Back
2011 (2) GCD 1521 (Guj) (DB)
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jayant Patel &
Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.C. Upadhyaya
Rajkot Municipal Corporation Through Commissioner
Versus
Rudiben Popatbhai & Anr.
First Appeal No. 1934 of 20091—Decided on 04/05/2011
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894) — Sections 4, 6, 18, 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 — Acquisition of land — Special Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation at Rs. 4 per sq. mtr. — Reference Court awarded compensation at Rs. 100 per sq. mtr. — Appeal against — Scope of — Finding as to — The Reference Court mainly relied upon allotment of land by District Collector to the Telecommunication Department for construction of staff quarters at village Madhopar at Rs. 90 per sq. mtr. — However, in the matter Reference Court lost sight of the distinction between valuation of land for non-agricultural purpose and the status of the land in question — The price of the agricultural land shall be less by 30% as against price of non-agricultural land — It is admitted position the lands in question which are acquired were agricultural lands, therefore, deduction to the extent of 30% was necessary — The 30% of 90 would come to Rs. 27 and hence net amount would come to Rs. 63/- as market value of lands under acquisition — The Special Land Acquisition Officer has already awarded compensation of Rs. 4 per sq. mtr. — Consequently Court awarded additional compensation of Rs. 59 per sq. mtr. and upheld the award of other statutory benefit awarded by Reference Court.
Held :
The perusal of the judgment of the Reference Court shows that major reliance placed by the Reference Court for the assessment of the market value of the land is upon the allotment of the land by the District Collector to the Telecommunication Department of the Central Government for construction of staff quarters at village Madhapar, bearing survey No. 111 ad-measuring 23 acres and the valuation fixed by the State Government for allotment of such land. If the said document at Exh. 17 is considered, it appears that the same is the communication from the District Collector to the District Manager, Telephone, wherein there is reference to the decision of the State Government dated 31/7/1987 for allotment of the land at village Madhapar bearing survey No. 111 ad-measuring 23 acres for construction of staff quarters at Rs. 90/- per sq.mtr. Even if the reasons recorded by the Reference Court in the impugned judgment for consideration of the said aspect are taken into account for the assessment of the market value, it appears that the important aspect, which has been lost sight of by the Reference Court, is the distinction between the valuation of the land allotted by the Government for non-agricultural purpose and the status of the land in question, which has been acquired, being agricultural land. [Para 5]
As per the view expressed by this Court, difference between the market price of the agricultural land and market price of non-agricultural land shall be minimum 30% and to say in other words, the price of the agricultural land shall be less by 30% as against price of the non-agricultural land. Exactly the same fact situation has arisen in the present case, in asmuchas the land allotted by the Government to the Telephone Department may be waste land, is allotted for non agricultural purpose for construction of staff quarters and, therefore, price of the valuation so fixed for the purpose of allotment can be termed as the valuation of non agricultural land. As against the same, it is an admitted position that the lands in question, which were acquired, were agricultural lands and, therefore, the deduction shall be less by 30% in comparison to the price of the valuation fixed by the Government for allotment of the land to the Telephone Department. [Para 6]
It would lead us to arrive at the market value of the land in question by making deduction of 30% as recorded hereinabove, after considering the valuation of the land alloted by the State Government to the Telephone Department of the Central Government. 30% of Rs. 90/- would come to Rs. 27/- and hence the net amount would come to Rs. 63/-, which can be assessed as market value of the land in question at the time of acquisition. We would have considered the distinction of the appreciation on account of the time gap between the notification under Section 4 of the Act and the valuation made of the land and the decision of the State Government for allotment of the land to the Telephone Department. However, it appears that the time gap is of only 3 months. Under the circumstances, no further reduction may be required to be made, out of the amount of Rs. 63/-. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has already awarded the compensation of Rs. 4/- per sq.mtr., and consequently the additional compensation would be Rs. 59/- per sq.mtr., of the land in question. So far as the other statutory benefits awarded by the Reference Court under Sections 23 [1-A], 23 [2] and 28 of the Act are concerned, the same are not required to be interfered with save and except to the extent that on account of reduction in the principal amount of compensation, such amount shall proportionately get reduced. [Para 11]
Law Laid Down :
The difference between the market price of agricultural land and the market price of non-agricultural land shall be minimum Rs. 30% per sq. mtr.
Case Law Analysis :
State of Gujarat through Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. vs. Amaji Mohanji Thakore, 2010 [3] GLH 447 [Para 5].—Relied on
Nelson Fernandes & ors vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, [2007] 9 SCC 447 [Para 7];; Dy. Director, Land Acquisition vs. Malla Atchinaidu, [2006] 12 SCC 87 [Para 9].—Distinguished
Jayant Patel, J.—The present appeals arise against the judgment and the award passed by the Reference Court dated 6/5/2008, whereby Reference Court has awarded compensation at Rs. 100/- per sq. mtr., plus the statutory benefits under Section 23 [1-A] for increase in the price, solatium under Section 23 [2] and the interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’].
2. The short facts of the case are that the land at village Madhapar were acquired for the requirement of Rajkot Municipal Corporation to establish Ground-drainage Plan, Sewerage Treatment Plant, etc., under the Act. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 30/4/1987. The notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 31/12/1987 and the award was published by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 17/5/1989, whereby he granted compensation at Rs. 4/- per sq.mtr. As the claimants were not satisfied with the compensation, they raised the dispute under Section 18 of the Act and demanded compensation at Rs. 100/- per sq.mtr. The said dispute was referred to the Reference Court for adjudication being Reference Case Nos. 963/1998 to 965/1998. The Reference Court, at the conclusion of the reference, passed the aforesaid common judgment and the award and awarded the compensation at Rs. 100/- per sq.mtr., with the statutory benefits as referred to hereinabove. It is under these circumstances, the present appeals before us.
3. We have heard Mr. Jayant Bhatt, Ld. Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Yogesh Lakhani, Ld. Sr. Counsel with Mr. Sheth for the respondents – original claimants and Mr. Meena and Ms. Moxa Thakkar for the State of Gujarat.
4. We have considered the judgment and the reasons recorded therein. We have also considered the evidence which has been made available by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties for the purpose of supporting their contentions, which have been referred to by the Reference Court in the impugned judgment.
5. The perusal of the judgment of the Reference Court shows that major reliance placed by the Reference Court for the assessment of the market value of the land is upon the allotment of the land by the District Collector to the Telecommunication Department of the Central Government for construction of staff quarters at village Madhapar, bearing survey No. 111 ad-measuring 23 acres and the valuation fixed by the State Government for allotment of such land. If the said document at Exh. 17 is considered, it appears that the same is the communication from the District Collector to the District Manager, Telephone, wherein there is reference to the decision of the State Government dated 31/7/1987 for allotment of the land at village Madhapar bearing survey No. 111 ad-measuring 23 acres for construction of staff quarters at Rs. 90/- per sq.mtr. Even if the reasons recorded by the Reference Court in the impugned judgment for consideration of the said aspect are taken into account for the assessment of the market value, it appears that the important aspect, which has been lost sight of by the Reference Court, is the distinction between the valuation of the land allotted by the Government for non-agricultural purpose and the status of the land in question, which has been acquired, being agricultural land. This Court had an occasion to consider the said aspect in the case of State of Gujarat through Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. vs. Amaji Mohanji Thakore reported in 2010 [3] GLH 447, wherein based on the land allotted to the Municipality for public purpose, a contention was raised to take into consideration the price of the valuation fixed by the Government and to arrive at the valuation of the land in question, which was agricultural land. In the said decision, this Court did accept the contention that the valuation made by the Government for allotment of the land to an institution or any citizen, deserved to be considered for arriving at the marke
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
