Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and Others Vs. Executive Engineer, Gujarat and Another
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 506-514 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 5716-5724 of 2000)
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 5716-5724 of 2000)
Petitioner: Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and Others
Respondent: Executive Engineer, Gujarat and Another
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 506-514 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 5716-5724 of 2000)
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 5716-5724 of 2000)
Judges: A.P. MISRA & D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 01, 2001
Head Note:
LAND ACQUISITION
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section 18 – Reference – Compensa-tion – Sufficient evidence led regarding nature and situation of land – Proposed land only two kilometers from township – Award of nearby land relied upon , under which land acquired also falling at same distance – Reference court considering said Award and fixing compensation – High Court also relying upon the said Award but reducing compensation by 25% on grounds that present acquisi-tion is of large area and that land under Award was five kilome-ters away . Held, High Court erred in reducing the compensation. Appeal of claimants allowed. (Paras 12, 13)
Cases Reffered:
1. Officer v. P. Veerabhadrappa (AIR 1984 SC 774) (Para 9)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. We find two sets of appeals , one Civil Appeals Nos. 506-514 of 2001 filed by the claimants and the other Civil Appeal Nos. 515-523 of 2001 filed by the State, challenging the quantum of compensation. These appeals are directed against the judgement and order of the High Court dated 5th November, 1999, partly allowing the State appeal by further reducing the compensation by Rs. 10/- per square meter from the rate of compensation deter-mined at Rs.58/- by the referring court, by its judgement and Award dated 14th October, 1998. The question raised in these appeals filed by the claimants is:
“Whether the High Court was justified in further reducing the market value of the land in question by Rs. 10/- on the facts and circumstances of this case?”
3. The question raised in the State appeals is to the following effect :
“Whether High Court was right in relying upon Ext. 16 instead of placing reliance on Ext. 46, if it erred, had it not committed an error in not further reducing the rate of compensation to be one fixed by it.”
4. As both these two sets of appeals raise the questions which are inter-linked, hence, are being disposed of by means of this common order.
5. Two main reasons on which the High Court has reduced the rate of compensation, one that the distance between the land covered by Ext. 16 and the land in the present case is five kilometers, secondly, the area of land under Ext. 16 is small, viz., about 2 hectares while the area covered in the instant case is large, viz., 20 hectares approximately.
6. In the present case, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on the 1st August, 1991 with nine claimants, which is near the Viramgam town. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 4.50 per square meter against the claim for Rs.60 per square meter. It is not in dispute and is also recorded by the Land Acquisition Officer that neighbouring villages in that area are directly connected with Viramgam town for business, education, industries, etc. and there are ginning pressing factories, nationalised banks, godowns of Food Corporation, offices of Indian Oil Corporation, etc. He further records that the area has potentiality for further development.
7. Claimants aggrieved by the said fixation, filed reference under Section 18 of the Act. The submission made therein is also the submission before us. The submission is, the lands sought to be acquired are situate within 2 kms. from the town of Viramgam which adjoin the railway line in the north. Further, both the land under acquisition and the land under Ext.16 are situated at an equal distance from the said Viramgam town. The acquisition of land under Ext.16 is under Section 4 through notification dated 3rd January, 1991 while acquisition in the present case is later, through notification dated 1st August, 1991. The rate of land under Ext.16 which became final, is Rs.64/- per sq. mtr. The reference court, after considering Ext. 16 and taking into con-siderations fixed the rate of compensation at Rs. 58/- per sq. mtr. Aggrieved by this, the State filed appeals before the High Court. The High Court, as aforesaid, reduced the rate of compensation by Rs.10/- per sq. mtr., thus fixed the compensa-tion at the rate of Rs. 48/- per sq. mtr. Aggrieved by this, the claimants preferred the present aforesaid appeals while the State referred the appeals for further reduction.
8. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. As against reduction, learned Counsel for the claimants strongly relied on Ext. 16 as the land covered under it is of the same village, similarly situ-ated and the acquisition of which was prior then the present acquisition, hence there is no justification for the High Court to reduce the quantum of compensation from Rs. 58/- per sq. mtr. to Rs. 48/- per sq. mtr. The submission is, this reduction by 25% is also not sustainable as High Court reduced it by treating the present acquisition being for a large chunk of land in contrast to the land which is covered under Ext. 16. The submission is, it is not large qua each land holder, it becomes large only if all the land of all the land holders are clubbed together, hence the reduction on this count is not justified.
9. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State relies on the map filed before the High Court which is Annexure P3 to the State appeal. The submission with reference to the map is, Ext. 16 is at a distance of 5 kms. from the present acquired land and Exh. 16 is for a small piece of land. i.e., 2 hectares (approx.) while the present acquisition is for 20 hectares (ap-prox.). The reliance is also placed on Ext. 46 which is also an acquisition in the same village through notification under Sec-tion 4 issued in July, 1987 wherein the amount of compensation fixed was Rs.16/- per sq. mtr. The submission is, if increment of 10% per year is computed, the approximate rate of compensation would come to Rs. 23/- per sq. mtr. It is not necessary to dwell on this, as we find the reliance on Ext. 46 has been rejected both by the referring court and also by the High Court , based on good reasoning. The submission on behalf of State was also for fixation of market value based on yield method which was also rejected by both the said courts. The High Court for this relied on Special Land Acquisition Officer v. P.Veerabhadrappa (AIR 1984 SC 774), to hold yield method can be referred only when there is no other evidence in the form of sale transaction or opinion of experts available .In the present case, the claimants had adduced sufficient evidence describing nature and situation of the ac-quired lands to be similar to other acquired lands of the same village, with special reference to Ext.16.
10. Next, in the present case, we find the High Court rightly relied on Ext.16 which is the foundation of the submission on behalf of the claimants. The High Court with reference to this records :
“As observed earlier, it was neither brought to the notice of the reference court nor was it brought to the notice of this Court that the previous Award Ext.16 of the reference court was in any manner modified by the Appellate Court. Therefore, in our opinion, Award Ext.16 had become final between the parties. The respondents had led sufficient evidence to show that the acquired lands of award Ext. 16 and the acquired lands in the present case, were in all respects similar lands. It was never brought to the notice of the court that the lands acquired in the present case have certain disadvantages in comparison to the agricultural lands of Award Ext.16 which were previously acquired. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the reference court was justified in placing reliance on the previous Award Ext.16 of the reference court.”
11. After accepting this Award, Ext.16 as the foundation while fixing the compensation, it fell into error when it reduced the compensation by 25%. The reason for doing so by the High Court is reproduced below:
“Therefore, if Award Ext.16 is to be taken as the basis for the purpose of determination of the market value of the acquired lands in the present case, some deduction will have to be made. At the same time, because of the distance between the village site and the acquired lands, which was more than the distance between the village site and the acquired lands of Award Ext.16, some deduction shall also have to be made. In our opinion, if the deduction of large area and small area, coupled with further deduction for distance is made in the present case, then it would be reasonable to deduct 25% from the market price arrived at in respect of the acquired lands of Award Ext.16.”
12. As we have said above, the High Court fell into error by reducing the quantum of compensation on this basis. The reduction has been made for two reasons, one that the present acquisition is of a larger area and the second, the distance between the land under acquisition and in Ext.16, is about 5 kms. With reference to the question of acquisition being of a larger area, the error is, when we scan, we find for the acquisition of each land owner, it could not be said that the acquisition is of a large area. Largeness is merely when each landholder’s land is clubbed to-gether; then the area becomes large. Each landowner’s holdings are of small area. Even otherwise, visioning in the line with the submission for the State, we find Ext.16 is about 2 hectares of land which cannot be said to be a small piece of land. So far, the other question of distance between the two classes of lands, that by itself cannot derogate the claim of the claimant unless there are some other materials to show that quality and potenti-ality of such land is inferior . However, distance between the land under Ext.16 and the present land even if they are 5 kms. apart, would not be relevant; the relevancy could be their distance from the Viramgam town. We find as per map produced by the State, the present acquired land is about 3 kms. away from it, while the land under Ext.16 is about 2 kms. away from it. This difference is not such as would lead to the reduction in the rate of compensation, specially on the facts of this case. In the present case, as we have recorded above, it has been found that the quality including potentiality of land between Ext.16 and the present one, are similar. No evidence has been led on behalf of the State to find any difference between the two. In view of this, the inference drawn by the High Court for reducing the compensation by Rs.10 per sq. mtr., cannot be sustained.
13. For the aforesaid reason, we find so far, the appeals by the claimants have merit. The judgement and order of the High Court to the extent it reduced the compensation rate by Rs.10/- per sq. mtr. is set aside and the findings recorded by the reference court is upheld. On the other hand, in view of the findings recorded hereinbefore for the same reasons, the appeals filed by the State have no merit and are hereby dismissed, cost on the parties.
14 The interim order is hereby discharged. The State will now proceed to pay the compensation to the claimants expeditiously in terms of this order.
1. Leave granted.
2. We find two sets of appeals , one Civil Appeals Nos. 506-514 of 2001 filed by the claimants and the other Civil Appeal Nos. 515-523 of 2001 filed by the State, challenging the quantum of compensation. These appeals are directed against the judgement and order of the High Court dated 5th November, 1999, partly allowing the State appeal by further reducing the compensation by Rs. 10/- per square meter from the rate of compensation deter-mined at Rs.58/- by the referring court, by its judgement and Award dated 14th October, 1998. The question raised in these appeals filed by the claimants is:
“Whether the High Court was justified in further reducing the market value of the land in question by Rs. 10/- on the facts and circumstances of this case?”
3. The question raised in the State appeals is to the following effect :
“Whether High Court was right in relying upon Ext. 16 instead of placing reliance on Ext. 46, if it erred, had it not committed an error in not further reducing the rate of compensation to be one fixed by it.”
4. As both these two sets of appeals raise the questions which are inter-linked, hence, are being disposed of by means of this common order.
5. Two main reasons on which the High Court has reduced the rate of compensation, one that the distance between the land covered by Ext. 16 and the land in the present case is five kilometers, secondly, the area of land under Ext. 16 is small, viz., about 2 hectares while the area covered in the instant case is large, viz., 20 hectares approximately.
6. In the present case, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on the 1st August, 1991 with nine claimants, which is near the Viramgam town. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 4.50 per square meter against the claim for Rs.60 per square meter. It is not in dispute and is also recorded by the Land Acquisition Officer that neighbouring villages in that area are directly connected with Viramgam town for business, education, industries, etc. and there are ginning pressing factories, nationalised banks, godowns of Food Corporation, offices of Indian Oil Corporation, etc. He further records that the area has potentiality for further development.
7. Claimants aggrieved by the said fixation, filed reference under Section 18 of the Act. The submission made therein is also the submission before us. The submission is, the lands sought to be acquired are situate within 2 kms. from the town of Viramgam which adjoin the railway line in the north. Further, both the land under acquisition and the land under Ext.16 are situated at an equal distance from the said Viramgam town. The acquisition of land under Ext.16 is under Section 4 through notification dated 3rd January, 1991 while acquisition in the present case is later, through notification dated 1st August, 1991. The rate of land under Ext.16 which became final, is Rs.64/- per sq. mtr. The reference court, after considering Ext. 16 and taking into con-siderations fixed the rate of compensation at Rs. 58/- per sq. mtr. Aggrieved by this, the State filed appeals before the High Court. The High Court, as aforesaid, reduced the rate of compensation by Rs.10/- per sq. mtr., thus fixed the compensa-tion at the rate of Rs. 48/- per sq. mtr. Aggrieved by this, the claimants preferred the present aforesaid appeals while the State referred the appeals for further reduction.
8. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. As against reduction, learned Counsel for the claimants strongly relied on Ext. 16 as the land covered under it is of the same village, similarly situ-ated and the acquisition of which was prior then the present acquisition, hence there is no justification for the High Court to reduce the quantum of compensation from Rs. 58/- per sq. mtr. to Rs. 48/- per sq. mtr. The submission is, this reduction by 25% is also not sustainable as High Court reduced it by treating the present acquisition being for a large chunk of land in contrast to the land which is covered under Ext. 16. The submission is, it is not large qua each land holder, it becomes large only if all the land of all the land holders are clubbed together, hence the reduction on this count is not justified.
9. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State relies on the map filed before the High Court which is Annexure P3 to the State appeal. The submission with reference to the map is, Ext. 16 is at a distance of 5 kms. from the present acquired land and Exh. 16 is for a small piece of land. i.e., 2 hectares (approx.) while the present acquisition is for 20 hectares (ap-prox.). The reliance is also placed on Ext. 46 which is also an acquisition in the same village through notification under Sec-tion 4 issued in July, 1987 wherein the amount of compensation fixed was Rs.16/- per sq. mtr. The submission is, if increment of 10% per year is computed, the approximate rate of compensation would come to Rs. 23/- per sq. mtr. It is not necessary to dwell on this, as we find the reliance on Ext. 46 has been rejected both by the referring court and also by the High Court , based on good reasoning. The submission on behalf of State was also for fixation of market value based on yield method which was also rejected by both the said courts. The High Court for this relied on Special Land Acquisition Officer v. P.Veerabhadrappa (AIR 1984 SC 774), to hold yield method can be referred only when there is no other evidence in the form of sale transaction or opinion of experts available .In the present case, the claimants had adduced sufficient evidence describing nature and situation of the ac-quired lands to be similar to other acquired lands of the same village, with special reference to Ext.16.
10. Next, in the present case, we find the High Court rightly relied on Ext.16 which is the foundation of the submission on behalf of the claimants. The High Court with reference to this records :
“As observed earlier, it was neither brought to the notice of the reference court nor was it brought to the notice of this Court that the previous Award Ext.16 of the reference court was in any manner modified by the Appellate Court. Therefore, in our opinion, Award Ext.16 had become final between the parties. The respondents had led sufficient evidence to show that the acquired lands of award Ext. 16 and the acquired lands in the present case, were in all respects similar lands. It was never brought to the notice of the court that the lands acquired in the present case have certain disadvantages in comparison to the agricultural lands of Award Ext.16 which were previously acquired. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the reference court was justified in placing reliance on the previous Award Ext.16 of the reference court.”
11. After accepting this Award, Ext.16 as the foundation while fixing the compensation, it fell into error when it reduced the compensation by 25%. The reason for doing so by the High Court is reproduced below:
“Therefore, if Award Ext.16 is to be taken as the basis for the purpose of determination of the market value of the acquired lands in the present case, some deduction will have to be made. At the same time, because of the distance between the village site and the acquired lands, which was more than the distance between the village site and the acquired lands of Award Ext.16, some deduction shall also have to be made. In our opinion, if the deduction of large area and small area, coupled with further deduction for distance is made in the present case, then it would be reasonable to deduct 25% from the market price arrived at in respect of the acquired lands of Award Ext.16.”
12. As we have said above, the High Court fell into error by reducing the quantum of compensation on this basis. The reduction has been made for two reasons, one that the present acquisition is of a larger area and the second, the distance between the land under acquisition and in Ext.16, is about 5 kms. With reference to the question of acquisition being of a larger area, the error is, when we scan, we find for the acquisition of each land owner, it could not be said that the acquisition is of a large area. Largeness is merely when each landholder’s land is clubbed to-gether; then the area becomes large. Each landowner’s holdings are of small area. Even otherwise, visioning in the line with the submission for the State, we find Ext.16 is about 2 hectares of land which cannot be said to be a small piece of land. So far, the other question of distance between the two classes of lands, that by itself cannot derogate the claim of the claimant unless there are some other materials to show that quality and potenti-ality of such land is inferior . However, distance between the land under Ext.16 and the present land even if they are 5 kms. apart, would not be relevant; the relevancy could be their distance from the Viramgam town. We find as per map produced by the State, the present acquired land is about 3 kms. away from it, while the land under Ext.16 is about 2 kms. away from it. This difference is not such as would lead to the reduction in the rate of compensation, specially on the facts of this case. In the present case, as we have recorded above, it has been found that the quality including potentiality of land between Ext.16 and the present one, are similar. No evidence has been led on behalf of the State to find any difference between the two. In view of this, the inference drawn by the High Court for reducing the compensation by Rs.10 per sq. mtr., cannot be sustained.
13. For the aforesaid reason, we find so far, the appeals by the claimants have merit. The judgement and order of the High Court to the extent it reduced the compensation rate by Rs.10/- per sq. mtr. is set aside and the findings recorded by the reference court is upheld. On the other hand, in view of the findings recorded hereinbefore for the same reasons, the appeals filed by the State have no merit and are hereby dismissed, cost on the parties.
14 The interim order is hereby discharged. The State will now proceed to pay the compensation to the claimants expeditiously in terms of this order.
