Back
1998 Supreme(Guj) 27
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :J.N.Bhatt, J.R.Vora
HARBHAM VIKRAMSINH - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
C.A. 1831 of 1987
Decided On : 01/27/1998
Headnote:(a) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Secs. 54, 23(1-A), 23(2) & 28 - First appeal against an order of Reference Court fixing market value at Rs. 180/- per acre for compensation purposes - Appellants claiming compensation @ 240/- - Criteria for justification thereof - Held, the recent rate of sale of similar/comparable lands in the neighbourhood is a good guide.
It is a settled proposition of law that if a sale instance of the same village or of the same land is not available, then in that case, where there have been recent sales of some land, to guide the Land Acquisition Officer or the Court, the market value must be considered and determined by sales of similar lands in neighbourhood.
[Para 8]
It is a settled proposition of law that while interpreting and examining the provisions of Sec. 23, the Court is obliged to consider the claim of higher rate on the basis of compensation awarded to comparable land.
[Para 9]
Now, it is well settled that the best method to determine the true market price of any land or property under acquisition on the date of publication of notification under Sec. 4 (1) is to base on instances or transactions of sale of some land or portion of land having taken place by about the same time at the same place or a portion of land of neighbourhood.
In other words, the instances of sale transactions should have been in respect of land in the near locality or in the neighbourhood having the same or similar advantages or disadvantages as the lands under acquisition. No doubt, those instances must also be nearer in point of time of the notification published under Sec. 4 (1).
Nothing has been successfully shown from the impugned common judgment as to why the comparable sale instance produced at Ex. 34 showing the price of market value at the rate of Rs. 250/per Are is not accepted and followed despite the fact that it was four years prior to the date of the notification under Sec. 4 (1) and it was non-irrigated parcel of land. Therefore, in our opinion, the reference Court fell in serious error and committed illegality while making assessment of compensation and determining the market value at the rate of Rs. 180/- per Are globally.
In fact, Court is satisfied that it is not justified and that the claimants, as such, would be entitled to at least an amount of Rs. 250 per Are if not more. However, the appellants have restricted their claim and have demanded only an amount of Rs. 240/- per Are by way of market value, but for that we would have awarded more. In our opinion, therefore, the claimants are found entitled to an amount of compensation at the market rate of Rs. 240/- per Are instead of Rs. 180/- with permissible proportionate cost and interest from the date of possession till the date of payment.
[Para 11]
(b) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sec. 23 - Assessment and valuation here means & includes the assessment & evaluation of the entire parcel of land under acquisition - Held, compensation for `wells not allowable.
In Court opinion, when the entire parcel of land under acquisition has been considered, assessed and valued as bagayat land and the total amount of market value is assessed at Rs. 240/- as demanded by the claimants, which includes, the value of the well, in our opinion, the claimants shall not be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 8,000/- for well in 8 matters.
[Para 12]
(c) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sec. 18 read with Sec. 11 and Amended provisions - Modified award coming to be recorded after the coming into force of the amended provisions - Entitlement of solatium on market value & not the amount enhanced by the Reference Court would be relevant.
Therefore, the award under Sec. 18 of the Act modifying the award of the Land Acquisition Officer under Sec. 11 came to be recorded after the amended provisions came into force. With the result, the claimants would be entitled to get 30 per cent solatium on the amount of market value and not on the amount enhanced by the reference Court.
[Para 13]
( 1 ) IN this group of 11 appeals under S. 54 of the Land acquisition Act, 1894 (Act), common questions are involved arising out of common judgment of reference Court - 3rd Extra Assistant Judge, Rajkot District, at Gondal, rendered on 24th December, 1985. Therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
( 2 ) THE appellants are the original claimants whereas the respondent in the entire group was the original opponent before the reference Court. Pursuant to notifications issued under S. 4 (1) dated 8-12-1977, 1-6-1978, 10-3-1978 and 20-3-1979, various parcels of revenue survey numbers situated in the sim of village Rajpara in Rajkot district came to be compulsorily acquired for the purpose of the project of Venu dam No. 2 which was sought to be constructed for the irrigation and agricultural purposes. The Land Acquisition Officer by exercising his powers under S. 11 of the Act awarded Rs. 120. 00 per Are for Bagayat land and Rs. 65. 00 per Are for jirayat land in respect of four land acquisition reference cases bearing Nos. 132 of 1977, 91 of 1978, 153 of 1979 and 36 of 1978. Notifications under S. 6 (1) acquiring the land bearing survey Nos. 68, 13 (Part) etc. of different agriculturists came to be published on 27-2-1978, 6-3-1980, 23-11-1978 and 6-11-1978.
( 3 ) BEING dissatisfied by the awards under S. 11 of the Act, the owners and the original claimants desired for reference under S. 18 of the Act to the Court of Assistant Judge of Gondal of Rajkot district. Thus, four land reference cases came to be decided by the reference Court.
( 4 ) THE factual highlights of the aforesaid awards are narrated hereinafter : award Land reference Survey Remarks no. case No. 132 of 1977 596 of 1982 68 There was a well 91 of 1978 1 to 5 of 1982 153 of 1977 121 and 127 of 1982 36 of 1978 133 to 135 of 1982 13 Paiki
( 5 ) THE reference Court upon analysis of the evidence and assessment of the documents reached to a conclusion that the lands under acquisition were of, as such, bagayat lands and not Jirayat lands and awarded an additional amount of compensation of Rs. 60. 00. The total amount of compensation came to be awarded at Rs. 180/ per Are for all parcels of land holding that there was no question of any Jirayat land. Thus, uniformly, an amount of Rs. 180. 00 came to be awarded per are in respect of acquired Bagayat lands. The reference Court has also placed reliance on witnesses as well as documentary evidence in the form of sale instance produced at Ex. 34. The original claimants, appellants herein, claimed an amount of Rs. 240. 00 whereas the reference Court awarded only an amount of Rs. 180. 00 per Are. The claimants filed this group of 11 appeals challenging the legality and validity of the award and common judgment of the reference Court by invoking the aids of provisions of S. 54 of the Act.
( 6 ) THE only, but important, question which falls for consideration and adjudication in this group of appeals is whether the claimants are entitled to market value at the rate of Rs. 240. 00 per Are in respect of the acquired land in the light of the evidence on record as claimed by them. Reliance is placed on the evidence of sale instance at Ex. 34. The following aspects have emerged unquestionably from the evidence on record. (1) That Ex. 34 is a sale deed in respect of survey No. 90/3 which is situated in village Kolki. (2) It is a registered sale deed dated 13-4-1973. (3) The market price is shown at Rs. 250. 00 per Are of an agricultural property which is admittedly Jirayat unlike the case of Bagayat in the case of group of matters in hand. (4) Ex. 34 is almost 4 years and more old than the notification under S. 4 (1) which came to be published in 1977 and 1978 in respect of cases in hand. (5) The registered sale deed at Ex. 34 is proved in the evidence of the purchaser one Jamnadas Khimjibhai, who was examined at Ex. 33. (6) Ex. 34, a sale instance, whereby four acres of land came to be purchased by Jamnada
