Back
2023 Supreme(J&K) 200
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Rajnesh Oswal, J.
Choudhary Mohd. Khan - Petitioner
Versus
Collector Land Acquisition, Jammu - Respondent
CFA No. 20 of 2013 (O&M)
Decided On : 10-08-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Intikhab H. Shah, Adv.
For the Respondent: Ms. Priyanka Bhat, Adv. Vice, Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG
The determination of compensation for acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act requires concrete evidence of market value and does not admit hearsay.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Compensation - Land Acquisition Act - Section 18
Fact of the Case:
The predecessor-in-interest of the appellant filed for reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act after being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Collector. The reference court subsequently enhanced the compensation, leading to the appellant's appeal for further enhancement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant did not sufficiently prove the market value of the land, and the communication from the Tehsildar R. S. Pura was based on hearsay. The court upheld the award passed by the reference court, dismissing the appeal for further enhancement of compensation.
Issues: The court addressed the appreciation of evidence and the basis for the Tehsildar's assessment of the market value.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for concrete evidence of market value and the inadmissibility of hearsay in determining compensation for acquired land.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the record was to be sent back forthwith.
JUDGMENT :
1. The Collector, Land Acquisition, Jammu, Assistant Commissioner, (R) (for short ‘the Collector’) vide award dated 26.07.2004 determined the market rate of the land at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per kanal, for acquisition of 45 kanals and 5 marlas of the land of the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellant was not satisfied with the award and as such, he filed an application for making reference in terms of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The prayer of the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant was acceded to by the Collector and reference was made before the Principal District Judge, Jammu which was subsequently transferred to the court of 2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the reference court’).
2. The reference court framed the following issues:
“(1) whether the compensation awarded by the Collector was not in accordance with market rate, prevalent at the time of acquisition or the land in question? If so, what was the market rate, prevalent at the time of acquisition of the land in question (OPP)
(2) whether the reference is time barred? (OPR)
(3) Relief. (OP Parties).”
3. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellant in fact had died before the passing of the award by the reference court but the reference court was not informed about the same and the counsel for the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant argued the matter, leading to the passing of the award dated 06.09.2012, whereby the compensation was enhanced and the market value of the land was fixed at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per kanal. The appellant not satisfied with the enhancement of the compensation by the reference court, has assailed the judgment dated 06.09.2012 of the reference court in the present appeal and has prayed for enhancement of the compensation to Rs. 1 lac per kanal on the ground that the reference court has not appreciated the statements of the witnesses produced by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant, as the witnesses were not cross-examined by other side and his evidence remained un-rebutted. It is also stated that the land has been sold in the month of September, 2002 at a sale consideration of Rs.1.00 lac per kanal only and the Tehsildar, R. S. Pura had conveyed that the prevailing market rate of the land was Rs. 1.00 lac per kanal.
4. Mr. I. H. Shah, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned reference court has neither properly appreciated the unrebutted evidence led by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant nor the communication addressed by the Tehsildar R. S. Pura to the Collector wherein he had stated that prevailing market rate of the land was Rs. 1.00 lac per kanal.
5. Per contra, Ms. Priyanka Bhat, learned counsel appearing vice Ms. Monika Kohli, representing respondent vehemently argued that the learned reference court has rightly passed the award as the agreement to sell executed by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant cannot be considered for the purpose of determining the market value of the land and it is only the sale deed of the land that can be considered for the purpose of determining the compensation.
6. Heard and perused the record.
7. The grievance projected by the appellant in the present appeal is twofold:
(1) that the learned reference court did not appreciate the un-rebutted evidence led by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant and also ignored the agreement to sell executed in the year, 2002. (2) that the learned reference court has not appreciated the communication dated 15.03.2003, whereby the Tehsildar, R. S. Pura had stated that the present market value of the agriculture land is Rs. 5000/- per marlas (i.e. Rs. one lac per kanal).
Issue No. 1
8 A perusal of the application filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant reveals that he had stated that the market rate of the land at the time of the notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act w
