1983 Supreme(MP) 715

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G.G. Sohani, R.K. Vijaywargiya, JJ.
Chhotelal – Appellant
Versus
Additional Collector, Indore – Respondent
F.A. No. 61 of 1974 (I)
Decided On : 04-02-1983

Headnote:(1) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – S. 23 – compensation – determination of – building potential value not taken into account while assessing market value – compensation enhanced.

       (2)Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O. 41, R. 27 – additional evidence – document sought to be produced, coming in existence subsequent to filing of appeal – may be allowed.

        Short Note

       1. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act) is directed against the award and decree dated 29.9.1973 passed by the 6th Additional District Judge, Indore in Misc. Judicial Case No. 29/73.

       2. At the hearing of appeal the appellants have filed an application (I.A. No. 360/83) under O. 41, R. 27, CPC for production of additional evidence. The additional evidence sought to be produced by the appellants is an order dated 27.1.1982 passed by the 9th Additional Judge to the District Judge, Indore in land Acquisition Case No. 1 of 1976. This order pertains to the award of compensation for the land belonging to Nathulal and Mishrilal S/o Bholaram and Jagannath S/o Bhagwan which part of the land acquired by the aforesaid notification.

       3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that this application deserves to be allowed. The award now produced by the appellants also relates to the land acquired by the said notifications and therefore is a relevant piece of evidence. This award came into existence subsequent to the filing of the appeal. The application is therefore allowed and the order dated 27.1.1982 passed by the 9th Additional Judge to the District Judge, Indore in and Acquisition Case No. 1 of 1976 is admitted in evidence. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State silted before us that the respondent has not to produce any evidence in rebuttal of the aforesaid additional evidence.

       4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record we have come to the conclusion that this appeal deserves to be partly allowed. There is no dispute that the land acquired situated within the limits of the Municipal Corporation, Indore and is surrounded by three roads viz. Bombay – Agra Road. Indore – Kannad road and Indore – Khandwa road. Residential colonies had sprung up around the land when it was acquired and the land had great building potential.

       5. The appellants examined Mohanlal (CW – 2) and Kansingh (CW – 3) to prove the market value of the lands in the vicinity which were sold near about the time of acquisition. However Kansingh who was an employee of firm Badrilal Bholaram merely produced three sale – deeds of lands purchased by Badrilal Bholaram. The appellants have not led evidence to prove the said sale deeds. Mohanlal stated that he sold his land measuring 5½ acres for Rs. 70,000/ – which was situate at Jaukinagar, Indore in the years 1960 – 61. Mohanlal has not proved the sale – deed evidencing the sale of the land by him to Badrilal Bholaram.

       6. The Court below, however, does not appear to have taken into account the situation of the land acquired and its building potential in determining the market value thereof at Rs. 25000/ – per acre. Taking into consideration the materials on record in our opinion, the market price of the land acquired on the date of acquisition was not less then Rs. 5000/ – per acre. In the award produced today by the appellants as additional evidence the Court below has awarded compensation of similar land at Rs. 5000/ – per acre. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appellants must be awarded compensation for their land at Rs. 5000/ – acre. Appeal partly allowed.