Point of Law : Land Acquisition and Requisition – Acquisition of land - Assessment of compensation - An assessment of the compensation payable for land acquired must take into account several factors, including the nature of the land, its present use and its capacity for a higher potential, its precise location in relation to adjoining land, the use to which neighboring land was put to use, the impact of such use on the land acquired, and so on.

JUDGMENT :

1. On the indent placed by Deputy Director, Horticulture (Planning and Marketing), Srinagar, vide No.DDK/98-99/302/145-50 dated 12.04.1999, the Collector Land Acquisition, Budgam – respondent no.10 herein, initiated proceedings for acquisition of land measuring 48 Kanals and 19 Marlas under survey Nos.3042, 3047, 3048, 3049, 3051, 3052, 3053 at Charisharief, Zaloora. Respondent no.10, after completing formalities and acquisition proceedings passed the Award, fixing Rs.50,000/- per kanal as compensation for all kinds of land. The land owners, however, filed application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, for making reference. Accordingly, respondent no.10, made reference to the court of Principal District Judge, Budgam (for short “Trial Court”).

2. The Trial Court, after recording evidence, came to the conclusion that the owners – respondents herein, were entitled to compensation @ Rs.1.15 lakh per Kanal along with Jabrana @ 15% and also interest @ 6% from the date of filing of Reference. Feeling aggrieved of this order, the indenting department, viz. District Horticulture Officer, Budgam, has filed instant Appeal throwing challenge to judgment and decree dated 27.06.2006, passed in the aforesaid Reference on the grounds mentioned therein.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and also gone through the record of the file.

4. It is contended on behalf of appellant that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence produced before it in its right perspective. It is maintained by appellants that they were not given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. It is also stated though there is no evidence on record to suggest that market value of acquired land was Rs.1.15 lacs, the Trial court wrongly held that the petitioners were entitled to compensation @ Rs.1.15 lac per Kanal. The award was passed by the Collector on the basis of the market value of the land acquired. The rate of interest awarded by Trial Court is also not justifiable when Jabrana was allowed. Appellant has also submitted that there is no evidence to justify the enhancing the compensation from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1.15 lacs per Kanal.

5. As is evident from the record on the file, five witnesses, namely, Ghulam Ahmad Thokar, Abdul Rashid Thokar, Ali Mohmad Thokar, Ab. Rashid Shah and Ghulam Mohmad Mir have been examined and documentary evidence in the shape of Sale Deeds of three years has also been produced before the Trial court.

6. The contention that appellant was not given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses is falsified from the fact, as is also discernible from impugned judgment, that the witnesses have been very much cross-examined by counsel appearing for respondents before Trial Court. All the five witnesses have been cross-examined by counsel appearing for department before Trial Court and questions have been put to witnesses, which fact is also ascertainable from impugned judgment.

7. As regards assessment of compensation for land acquisition matters it has been held by the Supreme Court in Trishala Jain v. State of Uttaranchal (2011) 6 SCC 47, that more often than not, it is not possible to fix compensation with exactitude or arithmetic accuracy. Depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, the court may have to take recourse to some guesswork while determining the fair market value of the land and the consequential amount of compensation that is required to be paid to the persons interested in the acquired land. Paras 42, 43 and 44 of the above judgment are taken note of:

“42. This Court in Bhagwathula Samanna v. Tahsildar & Land Acquisition Officer, stated that it is permissible to take into account exemplars of even small developed plots for determining the value of a large tract of land acquired, if the latter is also fully developed with all the facilities requiring little or no further development. In the facts and circumstance of that case the Court felt that it was not appropriate to resort to deduction