High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Sri Ashok Kumar Narang v. State Of U.P. & Another - FIRST APPEAL No. 269 of 1998  RD-AH 1413 (16 November 2004)
First Appeal No. 269 of 1998
Ashok Kumar Narang
State of U.P.and another
This first appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 3.2.1998 passed by the IInd Additional District Judge Allahabad in Reference No. 41/90 under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act . The notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 6.3.1987. The notification under section 6 of the said Act was issued on 4.4.1987. Possession of the land under notification was taken on 25.11.1987 and the award was made on 31.3.1989. The land of the appellant being plot no. 9 having an area of 2 Biswas , 19 Biwansi was also acquired. The total land sought to be acquired was 87-9-14 Bigha for the purpose of a residential colony to be built by the respondent no. 2.Allahabad Vikas Pradhikaran.
It i the case of the appellant that he had purchased the land in village Kasari Masari Tehsil Chail District Allahabad for making his residential house . The said plot no.9 area 400 Sq. Yard was purchased by him from Sri Jahoor Hasan and others @ Rs. 12 per square yard in the year 1975 . However, the appellant could not build his residential house and in the year 1987 the land was acquired by the State Government. The appellant has stated that he had no notice or knowledge about the acquisition proceedings and for the first time he came to know in December 1989 that his valuable land has been acquired and the compensation fixed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate . He has stated that his land is situated just adjacent to G.T.Road and now Railway station , post office ,commercial area ,School etc. are to be made here. He has stated that the land is not agricultural land but the compensation determined is on the basis that it is agricultural land . The compensation of Rs. 2288-87 for his land is very little whereas the value of the land ought to have been at the rate of Rs. 250 to 300 per Sq. Yard.
The Collector also filed objection before the reference court stating therein that the land is Banjer , uneven and there is no facility of irrigation. He has stated that the land has been acquired for development of residential colony. There is no facility of Transport, Bus Station, Police Station, School ,Market etc. near the land and that it is far away from any other residential area. The authority has to invest huge amount of money for development of the land before it can be made ready for building residential houses hence a sum equal to 40% is liable to be deducted for development on the market value of the land. He has justified compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. The Allahabad Development Authority also filed their objections and supported the case set up by the Collector.
The reference court framed four issues and decided the issue nos. 1,2, and 3 together which were pertaining to whether compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate , whether acquired land has the potential to be developed into a residential colony and as to what was the market value of the land on the date it was acquired. While considering the aforesaid issues , reference court took into consideration the pleadings of the parties. The appellant Ashok Kumar Narang had given his statement and proved the sale deed dated 16/7/1975 by which he had purchased 400 Sq. yard land for a sum of Rs. 5000/-. The appellant had filed questionnaire being paper No. 11-C to show that the land at Kasari Masari was valuable land in as much as the circle rate for the purpose of stamp duty on registration of sale deeds had been fixed @ Rs. 150 to Rs. 250 per sq. metre by the Collector. The appellant had relied on the sale deed dated 8.5.1987 relating to plot no. 1408 whereby an area of 225 Sq. yards on 189 sq. metre was sold or a sum of Rs. 28,500 which comes to approximately Rs. 150 per Sq. yard . The appellant relied upon a reference Case No. 39 of 1993 (Mohi Uddin Versus State) wherein notification U/s 4(1) was issued on 21.7.1990 and final publication was made on 12.10.1990 , possession was taken on 12.11.1990 U/s 17 (1) of the Act. The reference court had awarded compensation @ Rs. 200 per sq. metre in the same area. The appellant also relied on the award of Reference Case No. 42 wherein compensation of different categories of land was fixed between Rs. 11.144-00 P to Rs. 27,813-44 P per bigha.
The Revenue Inspector Madan Lal Srivastava has deposed on behalf of the State and stated that the land in question is agricultural and the compensation determined is in accordance thereof. The State has relied upon a sale deed dated 17.2.1986 wherein the land has been sold @ Rs. 20,000 per bigha and therefore, the compensation determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer @ Rs. 19000 per bigha to Rs. 27000 per bigha is correct.
Sri Haider Abbas Senior Engineer of Allahabad Development Authority has filed his affidavit and relied upon the sale deed dated 28.8.1985 wherein one bigha of land was sold Rs.20,000 and has stated that the compensation determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is correct.
The court below while considering the evidence of the parties has held that agricultural land has been acquired for the purpose of residential colony and the area of Kasari Masari is situate in the Municipality. He has recorded that the area acquired is adjacent to the G.T.Road and the Kausambi Road is also nearby . He has held that the land in question is fit for development of a residential colony . On the aforesaid reasoning the court has held that the compensation determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate. The court has held that while determining the compensation, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has ignored the circle rate fixed by the Collector. Court has observed that in 1975 the appellant had purchased 400 Sq. yards of land for a sum of Rs.5000/- and the Special Land Acquisition Officer has committed grave illegality in determining the compensation for the same land @ Rs. 1600 to Rs. 2200 in 1989 i.e. after 14 years . He has observed that the price of the land increases every year and was of the opinion that the sale deed dated 8.5.1987 was believable and therefore, the compensation for 400 sq. yard of land cannot be less than Rs. 15000 under any circumstances.
While considering the judgment in reference No. 39 of 1993, the court has held that the circumstances of that case are not applicable to the present reference in as much as that reference relates to the second stage of acquisition of land at Kasari Masari whereas in the present case the acquisition is of phase -I and the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer is of the year 1989 . After considering the evidence led by the parties, the court below has recorded finding that the land in question was within the limits of the Nagar Mahapalika and according to the map, it is situated near main road and at the time of its acquisition in 1987 compensation for 400 Sq. yard would be Rs. 15000 and the appellant would be entitled to the same and that the compensation determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was wholly inadequate.
Heard Sri B.Malick ,learned counsel for the appellant and Sri B.B.Paul, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Allahabad Development Authority as well as learned standing counsel.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that although the circle rate fixed by the Collector for the purpose of stamp duty on registered sale deeds is not sole basis for determining the compensation of acquired land, however, he has stated that the value of the land should not be in any event less than circle rate . He has relied upon a government order Paper No. 12A/9 where in clause 6 it has been laid down that while deciding compensation the market value should not be less than circle rate fixed by the Collector for the purpose of stamp duty on registered sale deed. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon a valuation report being Paper No. 30C. He has also placed reliance on the statement of Land Acquisition Amin wherein it has been stated that the valuation report was prepared by him and the same was prepared for the purpose of fixing the rate of land for the Allahabad Development Authority. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the statement of the appellant who has stated that the value of the land in 1987 ought to have been Rs. 300 to 400 per Sq. yard. The appellant has proved his sale deed of 1975.
Learned counsel for the Allahabad Development Authority has submitted that the valuation report which is sought to be relied upon by the appellant does not relate to the value of the land for the purpose of determining its compensation. He submits that the aforesaid valuation report is for the purpose of estimating the cost of development of the land for residential colony which has to be developed by the Allahabad Development Authority by providing all the basic amenities like Road, Drainage, Sewer, Water ,Electricity etc. Consequently the valuation report is only the estimate of development cost.
Learned counsel for the Allahabad Development Authority has stated that the compensation in Land Acquisition Reference No. 39 of 1993 (Muhi Uddin Versus State of U.P. and others) relates to the acquisition of the year 1990 whereas in the present case, the acquisition is of the year 1987. He submits that in the first phase of acquisition for development of residential colony at Kasari Masari land of the appellant had been acquired. After the first phase of acquisition in 1987 ,second phase of acquisition for establishment of the residential colony was made in 1990 ,consequently the award in reference No. 39 of 1993 would not have any relevance for determining the compensation of the acquired land in 1987 during the first phase. He has also stated that the sale deed dated 8.5.1987 which has been relied upon by the appellant is after the notification under section 4(1) and 6 of the Act and therefore, it could not be relied upon . Learned counsel for the Allahabad Development Authority has referred to the statement of the appellant in which appellant himself has stated that he has preferred the present reference because other land holders have filed reference and as such it cannot be said that the appellant was in any manner aggrieved by the compensation determined by the Special Land Acquisitions Officer.
It is admitted between the parties that the notification under section 4 (1) of the Act was issued on 6.3.1987 . Consequently the reference court was required to determine the amount of compensation on the basis of market value of the land on the date of publication under section 4(1) of the said Act.
The learned counsel for the appellant had firstly relied upon the circle rate fixed by the Collector for the purpose of stamp duty on registgration of sale deeds. The appellant has filed paper No. 11-C. which is in the form of questionnaire obtained from the office of the Collector wherein circle rate for the year 1987-88 with regard to the land in the area of Kasari Masari has been fixed at Rs. 150 to 250 per sq. metre. The notification of the Collector under rule 340 has been filed as paper no. 12-A. A perusal thereof reveals that the rate of stamp duty fixed by the Collector regarding town area Chail Khas is firstly, if the land is on the main road Rs. 60 to 90 per sq. metre . Secondly if the land is at the distance from the main road Rs. 30 to Rs. 50 per sq. metre and thirdly any land within 200 metres from the town area would be Rs. 30 to Rs.50 per sq. metre. The area under acquisition namely Kasari Masari falls within the Pargana and Tehsil Chail. The reference court while considering this objection of the parties recorded a finding that the area in question is adjacent to the GT road and is at a distance from the Kaushambi Road. Consequently he arrived at the conclusion that the Special land acquisition officer has awarded inadequate compensation therefore, he held that a perusal of the sale deed dated 8.5.1987 goes to show that in the same area, the value of 400 Sq. yards of land would not in any circumstances be less than Rs. 15000/- . The sale deed of 1975 reveals that the said land was purchased by the appellant at the rate of Rs. 12.50 per sq. yard . The sale deed dated 8-5-1987 with respect to the land in the same area reveals that an area of 225 Sq. yards (189 Sq. metre) was sold for a sum of Rs. 28500/-. Similarly the sale deed reveals that the area of 150 Sq. yard (126 Sq. metre) was sold for Rs. 22500. In the present case, it is the case of the appellant himself that he had purchased the land in the year 1975 for building his residential house. However, after 12 years i.e. in 1987 , the appellant has stated that he could not make any construction over the land in question, as such it is admitted that the appellant was not compelled, due to the acquisition, to change residence or that he was displaced due to the aforesaid acquisition . In view of the aforesaid evidence the finding of the court below to the effect that the compensation for 400 Sq. yard of the land of appellant could not be less than Rs. 15000 rupees does not suffer from any error.
Reliance placed by the appellant on the valuation report paper No. 30-C made by the Land Acquisition Amin of the acquiring body cannot come to the aid of the appellant to be a ground for determining compensation of the land on the date of its acquisition . Learned counsel for the acquiring authority has contended that the said report relates to the investment which the acquiring body would make for development of the land. Consequently the said valuation report could not be considered for determining market value of the land as on the date of acquisition for the purpose of determination of compensation to be paid to the appellant.
The contention of the appellant is that the land reference No. 39 of 1993 decided on 20.1.1995 has been ignored by the reference court and therefore, the appellant is entitled to compensation in accordance with compensation awarded by the reference court in the aforesaid reference. A perusal of the aforesaid reference indicates that the said reference relates to a subsequent notification for acquisition of land. It is the contention of the respondents that earlier notification of 1987 related to first Phase of the acquisition for development of residential colony in Kasari Masari . The notification which has given rise to the Reference No. 39 of 1993 is for the IInd phase of the proposed residential colony at Kasari Masari. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that he would be entitled to the same amount of compensation as awarded in reference No. 39 of 93 cannot be accepted since after the first acquisition of 1987, the nature of the land at Kasari Masari was definitely changed from agricultural /semi agricultural to full-fledged residential colony, therefore, the subsequent notification for acquisition for the IInd phase for residential colony in the year 1990 cannot be made a ground for determination of compensation of the land in question which was acquired three years earlier i.e. in the year 1987. Learned counsel for the appellant also referred to Reference Case No. 42 and claimed parity for award of compensation.
The Reference Case No. 42 relates to the same notification which has given rise to Reference No. 41 . A perusal of the judgment and order dated 31.3.1989 made in Reference No. 42 shows that the compensation awarded for different categories of land was between Rs. 11,144/- to Rs. 27813-44 P per bigha. The cases of as many as 104 claimants was decided in that Reference. In the instant case the compensation determined for different categories of land is between Rs. 19,000/- to 27000/- per bigha. Therefore, no advantage can be derived by the appellant from the decision of Reference No.42.
Normally the value of the land is to be determined according to the prevailing price of the adjoining land. The value of the land is to be determined as on the date of notification for acquisition . When large area of land is acquired, it cannot be compared to sale transaction in respect of small pieces of land in such area . The exemplar sale deeds of small pieces of land can be relied upon and appropriate deduction would be made if the total area of acquired land is huge . Reduction in percentage is to be considered while awarding compensation for a smaller area of land which forms part of larger area acquired, therefore, after ascertaining the value of land with respect to individual interest of small pieces the total extent of land acquired has to be taken into consideration and then reduce the same reasonably . It is also necessary to take into consideration that the comparable sales were within reasonable time of the date of notification for acquisition and the sales were bonafide transactions related either to the land acquired or the land adjacent thereof and also that the comparable sale possessed similar advantages. It is the case of the respondents that the land in question was acquired for development of a residential colony , While determining the market value of the land ,it is also to be taken into consideration that certain deductions would be permissible towards development charges . The compensation of the land in question as determined by the reference court therefore, does not suffer from any illegality.
In view of above discussions, this appeal has no force and is accordingly dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.