Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 215

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi)
M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
Pramina Devi (Dead) through LRs. – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1762 of 2022
WITH
Mohan Prasad Singh and Another – Appellants
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1761 of 2022
Decided On : 10-03-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Narayan Das, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Acquisition of land – Assessment of amount of compensation – While considering sale deed/sale exemplar, proximity in time to date of sale deed and to date of notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 may be a relevant factor but at the same time, other factors are also required to be taken into consideration while determining actual market price of acquired land.

Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4 and 18 – Acquisition of land – Assessment of amount of compensation – There is no detailed discussion by High Court by taking into account relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration while ascertaining market price – While considering sale deed/sale exemplar, proximity in time to date of sale deed and to date of notification under Section 4 may be a relevant factor but at the same time, other factors are also required to be taken into consideration while determining actual market price of acquired land – Even otherwise, there is no clarity on actual market price and while passing final order, High Court has not stated exact market value and/or amount of compensation to be paid – There is no actual assessment and/or determination of market value and/or compensation – Judgment must have a clarity on exact relief that is granted by Court so that it may not create further complication and/or difficulty in execution – Every litigant must know what actual relief he has received from Court – But impugned judgment and order passed by High Court lacks total clarity – Impugned judgments and orders passed by High Court quashed and set aside and appeals remitted to High Court to consider and decide appeals afresh in accordance with law and on merits and after considering relevant factors. (Paras 3, 4, 5 and 6)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgments and orders passed by High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi dated 28.03.2019 passed in First Appeal Nos. 40 of 2007 and 41 of 2007, original appellants – claimants – landowners have preferred the present appeals.
Findings of Court:
High Court shall make all endeavours to finally decide and dispose of the appeals on remand at the earliest and preferably within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the present order.
Result : Appeals Partly allowed.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi dated 28.03.2019 passed in First Appeal Nos. 40 of 2007 and 41 of 2007, the original appellants-claimants/landowners have preferred the present appeals.

2. That the land of the respective appellants situated in Village Gulabjhari, District Palamau (Jharkhand) were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 1894”) for public purpose. A notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 was published on 01.10.1980. That the Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 180/- per decimal. At the instance of the original landowners references were made to the District Court under Section 18 of the Act, 1894. Before the Reference Court, the claimants heavily relied upon the Sale-Deed registered between the years 1977 to 1979, which were marked as Exh.2, Exh.2/a, Exh.2/b and Exh.2/c. The Reference Court discarded all the aforesaid sale-deeds and dismissed the respective references observing that the valuation of the acquired land has been rightly determined and upheld the awards passed by the Land Acquisition Officer.

2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgments and awards passed by the Reference Court, the original claimants preferred the present appeals before the High Court being First Appeal Nos. 40 of 2007 and 41 of 2007. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has observed that the Sale-Deed Dated 12.02.1979 (Exh.2/a) has to be considered for determination of the market value as the same is in a close proximity in time to the date of notification dated 01.10.1980. By observing so, the High Court has disposed of the appeals and modified the judgments and awards passed by the Reference Court to the extent that the compensation is to be assessed and paid on the basis of the 2 Sale-Deed dated 12.02.1979 (Exh.2/a) and not on the basis of the Sale-Deed dated 29.12.1976 (Exh.2/c). However, while passing the final order, the High Court has not assessed and/or determined the actual market value and/or compensation to be payable to the landowners.

2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court, the original landowners-original claimants have preferred the present appeals.

3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at length. We have also gone through and considered the impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court. From the impugned judgment and orders passed by the High Court, it can be seen that after holding that Sale-Deed dated 12.02.1979 (Exh.2/a) has to be considered for determination of the compensation with respect to the acquired land, there is no further discussion on the area of the land sold by Sale-Deed dated 12.02.1979. The High Court has also not discussed at all the sale consideration for which the Sale-Deed dated 12.02.1979 was executed. The High Court has also not noted what was the sale consideration so far as the Sale-Deed dated 12.02.1979 (Exh.2/a) is concerned. The High court has also not discussed what was the location of the land so far as the Sale-Deed dated 12.02.1979 is concerned. The only observation made by the High Court is that as the Sale-Deed dated 12.02.1979 is more proximate in time to the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, 1894, i.e. 01.10.1980 as compared to the Sale-Deed dated 29.12.1976, therefore, the Sale-Deed dated 12.02.1979 is more appropriate to be considered for the purpose of ascertaining the market value of the property on the date of the notification dated 01.10.1980. It is to be noted that there is no detailed discussion by the High Court by taking into account the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration while ascertaining the market price as