Back
Dipak Misra, A Mathur J.
State Of M.P. And Anr.
vs
Ahad Brothers
DECIDED ON : 22 January, 1999
LAND ACQUISITION - DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION - LEASEHOLD INTEREST - MARKET VALUE - APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION.
Fact of the Case:
The State Government acquired land for building residential houses under the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value and awarded compensation for the land and trees. The claimant sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act, which was made by the Land Acquisition Officer. The Civil Court found the market value of the land to be Rs. 2/- per sq. ft. and awarded compensation at that rate. The State Government appealed, contending that the claimant was only a licensee or lessee and that the compensation should be determined accordingly.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the claimant was a lessee under the State Government and not the owner of the land. The Court also held that the reference Court had erred in determining the quantum of compensation on the basis of small tracts of land and that the price fixed at Rs. 2/- per sq. ft. was not justified. The Court determined the market value of the land at Rs. 2/- per square yard and apportioned 30% of the compensation to the claimant for their leasehold interest.
Issues: 1. Whether the State Government could have raised the plea in regard to the title of the claimant. 2. Whether the nature of right determined by the reference Court is correct in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Whether the market value as determined by the reference Court is just and proper.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the State Government was entitled to raise the plea in regard to the title of the claimant as this Court had directed for determination of the nature of interest which the claimants had in the land and to what amount of compensation he is entitled to in regard to that right. 2. The Court held that the reference Court had erred in holding that the claimants were the owners of the land and that the correct position was that the claimant was a lessee under the State Government. 3. The Court held that the reference Court had erred in determining the quantum of compensation on the basis of small tracts of land and that the price fixed at Rs. 2/- per sq. ft. was not justified. The Court determined the market value of the land at Rs. 2/- per square yard.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part and the cross-objection was dismissed. The Court determined the market value of the land at Rs. 2/- per square yard and apportioned 30% of the compensation to the claimant for their leasehold interest.
Dipak Misra, J.
1. This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') assailing the correctness of a decision of the Learned IVth Additional District Judge, Bhopal in a reference under Section 18 of the Act.
2. Under a notification dated 23-12-1962 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act land comprising of Khasras Nos. 870, 871, 872, 873 and 1623/873 in possession of the respondent-claimant was acquired by the State Government for building of certain residential houses. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value at the rate of Rs. 450/- per acre and awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for the land and Rs. 6,600/- for trees standing thereon. Being dissatisfied with the determination made by the Land Acquisition Officer the claimant sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act which was duly made by the Land Acquisition Officer. Before the Civil Court the respondent filed a statement of claim alleging that the land in question had potential value as a building site and the market value per square yard was Rs. 4/- at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The claimant also claimed certain amount on account of levelling and improvement of land. Initially the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Bhopal by order dated 31-7-1969 rejected the prayer for enhancement on the ground that no case had been made out. The claimant preferred First Appeal No. 82/69 whereby this Court allowed the appeal and directed the reference Court to decide the matter afresh on the basis of the market value prevailing on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. After the matter was remanded the reference Court took up the matter afresh for adjudication. Evidence was adduced by both the parties whereupon the learned Additional District Judge found the market value of land to be Rs. 2/- per sq. ft. and awarded compensation at that rate. The reference Court also awarded interest at the rate of 3 per cent per annum and 15 per cent as compensation for compulsory acquisition. The State feeling aggrieved by the said determination preferred First Appeal No. 141/80 before this Court. In appeal the State filed an application for amendment of its reply filed before the reference Court.
Another application was filed seeking permission to file documents to throw light upon the character of the right of the claimant over the disputed land. It was putforth before this Court in the First Appeal that the respondent is only a licensee or at best a lessee and it is that right alone for which the compensation has to be ascertained. This Court partially allowed the application for amendment and permitted two additional pleas to be raised by the State Government. It also allowed the application for taking additional evidence on record. In essence, this Court entertained the defence of the State that the right of the claimant over the land in question requires to be determined as that would be the essential factor for determination of compensation. As this Court permitted the pleas to be raised, it was thought appropriate to remand the matter. For clarity it is apposite to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment passed by this Court while remanding the matter :-
"3. Since the plea which we have permitted to be raised by the appellant by an amendment goes to the root of the matter and relates to the claimant's right in the land acquired, the matter has to go back to the Additional District Judge for first determining the right of the claimant in the land and then to determine the market value of those rights on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Shri Nihalani, learned counsel for the respondent, however, argued that this Court may retain the seisin and direct enquiry by the Additional District Judge after framing issue. We feel that it is not feasible to adopt such a course in the present case. This is so because the claimant has practically a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
