Back
2018 Supreme(All) 2062
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SUDHIR AGARWAL AND SHASHI KANT, JJ.
M/s. BAJAJ HINDUSTAN LTD. ....Appellant
Versus
RAJENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(First Appeal Nos. 765 of 2012 and 539 of 2013, decided on 6th July, 2018)
Counsel :
Ashish Mishra and Y.S. Bohra for the Appellant; C.S.C., Kunal Ravi Singh and Manjari Singh for the Respondents.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18 – Market value – Determination – When acquisition in dispute commenced, area in vicinity of acquired land had already developed sufficiently – On fact that once industrial development has already taken place, price of land increases very fast – Annual price appreciation taken by Reference Court as ten per cent and for one and half year fifteen percent held much lower – Further land in dispute was yielding three crops every year – It was land owner-claimant’s only source of livelihood – Therefore fifteen per cent annual appreciation allowed which will take total appreciation for one and half years to 22.5 per cent – Further on fact that earlier sale-deed was executed when industrial unit was yet to be established while land in dispute was sought to be acquired after two months of commencement of production of defendant’s industrial unit – Therefore increase of price by 25 per cent held on much lower side and same held not be less than 40 to 50 per cent. [Paras 105 and 106]
(B) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18 – Market value of – Determination – Agreement to sell – Held, is a relevant material for determining market value where it has matured into sale transaction – Agreement for sale relied by any of parties is not to be discarded merely for reason that it is an agreement for sale unless there are other reasons justifying its rejection. [Paras 38 and 39]
(C) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18 – Market value – Determination – Exemplar of small piece of land – Applicability – Held, in absence of any other relevant material Court may determine market value in view of evidence relating to sale price of small developed plots – In such cases deduction varying from 20% to 75% is to apply depending upon nature of development of lay out in which exemplar plot is situated. [Para 69]
(D) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18 – Market value – Determination – Circle rate fixed by Collector for purposes of stamp duty – Not a relevant material unless such determination is under a statutory obligation and after following prescribed procedure.[Para 26]
(E) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18 – Market value – Power – Reference Court – Reference Court does not sit in appeal over Award of Land Acquisition Officer – Material used by Land Acquisition Officer is not open to be used by Court suo motu unless such material is produced by parties and proved independently before Reference Court – Determination of market value has to be made as per market rates prevailing on date of publication of notification under Section 4 (1) of Act, 1894. [Para 20]
Result; Order Accordingly.
By the Court.—Heard Sri Ashish Mishra, Advocate, for appellant and Sri Y.S. Bohra, Advocate, for respondents in First Appeal No. 765 of 2012; and, Sri Y.S. Bohra, Advocate, for appellant; Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, Advocate, and learned Standing Counsel for respondents in First Appeal No. 539 of 2013.
2. Both these appeals have been filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) against same judgment and award dated 26.5.2012 and decree dated 9.7.2012 passed by Sri Sushil Kumar, Special Judge, Bijnore (hereinafter referred to as “Reference Court”) in Land Acquisition Reference (hereinafter referred to as “LAR”) No. 296 of 2009.
3. First Appeal No. 765 of 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “defendant’s appeal”) has been filed by M/S Bajaj Hindustan Limited, a company registered under Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1956”) for whose benefit land in dispute was acquired by State of U.P. through Collector, Bijnor and First Appeal No. 539 of 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “land owner’s appeal”) has been filed by land owner. Reference Court by impugned judgment and award/decree has determined market value for the purpose of payment of compensation of acquired land at the rate of Rs. 17,36,758/- per hectare. It has also directed that land owner shall also be entitled for payment of 30 per cent solatium, 12 per cent additional compensation and interest at the rate 9 per cent and 15 per cent for period of one year from the date of possession and thereafter for remaining period, respectively. Defendant is aggrieved by aforesaid determination of market value and according to it the said rate determined by Reference Court is highly excessive, unjust while on the other hand land owner-claimant is not satisfied with the aforesaid determination and according to it market value determined by Reference Court is still on lower side, unjust and does not determine the correct market value, therefore, it should be enhanced.
4. Only point for determination to decide both these appeals, which has arisen from common judgment, is “whether market value of acquired land determined by Reference Court at the rate of Rs. 17,36,758/- per hectare (Rs. 173.67 per square yard) is just, adequate and denotes correct market value on the date of notification issued under Section 4 of Act, 1894 or it is on higher side as claimed in defendant’s appeal and needs be lowered or it is on lower side and need be enhanced as claimed by land owner-claimant.”
5. Before answering the aforesaid question, it will be appropriate to have a bird eye view of relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the aforesaid issue.
6. Defendant, M/s Bajaj Hindustan Limited is a private company registered under Act, 1956. It proposed to establish a Sugar Mill Unit and for the said purpose identified a place in Village Nangal Jat, Pergana Daranagar, Tehsil and District Bijnor and requested Collector and State Government to acquire land under the provisions of Act, 1894. Consequently, proposing to acquire 1.55 hectare land in village Nangal Jat, a Notification dated 20.12.2005 was published under Section 4(1) read with Section 17 of Act, 1894 in Official Gazette dated 20.12.2005. Subsequently a Corrigendum Notification dated 28.11.2006 was also published in Gazette of same date. Notification under Section 6(1) read with Section 17 of Act, 1894 was published in Official Gazette dated 15.12.2006 and possession of acquired land was taken on 31.12.2007, by Collector. Entire proposed land sought to be acquired belong to land owner-claimant Rajendra Singh, son of late Nihal Singh.
7. After issue of notice under Section 9, by Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as “SLAO”), objection was filed by land owner-claimant on 29.6.2007 requesting for awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 50 lacs per acre. H
