SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Raj) 1132

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Arun Bhansali, J.
Union of India - Appellant
Versus
LRs. of Smt. Ratan Kaur - Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1552, 1550, 1551, 1543, etc. etc. of 2004.
Decided On : 27-04-2013

For the Appellant:Mr. Falgun Buch, Mr. Dinesh Godara and Mr. V.K. Mathur, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. S.L. Sinwaria, Advocate.

The reference court has jurisdiction to determine the market value of the acquired land afresh and can make a guesstimate of the market value within the parameters indicated by the Supreme Court.

Headnote:

LAND ACQUISITION - ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION - REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - JURISDICTION OF REFERENCE COURT - PARAMETERS FOR DETERMINING MARKET VALUE - POTENTIONALITY OF LAND AS A RELEVANT FACTOR - GUESSTIMATE PRINCIPLE - APPLICATION AND LIMITATIONS.

Fact of the Case:

The Union of India (U.O.I.) acquired land for defense purposes in Jodhpur, Rajasthan, through the Defence Estate Officer. The acquisition was challenged by the landowners, who sought enhanced compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The reference court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 10,000/- per bigha to Rs. 12,000/- per bigha.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the reference court had jurisdiction to determine the market value of the acquired land afresh and that the award of the Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O.) was not binding on it. The court also held that the market value should be determined based on the evidence led by the parties in the reference proceedings and that some amount of guesswork could be made within the parameters indicated by the Supreme Court.

Issues: 1. Whether the reference court had jurisdiction to determine the market value of the acquired land afresh? 2. Whether the award of the L.A.O. was binding on the reference court? 3. What factors should be considered in determining the market value of the acquired land? 4. Whether the reference court could make a guesstimate of the market value?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The reference court has jurisdiction to determine the market value of the acquired land afresh and the award of the L.A.O. is not binding on it. 2. The market value should be determined based on the evidence led by the parties in the reference proceedings. 3. Factors such as the DLC rate, the potentiality of the land, and the presence of amenities in the vicinity should be considered in determining the market value. 4. The reference court can make a guesstimate of the market value within the parameters indicated by the Supreme Court.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals filed by the U.O.I. and upheld the judgment of the reference court enhancing the compensation from Rs. 10,000/- per bigha to Rs. 12,000/- per bigha.

JUDGMENT

1. - These appeals have been filed by the Union of India ('the U.O.I.') under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act') aggrieved by judgment dated 22.12.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Jodhpur; whereby, the references made to it under Section 18 of the Act were accepted and the compensation for land acquired was enhanced from Rs. 10,000/- per bigha as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer ('the L.A.O.') to Rs. 12,000/- per bigha.

2. As the award dated 13.12.1990 by the L.A.O. and the judgment dated 22.12.2003 on reference, by the Additional District Judge, No.2, Jodhpur are common and appeals raise common questions of law and facts, the same are being decided by this common judgment.

3. The facts in brief are that the U.O.I. through Defence Estate Officer acquired land for defence purposes ad measuring 1716.22 acre comprised in various villages including about 976 bigha 12 biswa land situated in village Desuria Kharolan. Notification dated 17.08.1988 under Section 4 of the Act was issued by the Home Department, Government of Rajasthan and the same was published in the newspapers on 18.11.1988. Urgency clause was invoked and Notification under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Act dated 15.12.1988 was issued and published in newspapers on 01.01.1989. Notices were issued under Section 9 to the land owners and the L.A.O. after undertaking the procedure as provided in the Act passed the award on 13.12.1990.

4. The L.A.O. called for the District Level Committee ('the DLC') rates from the Sub Registrar, Jodhpur, who indicated the rate of Rs. 11,600/- per bigha based on sale effected on 19.05.1988. The L.A.O. came to the conclusion that large scale acquisition by the Defence is being undertaken, which would result in reduction in means of maintenance for the agriculturists and they would be permanently affected, several land owners would be rendered landless and, therefore, keeping in view the DLC rates sent by the Sub Registrar, Jodhpur for village Desuria Kharolan and as the land was part of Jodhpur Master Plan, he determined the market value at Rs. 10,000/- per bigha.

5. Aggrieved by the award dated 13.12.1990, the land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act, which was referred to the Additional District Judge No.2, Jodhpur.

6. Before the reference Court the land owners-claimants sought compensation @ Rs. 30,000/- per bigha and also sought enhancement of compensation for the cost of trees etc. In all 13 references were made, whereby, except for change in area of land acquired from them, the basis for enhancement was same and all of them sought compensation @ Rs. 30,000/- per bigha.

7. All the 13 references were consolidated and a reply to the claim applications was filed by the U.O.I. and the claim for enhanced compensation was disputed. It was submitted that the award passed by the L.A.O. was just, proper and adequate and the same did not require any interference.

8. On behalf of the claimants, evidence of PW-1 Gordhan Ram was recorded and on behalf of the U.O.I. evidence of Altaf Hussain DW-1 was recorded. The claimants exhibited several documents while on behalf of the U.O.I. six documents were exhibited.

9. After hearing the parties, the Additional District Judge No.2, Jodhpur vide impugned judgment dated 22.12.2003 rejected the contention of the claimants that they were entitled to a minimum compensation of Rs. 19,360/- per bigha as the said amount was paid to the State Government for acquiring Government land situated in the same area. However, the Additional District Judge No.2, Jodhpur came to the conclusion that vide Exhibit-5 the Sub Registrar, Jodhpur indicated the DLC rate at Rs. 11,600/- per bigha and vide Exhibit-1 sale deed, which was dated 19.05.1988 i.e. four and a half months before the Notification under Section 4 of the Act, the rate comes to Rs. 11,023/- per bigha and, therefore, Rs. 11,023/- is a minimum rate and Rs. 11,600/- is the maximum rate and as at

































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top