1996 Supreme(Raj) 1101
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
B.R.Arora, A.S.Godara, JJ.
Border Security Force and Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Land Acquisition Officer and Ors. - Respondent
D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 27 of 1988.
Decided On : 3-07-1996
The market value of an agricultural land can be determined by the Comparable Sale Method, taking into consideration the situation, locality advantages, i.e., irrigation facilities, the nature of soil etc. However, the future potentiality of the land cannot be taken into consideration while determining the compensation.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - COMPENSATION - DETERMINATION - METHOD - CAPITALISATION METHOD - COMPARABLE SALE METHOD - POTENTIALITY OF LAND - SOLATIUM - INTEREST - SECTION 23(1-A) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the acquisition of agricultural land by the State Government for the Border Security Force. The claimants filed a claim for compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation, which was enhanced by the Civil Judge. The State and the Border Security Force filed appeals challenging the enhanced compensation. The claimants also filed an appeal challenging the inadequacy of the compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the learned Single Judge was justified in adopting the Comparable Sale Method for determining the market value of the land, taking into consideration the genuine and bonafide sale of land situated opposite to the acquired land. The court also held that the learned Single Judge was not justified in awarding 25% of the compensation on the total value of the land for the future potential value of the land, as Section 24 Clause Fifthly of the Act prohibits taking into consideration the future user to which the land will be put when acquired. The court further held that the learned Single Judge was justified in awarding solatium and interest at the enhanced rate on the basis of the agreement arrived at between the parties.
Issues: 1. Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in adopting the Comparable Sale Method for determining the market value of the land? 2. Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in awarding 25% of the compensation on the total value of the land for the future potential value of the land? 3. Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in awarding solatium and interest at the enhanced rate on the basis of the agreement arrived at between the parties?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Comparable Sale Method is a good method for determination of the market value of an agricultural land, taking into consideration the situation, locality advantages, i.e., irrigation facilities, the nature of soil etc. 2. The court held that Section 24 Clause Fifthly of the Act prohibits taking into consideration the future potentiality of the land when determining the compensation. 3. The court held that the appellants cannot be permitted to challenge the judgment passed on the basis of the agreement between the parties, in the absence of any ground challenging the finding or the Judgment of this point in the memo of appeal.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the appellants was partly allowed. The amount of Rs. 48,270/-, i.e., 25% awarded by the learned Single Judge for the future potential value of the land, was ordered to be deducted from the amount of compensation. The rest of the award/compensation granted by the learned Single Judge did not require any interference. The claimants were entitled for the compensation amounting to Rs. 1,93,080/- only as the price of the land.
JUDGMENT
1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated February 11,1988 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge allowed S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 104 of 1979 filed by the claimants and enhanced the compensation awarded by the learned Civil Judge and also, granted solatium @ 30% and enhanced the rate of interest on the amount of compensation.
2. Fifty-seven Bighas eleven Bishwas of land belonging to Balveer Singh and Raghuvir Singh bearing Khasra Numbers 1620, 1621, 1622 and 1625 situated on Mandore Road, Jodhpur was acquired by the State Government for the purpose of Border Security Force. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, 'the Act') that the land is needed for Border Security Force, was issued and published in the gazette on 22-1-68. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act that the land is required for public purposes, with respect to this land was issued on 24-2-68 and the possession over the land was taken on 10-6-1968. Claimants Balveer Singh and Raghuvir Singh, after the acquisition of their land, filed their claims before the Land Acquisition Officer for the grant of compensation of Rs. 4,59,008.66 p. Oct of this Rs. 2,56,687/- were claimed as the cost of the land, Rs. 1,02,921/-were claimed as the cost of the building and construction raised on the land, Rs. 81,400/- were claimed as the cost of the trees, Rs. 10,000/-were claimed as the cost of manure used for agricultural purposes and Rs. 14,000/- were claimed as the general damages. The Land Acquisition Officer, Jodhpur, by his Order dated 23.6.69 awarded the compensation with respect to the cost of land amounting to Rs. 52,650/-, the cost of the building and construction at Rs. 61,347.96p. and cost of manure at Rs. 7500/-. The compensation for the cost of the trees was not determined at that time, which was later-on determined by the Land Acquisition Officer by its Award dated 31.7.69 and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation of Rs. 8515/- as the cost of the trees. The Land Acquisition Officer, however, dismissed the claim of the claimants for the award of Rs. 14,000/- as the general damages. Thus, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded, in all, the compensation of Rs. l,30,912.94p.
3. The claimants, aggrieved with the inadequacy of the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, filed an application under Section 18 of the Act for making a reference to the Civil Court and the matter was referred to the Civil Judge for determination of the adequate amount of compensation. The Border Security Force and the State, also, filed Cross Objections before the learned Civil Judge, which were treated as the applications under Section 18 of the Act. The learned Civil Judge, by his Award dated 31-5-79, allowed the application under Section 18 of the Act filed by the claimants and enhanced the amount of compensation for the cost of land from 52,650/- to Rs. l,06,179.75p. and the cost of the trees from Rs. 8,515/- to Rs. 59,940/- and maintained the compensation so far as the building and the construction over the land as well as the cost of the manure are concerned. The learned Civil Judge also, maintained the order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer regarding rejection of amount of claim against the general damages. The learned Civil Judge, also, awarded the interest @ 4% per annum. Thus, the total compensation, awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was enhanced from Rs. l,30,912.96p. to Rs. 2,31,967.71p.
4. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned Civil Judge enhancing the compensation from Rs. 1,30,912.96p. to Rs. 2,31,967.71p., the State filed S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 122 of 1979 against the excessive quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Civil Judge; the Border Security Force, also, filed S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 102 of 1979 hallenglng the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Civil Judge. The claimants, also, filed
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
