Uniform determination of market value based on similar evidence and public purpose upheld under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Sanjay Karol, J.

At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the parties jointly prayed that all these appeals and cross-objections be heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. This was for the reason that notwithstanding the difference in the dates of commencement of acquisition proceedings. Purpose of acquisition being common, and the evidence, similar in nature, so led in six cases, the point in issue is similar. Also the land is situate in an area where there is not much variation in the geographical and topographical conditions. It is also submitted that the Court below itself had consolidated the cases and as desired by the parties, permitted evidence to be led only in six lead cases, which also is similar in nature and except for different sale deeds produced in different cases, pertaining to the period prior to the commencement of acquisition proceedings, other evidence is almost identical.

2. In these appeals arising out of awards dated 30.06.2011, 17.11.2011, 30.11.2011, 08.12.2011, and 19.04.2012, passed by the Court below, in various reference petitions, so filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Court below has uniformly re-determined the market value of the acquired land from Rs. 2,30,000/-per hectare to Rs. 7,20,000/-per hectare.

3. Both the State and the claimants are aggrieved of the same and have filed the instant appeals/cross-objections.

4. Challenge is on two grounds: (a) Court below erred in uniformly determining the market value of the acquired land; and (b) re-determination of the market value is on the higher /lower side.

5. For the public purpose, namely, construction of water source to be constructed by the Irrigation and Public Health Department, in relation to the Shah Nehar Project, Fatehpur, land of all the claimants, situate in Dhoulpur, Rey, Chabbar, Tatwali, Badhukhar and Duhag, came to be acquired. Proceedings for acquisition of the land, under the provisions of the Act, came to be initiated with the publication of different Notifications dated 22.09.1998, 30.01.1999, 11.06.1999, 18.06.1999 and 19.07.2002, so issued under Section 4 of the Act. The proceedings came to be culminated with the awards passed by the Collector Land Acquisition under Section 11 of the Act and the possession of the land being taken over. The Collector Land Acquisition, determined the market value of the land, category wise on different rates as per different awards dated 07.04.2001, 11.01.2001, 10.01.2002, 29.01.2002, 28.04.2003 and 26.12.2003.

6. Dissatisfied with the same, claimants filed various land reference petitions, which came to be clubbed together. The claimants set up a claim seeking re-determination of the market value ranging from Rs. 26 lacs to Rs. 39 lacs, which on the basis of evidence on record was found to be Rs. 7.20 lacs.

7. The question which needs to be considered is as to whether the awards need to be interfered, on the asking of either of the parties or not? Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, Court is of the considered view, that the re-determination of the market value of the acquired land is absolutely just, fair and reasonable.

8. It is not in dispute before this Court, as is also evident from the material placed on record, that the entire acquired land stood fully utilized for the public purpose. Canal stood constructed over the entire acquired land.

9. Now it is a settled principle of law that if the entire land is put for a public use and no area is left out for carrying out any developmental activity, then the claimants are entitled for compensation for the entire acquired land, at uniform rates, regardless of its categorization.

10. The apex Court in Haridwar Development Authority vs. Raghubir Singh & others, (2010) 11 SCC 581 has upheld the award of compensation on uniform rates. Al