Back
1998 Supreme(All) 433
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Palok Basu, S.Rafat Alam
KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI BAREILLY
Versus
MALIK SARTAJ WALI KHAN BAHADUR AND SHAHANSHAH WALI KHAN
Decided On : 16 April 1998
First Appeal No. 1144 of 1988
B.D.MADHYAN, MURLIDHAR,
The principles for determining compensation for acquired land, the applicability of the Amending Act 68 of 1984, and the entitlement to interest and solatium in land acquisition proceedings.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - COMPENSATION - ENHANCEMENT - PRINCIPLES - APPLICABILITY OF AMENDING ACT 68 OF 1984 - INTEREST AND SOLATIUM.
Fact of the Case:
Land acquisition proceedings were initiated for acquiring 77.80 acres of land in village Biharman Nagla Pargana Tahsil and District Bareilly. The S.L.A.O. awarded compensation of Rs. 1,16,997/- and solatium at the rate of 15%, totaling Rs. 5,61,179.38. The District Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 12,24,500/- and solatium at the rate of 30% on the enhanced amount. The acquiring authority challenged the enhancement.
Finding of the Court:
The District Judge was justified in relying on the sale deed indicating the sale of nearby land in August 1970 at the rate of Rs. 7/- per sq. yard, considering the evidence of the witness who testified about the sale and the proximity of the acquired land to the sold land. The District Judge correctly applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in determining the market value of the land and in reducing the sale price from Rs. 7/- per sq. yard to Rs. 5/- per sq. yard, considering the need for development charges. The District Judge was justified in treating a portion of the acquired land as grove land and awarding separate compensation for it based on his inspection notes. The Amending Act 68 of 1984 was applicable to the case, and the respondent was entitled to interest at the rate of 9% from the date of dispossession, but not to the enhanced rate of interest of 15% claimed by him.
Issues: 1. Whether the District Judge was justified in relying on the sale deed of 1970 indicating the sale of nearby land at the rate of Rs. 7/- per sq. yard and in not relying on the sale deed of February 1972 relied upon by the S.L.A.O.? 2. If reliance could be placed on the sale deed of 1972, what amount should have been deducted by the District Judge towards possible development charges? 3. Whether grove land principles should have been applied by the District Judge and whether it should have been treated only as agricultural land as held by the S.L.A.O.? 4. Whether the Amending Act No. 68 of 1984 was wrongly pressed by the respondent and whether the matter should have been decided on the rates of interest and solatium payable before the Amending Act came into force?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The District Judge was justified in relying on the sale deed of 1970 as it was a bonafide sale and the witness's testimony supported the sale price. The sale deed of 1972 relied upon by the S.L.A.O. was between relatives and could not be the sole basis for determining compensation. 2. The District Judge correctly applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in determining the market value of the land and in reducing the sale price from Rs. 7/- per sq. yard to Rs. 5/- per sq. yard, considering the need for development charges. 3. The District Judge was justified in treating a portion of the acquired land as grove land and awarding separate compensation for it based on his inspection notes. 4. The Amending Act 68 of 1984 was applicable to the case, and the respondent was entitled to interest at the rate of 9% from the date of dispossession, but not to the enhanced rate of interest of 15% claimed by him, as the delay in hearing the reference was not attributable to the acquiring authority.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with a modification in the award and decree, correcting a typing error in the amount to be paid to the respondent.
Against S. L. AO. s award dated 22-2-1973 the respondent, Malik Sartaj Wali Khan filed Land Ac quisition Reference No. 13 of 1974 before the District Judge, Bareilly which has come to be decided by Vlth Additional District Judge, Bareilly on 30-10-1987.
2. The acquisition related to a total area of the land measuring 77. 80 acres in village Biharman Nagla Pargana Tahsil and District Bareilly. There is no dispute with regard to the compensation which was awarded with regard to the building (Kothi) tube-well, timber trees and drains etc. which have been priced at Rs. 72,000/ -. The main dispute centers round the com pensation payable with regard to open land included in the said acquisition proceedings. The notification under Sec tion 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in 29-4-1972 followed by the notification under Section 6 on 25-5-1972, whereafter possession of the land was taken under Section 17 doing away with. the formalities of Section 5 (A) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).
3. The S. L. A. O. held that total sum of Rs. 1,16,997/- was payable to the respon dents as compensation for the land. Ad ding solatium at the rate of 15% he held that Rs. 5,61,179. 38 p. was payable. The Additional District Judge in his order has enhanced the said amount and has held that total compensation should be paid to the respondent amounting to Rs. 12,24,5007 -. He further held that since Rs. 1,16. 997/- stood already paid to the respondent under the S. L. A. p. s award, the respondent was, thus, entitled to be paid compensation amounting to Rs. 11,07,5007- only as excess market price of the land measuring 50. 61 acres. On this amount he held that interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of dispossession, i. e. 25-5-1972, was payable to the respondent and further that solatium at the rate of 30% on the amount of compen sation was also to be paid to the respon dent.
4. Feeling aggrieved, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Bareilly, who was a beneficiary of the acquisition proceedings, as the land was earmarked for marketyard to be established for the Samiti, has come up in appeal.
5. Sri B. D. Madhyan, learned Coun sel for the appellant, has been heard at extensive length and Sri Murlidhar as sisted by Sri Pankaj Naqvi has also been heard in detail, who sponsored the cause of the respondent, the land owner. Learned Counsel for the parties requested that they may be permitted to file written arguments in order to put their oral arguments black and white, which request was accepted. Sri Madhyan as well as Sri Naqvi has filed their respective written arguments. It may be added that apart from six grounds men tioned in the written arguments typo graphically Sri B. D. Madhyan has added two further grounds by pen and numbered them as 7 and 8.
6. The gist of the arguments advanced is:
(1) Whether the District Judge was jus tified in relying upon the sale-deed filed by the respondent indicating the sale of nearby land in August, 1970 by Bareilly House Building Cor poration Ltd. in favour of Avas Vikas Parishad at the rate of Rs. 7/- per sq. yard and in that process was he justified in not placing reliance on the only exemplar relied upon by the S. L. A. O. which was a sale-deed executed in february, 1972 relating to adjoining land sold out through that deed?
(2) If it is held that reliance could be placed on the aforesaid sale-deed of 1972 in order to make enhanced payment of compensa tion, what amount should have been deducted by the District Judge towards possible develop ment charges. In this connection it was said that the District Judge should not have relied upon the resolution of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti offering Rs, 4,00,000/- lump sum for the entire acquisitioned land to the respondent as agreed price.
(3) Grove land principles should not have been applied by the District Judge and it should have been treated only as agricultural land as was held by the S. L. A. O. It was further ar
