IMPORTANT POINT
The burden of proving market value in land acquisition cases lies with the State, which must provide adequate evidence; the highest exemplars should be prioritized in determining compensation.

JUDGMENT :

(DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.)

Heard Mr. R. Dubey, the learned counsel for the appellant in the batch of Appeals. Ms. M. D. Choudhury, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondents; Mr. J. Handique, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Revenue Department and Ms. K. Phukan, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the District Collector.

2. Taking into account that vide the impugned common judgment and award dated 30.05.2015; 49 reference cases were disposed of in connection with LA Case No.27/1995, this Court takes up all these Appeals together for final disposal.

3. The land which was acquired in connection with LA Case No.27/1995 is for the purpose of expansion of the GNB Airport at Guwahati. In other words, the lands in question were adjacent to an existing airport. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act of 1894’) was published on 16.11.1996 invoking the urgent provisions and subsequently on 18.11.1996, the declaration was made. This aspect of the matter assumes importance in as much as the landowners did not get an opportunity for the purpose of objecting the acquisition proceedings which is otherwise a statutory right under Section 5A of the Act of 1894. Thereupon, an award was passed and the market value of the land being assessed at Rs.1 lakh per bigha. It would be apposite herein to take note of that the land measurement system in the Brahmaputra Valley of the State of Assam stipulates that 144 square feet is equivalent to 1 lecha; 20 lechas is 1 katha and 5 katha is 1 bigha. Therefore, the market value which was assessed by the Collector in its award was Rs.20,000/- per katha.

4. The respondents in the present Appeals as claimants being aggrieved by the inadequacy of compensation submitted applications under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 claiming that the compensation so awarded was far too less. It was stated in their applications that the market value of the said land at that relevant point of time was Rs.4 lakh per bigha which comes to Rs.80,000/- per katha. In the said applications seeking reference, the claimants further mentioned about the characteristics of the land which were acquired, the future potentiality of the land and the factors denoting the market sentiments. This aspect is important in as much as if in the circumstances of this case, this Court is of the opinion that the singular sale exemplar which was taken into account in passing the impugned judgment and award was not the proper exemplar, this Court may have to invoke the principle of guesstimation. In the reference applications, it was mentioned that acquired land was situated in an important location adjacent to the market, schools, hospitals, airport authority, air force station and various other important institutions. It was further mentioned that the acquired land had got great demand for various upliftments by the Governments, both Central and the State as the acquired land and the neighboring lands were free from flood trouble and the value of the land was going higher from day to day.

5. Upon filing of the said reference applications, the Collector in terms with Section 19 of the Act of 1894 made the references to the Court of the District Judge, Kamrup (as it was then). In terms with Section 20 of the Act of 1894, notices were issued to both the Collector as well as the Airport Authority of India who was the beneficiary of the acquisition proceedings.

6. The Collector did not file any objection in the said reference proceedings. However, the Airport Authority of India had submitted their objection on 01.06.2013. In the said objection so filed by the Airport Authority of India, it was mentioned that the determination of the market value of the acquired land at Rs.1 lakh per bigha, i.e. Rs.20,000/- per katha was rightly assessed. It was also mentioned that the claimants were further given ad