IMPORTANT POINT
When the value of a large extent of agricultural land has to be determined with reference to the price fetched by sale of a small residential plot, it is necessary to make an appropriate deduction towards the development cost, to arrive at the value of the large tract of land.

JUDGMENT

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

This appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellant against the judgment and order of the Patna High Court dated 10.2.2011 by which the High Court reduced the compensation awarded to the claimant, by fixing the lower market rate of the land in question and set aside the part of the order passed by the Reference Court granting Rs.10,000/- towards damages of standing crops.

2. Certain lands in Mauja Mothabari, Thana Katoria, Pargana Sarohi, District Bhagalpur (now Banka) were acquired for the construction of the Orni-reservoir. Land measuring 3.54 acres of Khata No.111, Khasra No.2925 of same village belonging to the appellant was also acquired. The Collector by an award order dated 16.10.1984 fixed the compensation of Rs.6513.60 for the entire land based on market rate at Rs.16 per decimal. No amount was awarded towards damages of standing crops.

3. The Reference Court to which the claims of the land owners for higher compensation were referred, determined the market value as Rs. 250/- per decimal i.e. Rs. 25,000/- per acre. The Reference Court based its decision on two sale transactions submitted by the claimant dated 25.11.1980 and 16.10.1975 (Ext.1 and Ext.1/b) relating to sale of plots in the neighbouring area. Considering the fact that the sale deeds were related to small extent of land of nearby village and the acquisition was related to a larger extent, the Reference Court was of the view that certain percentage could be deducted while determining the value of the land in question. However, as sale deeds were of the earlier period, after such deduction, appropriate increase in the value of the land from the date of the sale deed to the date of the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was made.

4. The respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court. The High Court disposed of the said appeal by impugned judgment dated 10.2.2011. The High Court modified the judgment of the Reference Court with regard to the market value by reducing the market rate from Rs.250/- per decimal to Rs.100/- per decimal and set aside the part of the order whereby sum of Rs.10,000/- was granted by the Tribunal as damages of standing crops.

5. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court and after 23 years of the acquisition, the appellant received a sum of Rs. 5,69,531/- on 4.7.2007 as per determination of the Reference Court and paid a sum of Rs 56,953/- towards tax. The effect of impugned judgment passed by the High Court is that the claimant has to refund part of the amount received by the claimant as compensation.

6. The questions that arise for our consideration are:

(i) Whether the market value as fixed by the Tribunal is excessive as contended by the State of Bihar;

(ii) Whether the Tribunal rightly compensated the claimant for damages of standing crops.

7. The High Court by its impugned judgment modified the compensation and set aside the part of the order relating to compensation for standing crops on three counts, namely; (a) The sale deeds dated 25.11.1980 (Ext.1) and 16.10.1975 (Ext.1/b) related to smaller area of 25 and 6 ½ decimals of land respectively; (b) Aforesaid sale deeds do not relate to agricultural land but homestead land as in the boundary of one of the sale-deed ‘Masjid’ and ‘road’ is shown; (c) OP-W-1, Shri Ratneshwar Pd. Singh has stated that there was no crop standing on the land at the time of the possession.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the judgment passed by the High Court on the following grounds:

(i) In the absence of any other evidence except the sale deeds (Ext.1 and Ext.1/b), the determination of market value is not based on any evidence but on mere presumption and surmises.

(ii) The High Court wrongly relied on the statement of OP-W-1, Ratneshwar Pd. Singh, who was posted elsewhere at the time of acquisition of the land. On the other hand, the Reference Court decided the quantum o