Market value for land acquisition must be assessed based on comparable sales proximate to the acquisition date, reflecting fair compensation principles.

Judgment :

Per Rajani Dubey, J.

Since all these appeals have been preferred against the judgments dated 30.9.2019 and 28.9.2019 passed by Fourth Additional District Judge, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as “Reference Court”) in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 25/2013, 26/2013, 47/2013 and 36/2013, whereby the reference has been dismissed and the order dated 11.6.2012 of the Land Acquisition Officer, Raipur passed in Land Acquisition Case No.27/A-82 Year 2010-11 under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act has been affirmed, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

FA No. 15 of 2020

02. Facts of the case, in brief, necessary for adjudication of this appeal are that the land of the appellants/applicants situated at Village- Baroud, PHN 72/15, RNM Mandir Hasoud, Tahsil-Arang, Distt. Raipur bearing Khasra Nos. 98, 147, 150, 152, 364, 365, 366, 1208, 1228, 1260, 1265, 1288 & 1287, area 0.03, 0.36, 0.71, 0.65, 0.07, 0.1, 4.44, 0.8, 0.24, 3.05, 0.28, 0.36 & 5.58 hectare respectively was acquired by the respondent authorities for development of Airport in Naya Raipur and as per award dated 11.6.2012 compensation @ Rs.17 lacs per hectare was awarded to them. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellants moved an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short “the Act”) before the Collector. Learned Reference Court vide impugned judgment dated 30.9.2019 dismissed the said reference.

FA No. 16 of 2020

03. In this case, land of the appellant situated at Village-Baroud, PHN 72/15, RNM Mandir Hasoud, Tahsil-Arang, Distt. Raipur bearing Khasra Nos. 1283/1, 1283/2 and 1283/3 area 2.00, 2.00 and 4.34 hectare respectively was acquired by the respondent authorities for development of Airport in Naya Raipur and the Land Acquisition Officer by the award dated 11.6.2012 awarded compensation @ Rs.17 lacs per hectare to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the said award, the appellant filed an application u/s 18 of the Act before the Collector and the learned Reference Court by the impugned judgment dated 28.9.2019 dismissed the reference.

FA No. 17 of 2020

04. In this case, the land of the appellant situated at Village-Baroud, PHN 72/15, RNM Mandir Hasoud, Tahsil Arang, Distt. Raipur bearing Khasra Nos. 1276, 1277, 1278 and 1280 area 0.94, 1.79, 1.01 and 1.35 hectare was acquired by the respondent authorities for development Airport in Naya Raipur and as per award dated 11.6.2012 he was awarded compensation in lieu of acquisition of his land @ Rs.17 lacs per hectare. It was challenged by the appellant by moving an application u/s 18 of the Act. However, the learned Reference Court by the impugned judgment 28.9.2019 dismissed the reference.

FA No. 18 of 2020

05. In the present case also, land of the appellant situated at Village Baroud, PHN 72/15, RNM Mandir Hasoud, Tahsil Arang, Distt. Raipur bearing Khasra Nos. 1262, 1279 and 1282, area 0.14, 2.33 and 4.02 hectare was acquired by the respondent authorities for development of Airport in Naya Raipur and the Land Acquisition Officer by award dated 11.6.2012 awarded compensation @ Rs.17 lacs per hectare which was challenged by the appellant by moving an application u/s 18 of the Act. However, learned Reference Court by the impugned judgment dated 28.9.2019 dismissed the reference.

06. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the impugned judgments passed by learned Reference Court are perverse, contrary to the facts and evidence on record and as such liable to be set aside. Learned trial Court erred in law while passing the award on the basis of rate prescribed in the guidelines. It is well settled principle of law that market value cannot be assessed on the basis of guidelines. The guidelines are the minimum rates prescribed by the office of Registrar and in fact it is not the actual rate of the land and it is only for the purpose of valuation of the stamp duty. Ex.P/1 to P/13 filed by the appellants have not been considered at all by the learned Reference Court whereas th