SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.N. WANCHOO, J.M. SHELAT AND G.K. MITTER, JJ.
Raghubans Narain Singh, Appellant
Versus
The U.P. Govt., through Collector of Bijnor, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 82 of 1964, dated 23-9-1966.
Advocates appeared
Mr. B. C. Misra, Senior Advocate, Mr. M. V. Goswami, Advocate, with him), for Appellant: Mr. N. D. Karkhanis, Senior Advocate (Mr. O. P. Rana, Advocate, with him), for Respondent.
LAND ACQUISITION - VALUATION - POTENTIAL VALUE - EVIDENCE OF OFFER - SECTION 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - INTERPRETATION - RATE OF INTEREST.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's land, a grove with 123 trees, was acquired for the construction of a hostel. The Collector awarded compensation of Rs. 2,218, including solatium. The District Judge, relying on the evidence of an offer made by a prospective purchaser, fixed the compensation at Rs. 20,700. The High Court, rejecting the evidence of the offer, reduced the compensation to Rs. 15,000. The appellant challenged the High Court's decision.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in rejecting the evidence of the offer made by the prospective purchaser. The offer was genuine and made by a willing prospective purchaser. The District Judge was right in accepting the evidence and fixing the compensation accordingly. The Supreme Court also held that under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the court has no discretion to grant interest at a rate less than 6%.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the evidence of the offer made by the prospective purchaser. 2. Whether the court has discretion to grant interest at a rate less than 6% under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The evidence of the offer made by the prospective purchaser was relevant and admissible. It was not an offer made by an irresponsible broker or under compulsion or stress of circumstances. The District Judge was right in accepting the evidence and fixing the compensation accordingly. 2. Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, confers discretion on the court to grant or refuse to grant interest. However, once the discretion to grant interest is exercised, the interest has to be at the rate of 6%.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the High Court, and restored the judgment and order of the District Judge fixing the compensation at Rs. 20,700, with interest on the excess amount of Rs. 18,482 at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of taking possession till the date of payment.
Judgment
SHELAT, J. : This appeal by certificate from the High Court at Allahabad involves the question as to the valuation of a piece of land belonging to the appellant situate outside the town Nehtaur, in District Bijnor, U. P. The land admeasures 6 pucca bighas and is grove land having in all 123 trees of which a number are mango and naspati trees.
2. The notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1 of 1894 was issued On December 22, 1945 in which it was stated that the land was being acquired for a public purpose, viz., the construction of a hostel, etc., of S. N. S. M. High School at Nehtaur. Possession of the land was taken from the appellant on July 4, 1947. The Collector of Bijnor made his award under S. 11 of the Act fixing Rs 1,167-4-0 as compensation for the trees, Rs. 1,050-12-0 as compensation for the land and adding 15 per cent solatium awarded the total sum of Rs. 2,218. A reference was thereafter made under S. 18 at the instance of the appellant to the District Judge, Bijnor. Both the appellant and the Government led oral evidence and also adduced evidence of certain specimen of exemplar sales. Besides the oral evidence the appellant relied on two sale-deeds, one, dated March 20, 1926 and another, dated January 5, 1934. He also led the evidence of one Syed Nisar Haidar Zaidi, a Deputy Collector who had just retired and who prior to his retirement had written two letters to the appellant, dated October 14, 1945 and November 20, 1945 expressing his desire to purchase the land in question with a view to build a residential house for himself so that he could live therein, after his retirement. In these letters he had offered Rs. 18,000 but that offer was not accepted by the appellant as he wanted Rs. 24,000 as the price of the land. On behalf of the Government also reliance was placed on three specimen sales being Exhibits A1, A2and A3. The evidence disclosed that the land acquired was distance of about 2 furlongs from the town Nehtaur which at that time had a population of about 18,000 souls. The land abuts on the main road from Moradabad to Bijnor and is next to the said school. Nearby is a fairly large size pond. The evidence of Murari Singh one of the witnesses examined by the Government, was that besides the appellant s grove there were some other groves nearby on the other side of the road, that the town was a growing town in the sense that electricity was available, there was a branch of the Bharat Bank and there were 5 or 6 mills and a crusher working in the town since the last few years. The mills referred to by the witness obviously must be some small scale industries. The witness, however, stated that only 2 or 4 new houses had been constructed in the town during, the last about 10 years though one more school had been opened in the town about 3 years ago. As against his evidence there was some evidence that some houses were constructed in the grove lands nearby. But there was no evidence to show that there was any building activity nearby of any substantial nature or that there was any definite trend of development in the direction of the acquired land. As regards the income from the land there was the evidence of Pusshkar nath that the fruit trees grown in the land yielded approximately an annual income of Rs. 500, about 49 mango and naspati trees being fruit bearing at that time. It appears that the grove had been laid only about two or three years ago. But the evidence of the Village Patwari clearly disclosed that the grove would yield about Rs. 1,000 a year when all the trees started bearing fruits. Besides the income from the trees the land also yielded an income of about Rs. 200 a year by way of sale of Bind pullas.
3. The District Judge discarded the evidence of specimen sales produced by both the sides as being of no assistance for the reasons stated by him. It is not necessary to examine those reasons as there is no dispute that he was right in rejecting them and the High Court also agre
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.