitled to more than Rs. 30,000 per kanal-However no justification for categorisation of land as done by Collector-Separate compensation for fruit bearing tree justified. (Paras 9 to 13)

Judgment

S.P. Kurdukar, J.-Leave granted.

2. This Court vide its order dated 21.3.96 directed that LPA No. 12/93 pending in the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir be transferred to this Court and the same be heard along with S.L.P. (C) No. 1779 of 1994 since an identical question is involved in both the matters arising out of the Judgment dated 17.8.93 in Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1992 and Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1992 passed by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu. Few facts leading to the present proceedings may be summarised as under:-

3. A chunk of land admeasuring 642 kanals and 12 marlas of village Punzgam, Distt. Pulwana belonging to the respondents were acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector Pulwama by invoking Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act. This land was acquired at the instance of Union of India for public purpose. The Land Acquisition Collector on payment of compensation of Rs. 57,34,621 to the various claimants, took possession of the land on December 11, 1986. After service of notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act the claimants filed their claims before the Collector who after taking into account the sale instances and other material by his award dated June 29, 1989 awarded compensation of Rs. 1,06,55,150.00/- for land; Rs. 33,70,781.00/- for fruit bearing trees and Rs. 72,600/- for structure and tubewell. An amount of Rs. 2114779.60 was awarded as Jabirana (solatium). Thus the total amount under award came to Rs. 1,62,13,310.65. On this total amount of compensation an interest was awarded @ 6% for one year from the date of taking over the possession of the land (possession was taken over on 11.12.1986) and 10% after expiry of one year. The total amount of interest awarded by the Collector came to Rs. 7,87,632.45. It may be stated that the Collector divided the acquired land into three categories bearing in mind the nature and quality of land as recorded in the revenue records. He accordingly fixed the market value in respect of these three categories at Rs. 17,000/-, Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 14,000/- per kanal respectively.

4. The claimants being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector filed petitions under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and sought a Reference to the Civil Court for determination of the market value. Before the Reference Court the claimants in their claim petitions stated that their lands should be valued not less than Rs. 25,000/- and they should be paid not less than Rs. 60,000/- per kanal (sic) and also claimed higher compensation on various other items. The claimants in support of their claim for enhancement of compensation, produced sale instances and the report was made by the Patwari, Tehsildar and a recommendatory letter of a local MLA for increase in the compensation. The Union of India produced two witnesses but, however State of Jammu and Kashmir remained ex-parte.

5. The District Judge, Jammu after hearing the parties and on appraisal of oral and documentary evidence on record by his judgment and decree/award dated 9.9.92 enhanced the compensation at the flat rate of Rs. 45,000/- per kanal rejecting the categorisation of land as done by the Collector and upheld the other claims granted under the award. In view of enhancement of compensation proportionately the amount of interest and solatium also stood enhanced. The District Judge awarded Rs. 50,000/- towards cost to the claimants against the appellant.

6. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, the Union of India filed First Appeal No. 42 of 1992 whereas the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Collector filed First Appeal No. 38 of 1992 in the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir. Both these appeals were heard together by the then acting Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir who by his common Judgment and decree/award dated 17.8.1993 dismissed these appeals. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree/award the Union of India filed LPA No. 14 of 1992 in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(SC) 686

Important Points1. Oral evidence of local lambardars and zamindars would not furnish any basis for determining market value.2. Sale instance of smaller piece of land could not furnish basis for determining market value of big chunk of land acquired.

Important Points
1. Oral evidence of local lambardars and zamindars would not furnish any basis for determining market value.
2. Sale instance of smaller piece of land could not furnish basis for determining market value of big chunk of land acquired.