2014 Supreme(Raj) 980
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Alok Sharma, J.
Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Ginni International Ltd. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1889 of 2013.
Decided On : 14-02-2014
For the Appellant-RIICO:Ajeet Bhandari, Advocate.
For the Applicant-Respondent:Mahendra Singh with Parikshit Singh, Advocates.
The burden of proof lies on the applicant seeking enhancement of compensation to prove the market value of the land acquired as of the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION - BURDEN OF PROOF - EVIDENCE OF MARKET VALUE - DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION - CONVERSION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND TO RESIDENTIAL USE - DELAY IN USER - EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-RIICO acquired land for the extension of an industrial area. The respondent, whose land was acquired, filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, seeking enhanced compensation. The lower court allowed the reference and enhanced the compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the burden of proof lies on the applicant seeking enhancement of compensation to prove the market value of the land acquired as of the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894. The court found that the respondent-applicant failed to adduce any evidence of probative worth to support the enhancement of compensation. The court also held that the determination of compensation based on the sale price of the land several years subsequent to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 was illegal.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent-applicant discharged the burden of proof to justify the enhancement of compensation? 2. Whether the lower court erred in determining the compensation based on the sale price of the land several years subsequent to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the respondent-applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof to justify the enhancement of compensation. The court found that the respondent-applicant did not adduce any evidence of probative worth to support the enhancement of compensation. 2. The court held that the lower court erred in determining the compensation based on the sale price of the land several years subsequent to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894. The court held that compensation cannot be determined on the basis of mere surmises, conjecture, and extrapolation/approximation with reference to the sale price of the land several years subsequent to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the order of the lower court and remanded the matter for decision on the matter afresh based on evidence with regard to the market price of the land acquired as of the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, treating the land to be residential in nature.
JUDGMENT
1. - This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1894') has been filed against the order dated 06.03.2013, passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Alwar in case No.38/101/2006, whereby the reference at the instance of the applicant-respondent under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 was allowed and the award dated 10.04.2006, passed by the Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter 'LAO') for a sum of Rs. 51,26,766/- enhanced to Rs. 1,32,80,000/- plus solatium amount @ 30% thereof in terms of Section 23(2) of the Act of 1894 and an additional amount @ 12% p.a. from the date of the notification i.e. 12.09.2005 till the date of payment in terms of Section 23(1A) of the Act of 1894.
2. The facts of the case are that the State Government issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 on 12.09.2005 for acquisition of about 431.82 hectare land for extension of Industrial Area Nimrana, in villages Janksinghpura, Madhosinghpura, Kali Pahadi, Majrakath in Tehsil Behror, District Alwar. Due compliance's having been made with the procedural provisions under the Act of 1894, an award came to be passed by the LAO on 10.04.2006. The award included the land of the respondent as it was recorded as the owner and in possession of 0.83 hectare land in village Majarakath. Thus sum found payable to the respondent as compensation was Rs. 51,26,766/- payable on all count under the Act of 1894. On an application made by the respondent to the LAO expressing dissatisfaction with the amount of compensation and seeking enhanced compensation, a reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 was made to the competent civil court. By the impugned order dated 06.03.2013, the compensation has been enhanced as detailed here-in-above. Hence this appeal.
3. Mr. Ajeet Bhandari, appearing for the appellant-RIICO, has made twofold submissions. The first contention is that the impugned order dated 06.03.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Alwar is vitiated on account of the fact that the land acquired by the appellant-RIICO has been considered to be residential in nature and not agricultural as was found by the Land Acquisition Officer. It was submitted that albeit vide order dated 24.01.1996 (Ex-2 ) and order dated 31.01.1996 (Ex-3) as also another order dated 30.01.1996 (Ex-4), the land in the ownership of the respondent was converted from agricultural to residential, yet the conversion was conditional upon the land being put to residential use within a period of two years. He submits that the land was not so used within two years and even till the date of the notification i.e. 12.09.2005 and its ultimate acquisition. Consequently the land in issue should have been deemed to have reverted to its original nature and character of agricultural land. Counsel has invoked Section 90A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1956') in support of his argument and submitted that breach of condition of the conversion to residential user in fact entailed the respondent rendered a trespasser in his own land and for from enhanced compensation as granted by the lower court, the respondent was entitled to any compensation whatsoever. That argument however overlooks the fact that the respondent was not so treated even by the LAO in his award dated 10.04.2006 and indeed granted a lower compensation and in fact granted compensation of Rs. 51,26,766/-. That aspect aside, as the argument has been made, it would be appropriate to reproduce Sub-sections 2, 3, 4, & 5 of Section 90A of the Act of 1956.
90A- Use of agricultural land for non-agricultural purpose :
(1) ...............
(2) Any such person desiring to use such land or any part thereof for any purpose other than that of agricultural shall apply for the requisite permission in the prescribed manner and to the prescribed officer or authority and every such application shall contain the prescribed particulars.
(3) The State Government shall, after making o
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
