Back
1975 Supreme(Gau) 7
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
B. N. SARMA AND D. PATHAK, J.
Kacharigaon Tea Co.Ltd -Appellant
Versus
Collector of Darrang -Respondent
F. A. No. 63 of 1967
Decided On : 03-04-1975
S.R. Khaund and P.K. Goswami, D.K. Hazarika, Govt. Advocate
Awards in previous land acquisition cases for comparable lands and of approximately the same time are admissible as evidence to determine the market value of the acquired land.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - COMPENSATION - SIMILARITY OF LANDS - EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY OF AWARD IN PREVIOUS LAND ACQUISITION CASE - INTEREST UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a tea company, challenged the award of the Collector in a land acquisition case, claiming higher compensation for the acquired land. The appellant relied on an award in a previous land acquisition case involving adjacent land, where compensation was awarded at a higher rate. The appellant also claimed interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on the difference between the amount paid in advance and the amount finally awarded.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the award in the previous land acquisition case was admissible as evidence to determine the market value of the acquired land. The court found that the lands in both cases were similar and adjacent, and that the compensation awarded by the Collector was inadequate. The court also held that the appellant was entitled to interest under Section 34 of the Act on the balance amount of compensation from the date of taking possession till it was paid or deposited.
Issues: 1. Whether the award in the previous land acquisition case was admissible as evidence to determine the market value of the acquired land. 2. Whether the lands in both cases were similar and adjacent. 3. Whether the compensation awarded by the Collector was inadequate. 4. Whether the appellant was entitled to interest under Section 34 of the Act on the balance amount of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the award in the previous land acquisition case was admissible as evidence to determine the market value of the acquired land, relying on a Supreme Court decision which held that awards in previous land acquisition cases for comparable lands and of approximately the same time are good evidence for determination of the market price of land. 2. The court found that the lands in both cases were similar and adjacent, based on the evidence of witnesses and the description of the land in the preliminary notification and declaration under the Land Acquisition Act. 3. The court held that the compensation awarded by the Collector was inadequate, considering the increase in land prices over time and the fact that the appellant's claim for compensation at the same rate as in the previous case was moderate. 4. The court held that the appellant was entitled to interest under Section 34 of the Act on the balance amount of compensation from the date of taking possession till it was paid or deposited, as provided by law.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, reversed the order of the lower court, and ordered the Collector to pay compensation to the appellant for the acquired land at a higher rate, along with additional compensation and interest as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
SARMA, J.:- This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18-9-1967 of the Subordinate Judge, L. A. D. at Tezpur in Misc. L. A. Case No. 59 of 1966 by which he dismissed the application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, filed by the appellant and affirmed the award of the Collector.
2. The Collector of Darrang, by notification No. RLA. 167/64/4 dated 20-6-1964 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) acquired 131 bighas of land belonging to the appellant, viz. The Kacharigaon Tea Co. Ltd. for construction of a Railway Hospital. By his award dated 30-9-1966 the Collector awarded compensation for 109 bighas of high land @ Rs. 1,700/- per bigha and for 22 bighas of low laying land @ Rs. 700/- per bigha. A sum of Rs. 1,95,619.46 paise was awarded as compensation for the trees, tea bushes and houses standing on the high land and a sum of Rs. 59,447.91 P. was awarded as additional compensation under Section 23 (2) of the Act. Total compensation awarded was Rs. 4,56,422.57 P. Out of this amount a sum of Rs. 2,25,617.58 P. was paid in advance on 19-4-1965 at the time of taking advance possession. No interest for the balance amount was given under Section 34 of the Act.
3. Being dissatisfied with the award of the Collector in regard to the compensation awarded for the land, the appellant filed an application under Section 18 of the Act. In this application, the appellant claimed compensation for the land @ Rs. 2,600/- per bigha relying on an award in a previous L. A. case viz. L. A. Case No. 6 of 1961-62 in which 42 bighas of land of the same garden, adjacent to the land of the present case, was acquired and compensation was awarded @ Rs. 2,600/- per bigha. The appellant further claimed interest under Section 34 of the Act. The application under Section 18 of the Act was forwarded by the Collector to the Judge who in his turn transferred the same to the Subordinate Judge for disposal.
4. The appellant examined two witnesses viz. (1) Surjit Singh, who was the Manager of the garden at the relevant time and (2) Rameswar Bhuyan, Head Clerk of the garden. A certified copy of the Award in L. A. Case No. 6 of 1961-62 was filed to prove the rate at which compensation was awarded in that case. The above two witnesses simply proved that the land acquired in the instant case is adjacent to the land acquired in L. A. Case No. 6 of 1961-62 and that the lands are similar. No sale transaction in regard to any neighbouring land could be proved by the appellant to show the market price. The Collector did not adduce any evidence. On a consideration of the evidence adduced by the appellant the learned Sub-ordinate Judge found that the land of the present case is not comparable to the land acquired in the previous case and so no reliance could be placed on the Award in the said case for determining the market value of the land at the time of the preliminary notification. He found that compensation was awarded by the Collector after due consideration of all facts and there was no ground to interfere with his award. The question as to whether the appellant was entitled to get interest under Section 34 of the Act was not considered by him at all. In the above view of the case he affirmed the Collectors award and dismissed the application under Sec. 18. Hence the present appeal.
5. Mr. S. R. Khaund, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that the lands acquired in the instant case are not similar to those of L. A. Case No. 6 of 1961-62 is perverse and against the weight of evidence. According to him it has been amply proved by the evidence on record that 109 bighas of high land are similar and adjacent to the lands acquired in the former L. A. case and there was no justification, whatsoever, for not granting compensation for these 109 bighas of land at the rate of Rs. 2,600/- per bigha as in the previous case. He further
