Back
1977 Supreme(Gau) 16
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
S. RANGARAJAN AND K. M. LAHIRI, J.
Collector of Kamrup -Appellant
Versus
Ishfaque Hussain and another -Respondent
F. A. No. 32 of 1971 (Analogous to F. A. 33 of 1971)
Decided On : 01-06-1977
G. Sarma in F.A. 32 of 1971, A.C. Deka in F. A. 33 of 1971, Public Prosecutor, J.P. Bhattacharjee and K.B. Pathak, Advocates in F. A. 32 of 1971, B. Sarma and Y. K. Phukan in F. A. 33 of 1971
Awards in previous land acquisition cases relating to comparable lands and contemporaneously made are admissible and are guiding factors for determination of market value of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - COMPENSATION - AWARDS IN PREVIOUS LAND ACQUISITION CASES - ADMISSIBILITY - RELEVANCE - GUIDING FACTORS FOR DETERMINATION OF MARKET VALUE OF LAND ACQUIRED.
Fact of the Case:
The Government of Assam initiated land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the establishment of a Railway Marshalling Yard. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation to the respondents at different rates for their lands. On a reference made by the respondents, the Assistant District Judge No. 2, Gauhati, awarded enhanced compensation. The State and the respondents filed appeals and cross-appeals, respectively.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that awards in previous land acquisition cases relating to comparable lands and contemporaneously made are admissible and are guiding factors for determination of market value of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Issues: Whether awards in previous land acquisition cases are admissible and relevant for determining the market value of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Khaja Faizuddin v. State of Hyderabad and State of Madras v. A. M. Nanjan, as well as the decision of the Gauhati High Court in Kacharigaon Tea Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Darrang, to hold that awards in previous land acquisition cases are admissible and relevant for determining the market value of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court noted that such awards are in the nature of admissions on behalf of the State regarding the value of the land and provide a reliable basis for determining compensation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals filed by the Government and allowed the cross-appeal filed by the respondent in F. A. 32/71, directing the Collector to pay enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 7,500 per bigha for both Basti land and paddy land. The court also directed the Collector to pay interest on the enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of dispossession till the date of payment.
KANGARAJAN, J :- The Judgment in F. A. 32/71 will dispose of F. A. 33/71 also; the respondent in F. A. 32/71 has filed a cross-appeal, but not the respondent in F. A. 33/71. The facts giving rise to these two appeals may be stated briefly; they arise out of the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Government of Assam under (Notification No. RLA-287/59/10 D/- 13-5-60) S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act-hereinafter referred to as the Act - and the declaration under S. 6 of the Act, (No. RLA.287/59/16 D/- 4-10-60). A total extent of 286B-3K-8L of land in village Noonmati was acquired as a part of Project No. IIA (there were also other similar projects I and II) for the establishment of Railway Marshalling Yard. The total extent of land belonging to the respondent in F. A. 32/ 71 is 32B-3K-18L and to the respondent in F. A. 33/71 is 16B-3K-8L. The respondent in F. A. 32/71 was given compensation at the following rates by the Land Acquisition Collector, who will be merely called Collector, at Rs. 3,500 per bigha for 3B-2K-1L; Rs. 3,000 per bigha for 11B-3K-1L and Rs. 2,000 per bigha for 17B-3K-17L. The compensation awarded to the respondent in F. A. 33/71 is as follows:-
At Rs. 3,000 per bigha for 7B-2K-2L; at Rs. 2,500 per bigha for 9B-1K-16L.
2. On a reference made under S. 18 of the Act by both the said respondents the learned Assistant District Judge No. 2, Gauhati (Reference Court) awarded compensation to both the respondents as follows:
The respondent in F. A. 32/71 was awarded Compensation at the rate of Rs. 7,500 per bigha m respect of Basti land (land which could serve as a building site also) and Rs. 7,000 per bigha of paddy land. The Collector was directed to assess the valuation at the above rate and pay the balance of compensation due to each of them along with the additional 15% solatium, but he had directed that the enhanced compensation should be paid by the Land Acquisition Collector within three months from the date of the order dated 2-11-70 (namely, 5-1-71) and that interest of 16% (sic) per annum was payable after expiry of the said three months, namely, 5-1-71, failing compliance with the earlier direction. It is seen, however, on a perusal of Section 28 of the Act, that on the enhanced compensation ordered by the Court, the Collector shall pay interest at the rate of six per cent per annumfrom the date on which he took possession;S. 34 of the Act provides that when the amount of compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of six per cent per annum from the time of taking possession until the amount is so paid. The above direction given by the learned Asstt. District Judge is not in conformity with the above provisions; the proper direction to make is that the interest payable on the enhanced amount isalso,from the date of taking possession till date of payment. The date of taking possession not being known the Collector would ascertain that date and work out the compensation payable to both the respondents in these appeals on that basis.
3. The learned Assistant District Judge recorded the oral testimony of some witnesses and also exhibited certain documents. It may be noticed that the references made at the instance of both the respondents, were heard together and the evidence was recorded in common in both the cases. After examination of the witnesses was over on 3-9-1870, 14-9-70 was fixed for arguments, but arguments were not heard on that day. We And the following note made in the order-sheet maintained in respect of the reference made at the instance of the respondent in F. A. 33/71.
"A certified copy of a judgment is filed and it is marked as Ext. 8."
4. Obviously the same was marked not only without objection but also by consent; without the consent of the counsel for the State the same would not have been exhibited at the instance of the claimant, especially at that late sta
