Back
2006 Supreme(MP) 835
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
A.M. Sapre and N.K. Modi, JJ.
M.P. Housing Board, Circle Ujjain Deputy Commissioner
Vs.
Aman Griha Nirman Samstha Maryadit, Ujjain and others
First Appeal No. 77 of 1994
Decided on : 18.7.2006
Smt. Meena Chafekar for appellant
M.K. Jain for respondents
Headnote:(1) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- S.23 -- agricultural land -- acquisition cannot be made as developed land without proof of performance of development activities -- without such proof the land shall be regarded as agricultural land only. (2003) 1 SCC 354 followed. [Para 9
(2) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- S.23 -- agricultural land -- determination of price for acquisition -- can be made in hectares/acres only -- cannot be converted to sq.ft. -- it is ‘wrong principle ‘. 1997(1) JLJ 117 (SC) followed. [Paras 7 & 10
(3) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- S.23 -- determination of value of acquired land -- sale-deeds in favour of land owner executed one year earlier -- are best proof -- 15% yearly increase may also be awarded with other statutory amounts alongwith interests. (2004)2 SCC 283 followed. [Paras 15, 16 & 20
¼1½ Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894 && /kkjk 23 && d`f"kd Hkwfe && fodkl xfrfof/k;k¡ fu"ikfnr gksus ds lcwr ds fcuk] fodflr Hkwfe ds :i esa vtZu ugha fd;k tk ldrk&& ,sls lcwr ds fcuk Hkwfe d`f"kd Hkwfe gh ekuh tk,xhA ¼2003½ 1 ,l lh lh 354 vuqlfjrA
¼iSjk 9½
¼2½ Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894 && /kkjk 23 && d`f"kd Hkwfe && vtZu ds fy, dher dk vo/kkj.k && dsoy gsDVs;j@,dM+ esa fd;k tk ldrk gS&& oxZQwV esa laifjofrZr ugha fd;k tk ldrk && ;g ^xyr fl)kar* gSA 1997 ¼1½ ts ,y ts 117 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA
¼iSjk 7 ,oa 10½
¼3½ Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894 && /kkjk 23 && vftZr Hkwfe ds ewY; dk vo/kkj.k && Hkwfe ds Lokeh ds i{k esa ,d o"kZ iwoZ fu"ikfnr fodz;&foys[k && loZJs"B lcwr gS && C;kt lfgr vU; dkuwuh jdeksa ds lkFk 15% okf"kZd o`f) Hkh vf/kfu.khZr dh tk ldrh gSA ¼2004½2 ,l lh lh 283 vuqlfjrA
¼iSjk 15] 16 ,oa 20½
Sapre, J. –
1. This is an appeal filed by M.P. Housing Board, Ujjain, under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short called "the Act") against an award, dated 22.1.1994, passed by learned IV Additional District Judge, Ujjain, in Reference Case No. 23 of 1990. Facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal need mentioned in detail so as to appreciate the controversy both on facts and law in its proper perspective.
2. In exercise of powers conferred by section 4 of the Act, the State of M.P. issued notification on 25/27.3.1988 for acquisition of large chunk of land measuring 21.533 hectares, situated in village Makodia Aam in district Ujjain. This was followed by declaration issued under section 6 of the Act, published on 22.4.1988. The acquisition was for housing scheme made by Housing Board (appellant herein) under the Adhiniyam. The acquired land also included the land belonging to respondent society, measuring around 2.854 hectares bearing Survey No. 1493, 1494, 1495 and 1496. Then followed the proceedings for determination of compensation payable to several landowners including that of the respondents under section 11 of the Act before LAO. By award dated 6.4.1990, the LAO awarded the compensation to all landowners including the respondents at the rate of Rs. 2,48,873/- per hectare. In other words, according to LAO the market rate of land in question on the date of acquisition was Rs. 2,48,873/- per hectare. The landowner-respondents were dissatisfied with the determination made by LAO and hence they sought reference under section 18 of the Act to civil Court. It was acceded to by the Collector and accordingly, the reference out of which this appeal arises was made to civil Court. By award impugned herein, the reference Court/civil Court allowed the reference and awarded compensation to the respondent at the rate of Rs.4.50 per sq. ft. In other words, while enhancing the rate, the reference Court determined the same at Rs.4.50 per sq. ft as against what the LAO had awarded at the rate of per hectare. As a result of awarding the compensation at per sq.ft. rate by the reference Court, the compensation became just double in terms of hectare as against what was awarded by LAO. In other words, if the LAO awarded compensation at the rate of s.2,48,873/- per hectare, the reference Court, on calculation at sq.ft. rate, enhanced the same and awarded at the rate of Rs4,84,200/- per hectare, i.e., equivalent to Rs.4.50 per sq.ft. It is against this award enhancing the compensation, the M.P, Housing Board, for whose benefit the land was acquired and who has to pay the compensation from its corpus, has felt aggrieved and filed this appeal.
3. Heard Smt. Meena Chafekar, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri M.K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant, i.e., M.P. Housing Board, while assailing the very basis of the determination made by the reference Court, contended that it is not only faulty but is against the law laid down by Supreme Court in the case reported in 1997(1) JLJ 117=(1997)2 SCC 487 [State of M.P. v. Harishankar Gael and others]. According to learned counsel when admitedly the acquired land was an agricultural land duly recorded as agricultural land in revenue records and whose compensation was determined by LAO in hectare, the reference Court committed manifest error of law in determining the rate in sq. ft. It was contended that such conversion is already held illegal by the Supreme Court in the case of Harishankar (supra). It was contended that reference Court was, therefore, under legal obligation to have determined the market value of land on the basis of per hectare alike LAO and should have seen as to whether any case for enhancement in per hectare is made out on evidence adduced? Learned counsel contended that in the absence of any evidence being adduced by the claimant landowner to prove the market rate of the land, no case whatsoever was made out for an
