2004 Supreme(SC) 1448

2004(8) Supreme 122
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
Shivaraj V. Patil & B.N. Srikrishna, JJ.
M/s. Ahad Brothers -Appellant
versus
State of M.P. & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6276 of 1999
Decided on 19-11-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : M.R. Rajendran Nair, Sr. Advocate, Mohd. Taiyab Khan, Anurag Singh and Shakil Ahmed Syed, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Sakesh Kumar and Satish K. Agnihotri, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Court exercising jurisdiction u/s 18 of Land Acquisition Act could not decide the question of title of the State over the acquired land.

Headnote:(i) Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 18 and 30-Reference Court determined market value of acquired land and recorded findings that appellant/owner was having ownership right on acquired land-High Court modified compensation amount and held appellant entitled for compensation only to extent of lease hold interest in acquired land and that appellant was not owner of the land-Appeal-Whether High Court was right in going into question of title over the property acquired and recording finding that appellant had only leasehold interest?-High Court erred in reversing findings of Reference Court without dislodging the reasons recorded by Reference Court-State could not be said to be a person interested to agitate any claim either u/s 18 or u/s 30 of the Act-Impugned order holding appellant had only leasehold interest in land could not be sustained.

       Held : The IVth Addl. District Judge, Bhopal (Reference Court) on proper consideration and appreciation of both documentary as well as oral evidence recorded a finding that the respondent-State could not prove that the appellant was only the licensee on the acquired land. One Aadh Narayan (DW1) examined on behalf of the respondent-State in his evidence stated that he was employed in the office of the Director of Land Records. He was not able to support the case of the respondent that the appellant was a lessee or licensee. He admitted in his evidence that there was no lease deed executed between the parties as per the records available in the office. There was also no record to show that the appellant was a licensee. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he could not tell whether the acquired land belonged to the State or it was acquired by State later on. Abdul Rahuf Khan (PW3) examined in support of the case of the appellant in his evidence stated that no lease deed was executed by State and that no lease amount was paid to the State and his firm was the owner of the land acquired. He further stated that he had obtained this land in 1950 from the State for the purpose of establishing bone mill; the appellant-firm is recorded as owner in revenue records of the State; the Land Acquisition Officer also treated the appellant as owner and made the award showing the appellant as the owner in the notification issued to acquire the land. The learned Addl. District Judge, referring to various documents in para 9 of the judgment in the light of the oral evidence concluded that the respondent-State failed to establish that the appellant is only a lessee/licensee when all along the appellant was shown as the owner and even the Land Acquisition Officer treated the appellant as owner. The State contending otherwise had to establish its case that the appellant was only lessee/licensee, failed to do so. The High Court, in our view, committed a serious error in reversing this finding of the Reference Court without dislodging the reasons recorded by the Reference Court in support of its conclusion on this point. (Para 6)

       Not only in the notification acquiring the land, name of the appellant is shown as owner, even the revenue records also show the appellant as owner. Further the Land Acquisition Officer passed award in respect of this land treating the appellant as owner entitled to receive compensation. If the State was owner of the land in question, there was no reason for it to acquire its own land. The State cannot said to be a person interested to agitate any claim either under Section 18 or under Section 30 of the Act. The court exercising jurisdiction under Section 18 could not decide the question of the title of the State over the acquired land. The position of law is clear in this regard by recent judgment of this Court in Sharda Devi vs. State of Bihar & Anr. [(2003) 3 SCC 128]. (Para 7)

       (ii) Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 30-Determination of market value of acquired land-Reference Court determined compensation at Rs. 2 per sq. feet-High Court fixed it at Rs. 2 per sq. yard-Appeal-Notification for land acquired was issued in 1962 and reference Court took into consideration sale deeds of the year 1954, 1955, 1960 and 1963 and one sale deed of 1962-Land in question was surrounded by other industrial establishment and developed areas-High Court without considering material and even without considering the reasons recorded by reference Court modified the compensation-Impugned judgment was liable to be set aside and that of reference Court to be restored-Reference Court however failed to give any deduction towards development charges-It would be just and appropriate to deduct 30% towards development charges. (Paras 9 to 13)