Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.C.Mookherji, J.
State Of Bihar
Versus
Dwarika Nath Jha
First Appeal No. 583 of 1970 ;
Decided On : JULY 26, 1988
LAND ACQUISITION - VALUATION OF ACQUIRED PROPERTY - LAND AND BUILDINGS - COST OF CARRIAGE OF BUILDING MATERIALS - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 23 AND 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - KEY LEGAL PRINCIPLES
Fact of the Case:
The dispute arose from a land acquisition case where the government acquired land and buildings for the construction of an Anchal-cum-Block Development office. The main issues were the valuation of the acquired property, including land, buildings, and the cost of carriage of building materials.
Finding of the Court:
The court enhanced the valuation of the acquired property fixed by the Land Acquisition Department. The court accepted the evidence of an overseer who estimated the value of the buildings based on the scheduled rate of the year 1958. However, the court rejected the claim for the cost of carriage of building materials, holding that the buildings were constructed long before 1958 and the estimate was based on the rate prevalent in 1958.
Issues: 1. Valuation of the acquired land and buildings 2. Cost of carriage of building materials 3. Applicability of amended Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on sale deeds and other evidence to determine the market value of the acquired land and buildings. 2. The court accepted the estimate prepared by an overseer for the valuation of the buildings, considering it reasonable and based on the scheduled rate of the year 1958. 3. The court rejected the claim for the cost of carriage of building materials, holding that the buildings were constructed long before 1958 and the estimate was based on the rate prevalent in 1958, which was not relevant. 4. The court clarified that if the Supreme Court's decision in Bhag Singh and Ors. V/s. Union Territory of Chandigarh is upheld by a larger Bench, the respondents would be entitled to solatium and interest at the amended rate under Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Final Decision: The court dismissed both the appeal and cross objection, upholding the enhanced valuation of the acquired property but rejecting the claim for the cost of carriage of building materials. The court directed the authorities to pay the respondents the compensation amount, including solatium and interest at the amended rate, if applicable, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Bhag Singh and Ors. V/s. Union Territory of Chandigarh.
Suresh Chandra Mookherji, J.
1. This appeal and cross objection arise out of a judgment, passed in L. A. case No. 88/76 of 1968 by Sri G.S. Verma, 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Puraea, whereby, and whereunder, he enhanced the valuation of the acquired property fixed by the Land Acquisition Department, but rejected respondents claim of carriage cost of the acquired building materials known as Managers bungalow. Against that order both State of Bihar and the respondent on behalf of Raj Darbhanga have filed the present appeal and cross objection.
2. A notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter to be called as the Act) was published on 4-6-1956 for acquisition of certain lands and buildings standing thereon, details of which have been given in the judgment of the court below, of (sic) Bhawanipur Rajdham, in the district of Purnea for the purpose of construction of Anchal-cum-Block Development office there. There is no controversy that out of the acquired land, 3. 83 acres was sold by Darbhanga Raj to respondent Bhubneshwar Prasad by |a sale-deed dated 14. 8. 1961, on which there was a godown and therefore, he is entitled to compensation in respect of that property.
3. The main dispute between the parties was in respect of the amount of compensation both for the land & the buildings standing thereon. According to the respondent claimants, the amount of compensation for the land should have been fixed at Rs. 6000.00 per acre, whereas, the land Acquisition Department had fixed it at the rate of Rs. 1175/- per acre for Bhit III land Rs. 1410.00 for Bhit I land, mainly, on the basis of a sale-deed (Ext. K.)
4. The respondents adduced both oral and documentary evidence to controvert the said rate. In this respect, Ext. 1 series, which are sale-deeds of different dates near about the period of acquisition i.e of the year 1958,1959 etc. These sale documents, thus, give an idea of the value of land acquired. The court below has, therefore, rightly rejected the sale deed Ext. K, relied upon by the appellant. This Sale deed is in respect of R. S. plot No. 4786, which was not even shown in the sheet in which the details of the concerned lands have been mentioned. On the other hand as indicated above, the Sale deed relied upon by the respondents clearly show that the lands covered under them, are situated near about or close to the lands acquired. As a matter of fact in paragraph 5 of his judgment the learned court below has discussed this point and by cogent reasons considered the Sale rate given in these documents for fixing that value of the acquired lands. It is thus, needless to probe any further in this regard, as I am in full agreement with the court below, that the price of the lands acquired should be Rs. 6000.00 per acre. Therefore, the value of the land fixed by the court below is correct.
5. The real dispute that has been canvassed in this appeal and the cross objection is in respect of the value fixed for the two buildings and the cost of carriage of the building materials. It may be pointed out that there are two buildings over the acquired land. One was the Managers bungalow of the then Darbhanga Raj and the other which was sold to respondent Bhubneswar Prasad, was for the purpose of godown.
6. The Land Acquisition Department valued these buildings at Rs. 27,000.00 and odd, maily on the basis of estimate prepared by an Assistant Engineer of C.D. Works, Purnea. The plan, the rough sketch etc. are exhibits D.E. and F. The Asst. Engineer, who is said to have prepared the estimate had not been examined and in his place P.W. 1 was examined who could not say as to the basis of the estimate and other details and therefore rightly the court below had not placed any reliance in his evidence. As against this, one overseer, attached to Purnea Municipality (A. W. 9) had been examined on behalf of the opposite party. This witness gave cogent reasons for estimating the value of the Managers bungalow and the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
