High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
K.U.M.S. v. Bishan Dass & Others - FIRST APPEAL No. 862 of 1989  RD-AH 4325 (18 October 2005)
First Appeal No. 862 of 1989
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs. Bishan Das and others.
Hon'ble Yatindra Singh,J
(Delivered by Hon'ble R.K.Rastogi,J)
1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19.11.1988 passed by Sri Narendra Singh, then Additional District Judge/Special Judge (E.C.Act), Etawah in LAR No.76 of 1986, Bishan Das and others Vs. State of U.P.
2. The facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 14.6.76 a Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act ( the Act) was issued by the State of U.P. for acquisition of 33.87 Acres of land situate in village Sirsamau, Pargana, Tahsil and District Etawah for construction of shopping complex of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti ( the Samiti). The Notification under section 6(1) of the Act was also issued on 15.6.76. The award was given by the S.L.A.O. Etawah in the above case on 12.10.78 and in that award a sum of Rs. 3,19,888.79 paise was awarded as compensation.
3. An area of 2.40 acres of land situate in plots no. 834, 835, 836, 837 and 838 belonging to respondents no. 1,2 and 3 was also acquired in the above case. Sri Bishan Das, respondent no.1 aggrieved with the above acquisition, filed
z Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9035 of 1978 before this court which was decided on 4.11.1980 and since no opportunity of hearing had been provided to Sri Bishan Das in the above acquisition proceedings, the notification under section 6 of the Act was quashed, and the writ petition was allowed to this extent.
4. After decision of the above writ petition, a fresh notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 26.4.1982 and this time it was issued only in respect of 1.50 acres of land of the above mentioned 5 plots leaving the remaining area of 0.90 acres of land. The last publication of this notification was made on 21.8.1982. The notification under section 6 of the Act was issued on 13.7.1984. The notice under section 9(3) of the Act was issued on 24.1.1985 and the S.L.A.O. after hearing the parties gave his award on 30.5.1985. The S.L.A.O. relied upon sale deeds no. 173 and 174 which had been executed by Bishan Das in respect of 0.02 acres of land of plot no. 834. Both these sale deeds were executed for consideration of Rs. 17380/- each at the rate of Rs.20/- per square feet . On the basis of these sale deeds, the S.L.A.O. fixed the rate of compensation at Rs.8,90,673.28 paise per acre, and after making deduction of 25% on this amount, and allowing solatium at the rate of 30% he further provided that the claimant would be entitled to 12% per annum interest from the date of notification under section 4 of the Act till the date of possession or publication of the award whichever is earlier, and thereafter the claimant would be entitled to interest at the rate of 9/15% per annum according to law. He awarded an amount of Rs.16,23,153.15 Paise.
5. The claimants being not satisfied with the above award, filed a reference under section 18 of the Act which was referred to the District Judge for determination. It was heard and decided by Sri Narendra Singh , learned Addl. District Judge/Special Judge (E.C.Act) vide his judgment and decree dated 19.11.1988. It may be mentioned that the only plea taken by the claimants was that there was no justification for making deduction in the price of the land at the rate of 25%. Mr. Narendra Singh decided the above reference vide his judgment and decree dated 19.11.1988. He was of the view that the above deduction at the rate of 25% in the price of the land was unjustified. He, therefore, allowed the reference and awarded an additional amount of Rs.5,58,897.97 paise with the provision of payment of interest at the rate of 15% per annum upto the date of payment ; it was further provided that the interest will be payable at the rate of 9% per annum if the payment is made within one year. Aggrieved with that judgment and decree the appellant filed this appeal.
6. It may be mentioned that the claimants filed a review application before the Addl. Distt. Judge/Special Judge (E.C.Act), Etawah in which it was mentioned that due to some error it was not specifically mentioned in the order as to from which date the interest at the rate of 15% and 9% shall be payable. It was prayed that this interest should be allowed from 30.5.1985 which was the date of the award. The review application was also heard by Sri Narendra
Singh and he decided the same vide his order dated 28.3.1989 in which he mentioned that the interest is to be allowed from the date of possession and since it was not clear from the record as to on what date possession was taken by the State of U.P., he was of the view that possession must have been taken within a period of six months from the date of award. He , therefore, passed an order on the review application that since the date of award was 30.5.1985 the date of possession can be taken to be 30.11.85 and so interest at the rate of 9% on the enhanced amount would be admissible from 30.11.1985 to 29.11.1986 and at the rate of 15% from 30.11.1986 upto to the date of payment. Both these orders have been assailed by the appellant at the time of arguments in the appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that though the land was acquired for the Samiti and it has to pay price of the land, solatium and interest etc. in accordance with the provisions of the Act, yet no notice was given to it either by the S.L.A.O. or by the Additional District Judge , Etawah, and so the impugned order should be set aside and the appeal should be allowed, and the appellant should be given opportunity to contest the case before the Reference Court. In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance upon a Full Bench Ruling of five Judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Gyan Devi: AIR 1995 SC 724 in which it has been held that when there is an acquisition of land for the local authority or Company, that local authority or company has got a right of being heard in the matter.
8. Since, in the present case no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant- Samiti either by the S.L.A.O. or by the Additional District Judge, (who decide the reference under section 18 of the Act) the appellant is entitled to the opportunity of hearing before the trial court, but, taking these facts into consideration that the matter is very old one and that only a legal question regrading validity of deduction of 25% from price of the land is involved in this case, we instead of remanding the case for re-hearing chose to decide it on merits. It may also be pointed out that before the trial court also no evidence was led by either party i.e. claimants as well as the State Government.
9. Some additional evidence was filed by the parties in this appeal . The appellant filed the following documents :
(i)A copy of declaration made by Sri K.K.Upadhyay S.D.O. , Etawah dated 5.7.1974 declaring the disputed plots no. 834, 835, 836, 837 and 838 area 2.40 acres as Abadi land ;
(ii) A copy of the notification under section 6 of the Act dated 15.6.76 for acquisition of 33.87 acres of land;
(iii) A copy of the possession certificate dated 30.7.76 showing delivery of 33.87 acres of land to the Samiti ;
(iv)A copy of possession certificate dated 12.8.86 showing delivery of an area of 1.50 Acres of land of plots no. 834, 835, 836, 837 and 838 to the Samiti;
(v) A copy of the award dated 12.10.78 in respect of 33.87 acres of land; and
(vi) Copies of the sale deeds dated 24th July,1982 executed by Bishan Das claimant respondent no.1 in favour of Pahloomal and Narain Das in respect of 0.02 acres of land of plot no. 834 for consideration of Rs. 17380/- each.
These documents were admitted vide order dated 22.11.03.
10. The contesting respondents were provided opportunity to file documents in rebuttal. They filed following documents:
(i)A copy of the declaration made by Sri K.K.Upadhyay, S.D.O. Etawah declaring 2.40 acres of land of the disputed plots no. 834, 835, 836, 837 and 838 as Abadi land ( already filed by appellant as paper no.1);
(ii) A certified copy of the map showing the position of the aforesaid plots on the spot.
(iii) A copy of the G.O. No. 9/23/81/708 Ga-2 dated 6.7.1981 issued by the U.P. Government providing that in case of land acquisition, if there are several sale deeds, the relevant sale deed which is of the highest value should be taken for fixing market value of the land.
(iv) A copy of the Circular dated 20.11.82 issued by the Collector regarding fixation of circle rate showing that the rate of the land adjacent to Etawah-Farrukhabad road was between Rs.15/- to Rs.20/-per square feet.
11. It may be mentioned that the disputed plots no. 834, 835, 836, 837 and 838 are situate closely adjacent to Etawah- Farrukhabad road as shown in the map (Paper no. 2 above).
12. We have gone through these documents and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties.
13. The S.L.A.O. observed in his award:
(i) that 174 sale deeds were executed within a period of one year prior to the date of publication of notification under section 4(1) of the Act and out of them except the sale deed at serial no. 37, 38, 61,173 and 174, the remaining sale deeds were of these areas which were situate at a distance from the disputed land and so they had no relevance;
(ii) That the disputed land was abadi land, and the sale deeds at serial no. 37, 38 & 61 were of agricultural land and so the valuation of the disputed land could not be assessed on the basis of these sale deeds.
(iii) That the sale deeds at serial nos. 173 and 174 had been executed by Bishan Das claimant in respect of 0.02 acres of land each from plot no. 834 at the rate of Rs. 20/- per square feet within a period of one month prior to the date of notification under section 4(1) of the Act and so these two sale deeds could be relied upon for determining the price of the disputed land.
(iv) That since the disputed land has got building potential, the deduction of 25% should be made while determining the price of the acquired land.
He has, accordingly, fixed the price of the land after making above deduction.
14. The above deduction was challenged in the reference under section 18 of the Act; and a Photostat copy of G.O. No. 117/10/L.A./288 dated 4.6.88 issued by the Director of Land Acquisition Directorate, Board of Revenue, U.P., Sec.10, Land Acquisition, Lucknow was produced before the Addl. District Judge in which it was provided that where the area of acquired land is less than 8 acres, no deduction should be made from the compensation assessed to the owners of the land. The Addl. District Judge was of the view that since in the present case, only an area of 1.50 acres of land was acquired, no such deduction was permissible, and the deduction of 25% in the price of the land made by the S.L.A.O. was not justified. He, therefore, passed an order setting aside the above deduction.
15. The learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions before us :
(i)that the above notification is dated 4.6.88 and in the present case the notification under section 4 of the Act was made on 26.4.82 and the notification under section 6 of the Act was made on 13.7.84 and award was also given on 30.5.85 and so the above notification was not applicable to the present case.
(ii) That the above notification has got no legal sanctity and the law relating to deductions in price of land has been enunciated in large number of rulings of Hon'ble Apex Court and those rulings should have been followed by the learned A.D.J.
(iii) That the sale deeds relied upon by the S.L.A.O. for determining the valuation of the land were in respect of very small pieces of land comprising of 0.02 acres only, and so in respect of the area of 1.50 acres, which was acquired, the order passed by the S.L.A.O. for deduction of 25% in the price of the land is completely justified because there is always a difference in the rates of small fractions of land and of larger area of land.
16. In reply the learned counsel for the contesting respondents made the following submissions:
(i)That the principles laid down in the aforesaid G.O. issued by the Director of Land acquisition are of general application;
(ii)That the disputed land is Abadi land situated adjacent to the public road and so there was no question of making any deduction while fixing its price.
17. Both the parties also cited before us several rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in support of their respective contentions.
18. The learned counsel for the contesting respondent cited before us the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Spl. Tehsildar , Land Acquisition Vishakpatnam Vs. A. Mangala Gowri : AIR 1992 SC 666. In this case acquisition of 5 acres 589-1/3 sq. yards of land was made. The collector fixed compensation at the rate of Rs.1.58 per square yard . On reference the Civil Court enhanced compensation to Rs.10 per square yard. The appeal and the cross appeal filed before the High Court were dismissed. The Spl. Tahsildar Land Acquisition filed appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that where the acquired land is in the midst of already developed land with amenities of roads, drainage, electricity etc. then deduction of 1/3 would not be justified . However, looking to the facts of the case the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that the market rate determined by the civil court and the High Court was higher . It determined the market value at Rs. 6 per square yard and also made 1/3 deduction and, in this way, the market value fixed was Rs. 4 per square yard.
19. The next ruling cited by the learned counsel for the respondent is of Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhagwathula Samanna and others Vs. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer: AIR 1992 SC 2298. In this case there was acquisition of 1.68 acres of land. The L.A.O. had fixed the price of the land at 0.88 paise per square yard. On a reference the civil court determined the market value of the land at Rs. 10/- per square yard. The State Government filed an appeal against that order . The High Court accepted the above valuation but made a deduction of 1/3 of the value taking into consideration this fact that a large tract of land was being acquired and so it fixed the value at Rs. 6.50 paise per square yard and, accordingly, reduced the compensation. Aggrieved with that order the claimant filed an appeal before Hon'ble Supreme court . The Hon'ble Apex Court observed in paragraphs no. 7 and 8 of the judgment as follows:
"7. In awarding compensation in acquisition proceedings, the Court has necessarily to determine the market value of the land as on the date of the relevant Notification . It is useful to consider the value paid for similar land at the material time under genuine transactions. The market value envisaged the price which a willing purchaser may pay under bona fide transfer to a willing seller. The land value can differ depending upon the extent and nature of the land sold. A fully developed small plot in an important locality may fetch a higher value than a larger area in an undeveloped condition and situated in a remote locality. By comparing the price shown in the transactions all variables have to be taken into consideration. The transaction in regard to smaller property cannot , therefore, be taken as a real basis for fixing the compensation for larger tracts of property . In fixing the market value of a larger property on the basis of a sale transaction for smaller property, generally a deduction is given taking into consideration the expenses required for development of the larger tract to make smaller plots within that area in order to compare with the small plots dealt with under the sale transaction. This principles has been stated by this Court in Tribeni Devi's case (AIR 1972 SC 1417 )(supra).
8. In Kaushalya Devi V. Land Acquisition Officer (1984)2 SCR 900: (AIR 1984 SC 892), this Court observed at pages 912-913 ( of SCR): ( at p. 898 of AIR) as under:
"When large tracts are acquired, the transaction in respect of small properties do not offer a proper guideline................ In certain other cases this Court indicated that for determining the market value of a large property on the basis of a sale transaction for smaller property a deduction should be given."
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that since roads, drainage, electricity and other amenities were available and no other development was required, there was no justification for making deduction and it awarded compensation at the rate of 10 per square yard.
21. Learned counsel for the claimant respondent also cited before us another ruling of Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Deputy Collector and another Vs. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others: AIR 1997 SC 2625. In this case an area of 97 Acre 42 cents of land was acquired. The L.A.O. awarded compensation at the rate of Rs 22,940/- per acre for levelled up land and at Rs. 21,700/- for unlevelled land. On reference under section 18 of the Act the civil court awarded uniform compensation at the rate of Rs.100,000/- per Acre. On appeal by the claimants, the High Court further enhanced the compensation to Rs. 23.50 per square yard, then the matter went before the Hon'ble Supreme court. Their Lordships observed in paragraphs no. 7 and 8 of the judgment as follows:
"7. Whether fair and reasonable and adequate market value is always a question of fact depends on the evidence adduced, circumstantial evidence, and probabilities arising in each case. The guiding star or the acid test would be whether a hypothetical willing vendor would offer the lands and a willing purchaser in normal human conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market conditions prevailing in the open market in the locality in which the acquired lands are situated as on the date of the notification under section 4(1) of the Act; but not an anxious buyer dealing at arm's length with throw away price, nor facade of sale or fictitious sales brought about in quick succession or otherwise to inflate the market value. The judge should sit in the arm chair of the said willing buyer and seek an answer to the question whether in the given set of circumstances as a prudent buyer he would offer the same market value which the court proposed to fix for the acquired lands in the available market conditions. The court is, therefore, enjoined with the bounden duty of public function and judicial dispensation in determination of the market value of the acquire land and compulsory acquisition.
8. The best evidence of the value of property are the sale transaction in respect of the acquired land to which the claimant himself is a party; the time at which the property comes to be sold: the purpose for which it is sold; nature of the consideration; and the manner in which the transaction came to be brought out. They are all relevant factors. In the absence of such a sale deed relating to the acquired land, the sale transactions relating to the neighbouring lands in the vicinity of the acquired land. In that case, the features required to be present are; it must be within a reasonable time of the date of the notification ; it must be a bona fide transaction; it should be a sale of land similar to the land acquired or land adjacent to the land acquired; and it should possess similar advantageous features. These are relevant features to be taken into consideration to prove the market value of the acquired land as on the date of the notification published under Section 4(1) of the Act."
22. In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that the amount of compensation fixed by the civil court as well as by High Court was excessive and it reduced the price of the land to Rs. 50000/- per acre.
23. The learned counsel of the appellant on the other hand produced before us certified copy of a ruling of Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. NIL of 1990 ( arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 8251-53/90- and 12639-41/90), Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Nazibabad, Bijnor Vs. Ajay Kumar and others etc. etc.' decided on 11.12.1990. In this case also a piece of land was acquired for Mandi Samiti and the land in question was fit for Abadi and it was within the municipal limits of Nazibabad. The Addl. District Judge had fixed the price of land in question at Rs.40/- per square yard. On appeal, this Court confirmed the order of the Addl. District Judge. However, no deduction was made in respect of the development charges. The Hon'ble Apex Court was of the view that taking into consideration the above facts the development charges at the rate of 25% should have been deducted from the total amount of compensation. So the Hon'ble Apex Court passed an order for making deduction at the rate of 25% from the principal sum awarded as compensation and modified the order passed by the courts below.
24 The learned counsel for the appellant cited before us another ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'The Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Nookala Rajamallu and others' reported in J.T. 2003 (9) SC 433. In this case 11.33 acres of land were acquired and the Land Acquisition Officer fixed market value of the aforesaid land at the rate of Rs.12,325/-per acre. The claimants were not satisfied with the amount of compensation and they sought for reference under section 18 of the Act. The reference court fixed the rate of compensation at Rs.10/- per square yard. The claimants were still not satisfied and so they filed an appeal before Andhra Pradesh High Court and the High Court relying upon the sale deed in which rate of consideration was Rs.82/- per square yard, and after making 1/3rd deduction for development charges, fixed the market rate of this land at Rs.55/- per square yard. In an appeal filed against the order of the High Court the Hon'ble Supreme Court made the following observations in paras 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the judgment:
"6. Where large area is the subject matter of acquisition, rate at which small plots are sold cannot be said to be safe criteria. Reference in this context may be made to few decisions of this Court in The Collector of Lakhimpur V. Bhuban Chandra Dutta1, Prithvi Raj Taneja (dead ) by Lrs. V. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr2. and Smt. Kaushalya Devi Bogra and Ors. etc. V. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad and Anr3.
7. It cannot, however, be laid down as an absolute proposition that the rates fixed for the small plots cannot be the basis for fixation of the rate. For example, where there is no other material it may in appropriate cases be open to the adjudicating court to make comparison of the prices paid for small plots of land. However, in such cases necessary deductions/adjustments have to be made while determining the prices. (Emphasis supplied by us).
8. In the case of Suresh Kumar V. Town Improvement Trust, Bhopal1 in a case under the Madhya Pradesh Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960 this Court held that the rates paid for small parcels of land do not provide a useful guide for determining the market value of the land acquired. While determining the market value of the land acquired it has to be correctly determined and paid so that there is neither unjust enrichment on the part of the acquirer nor undue deprivation on the part of the owner. It is an accepted principle as laid down in the case of Vyricherla Narayana Gajapatiraju V. Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizapatam2 that the compensation must be determined by reference to the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to receive from the willing purchaser. While considering the market value disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy it must alike be disregarded. Neither must be considered as acting under any compulsion. The value of the land is not to be estimated as its value to the purchaser. But similarly this does not mean that the fact that some particular purchaser might desire the land more than others is to be disregarded. The wish of a particular purchaser, though not his compulsion may always be taken into consideration for what it is worth. Section 23 of the Act enumerates the matters to be considered in determining compensation. The first criteria to be taken into consideration is the market value of the land on the date of the publication of the notification under section 4 (1). Similarly, section 24 of the Act enumerates the matters which the court shall not take into consideration in determining the compensation. A safeguard is provided in section 25 of the Act that the amount of compensation to be awarded by the court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under section 11. Value of the potentiality is to be determined on such materials as are available and without indulgence in any fits of imagination. Impracticability of determining the potential value is writ large in almost all cases. There is bound to be some amount of guess work involved while determining the potentiality.
9. It can be broadly stated that the element of speculation is reduced to minimum if the underlying principles of fixation of market value with reference to comparable sales are made:
(i) when sale is within a reasonable time of the date of notification under section 4(1);
(ii) it should be a bona fide transaction;
(iii) it should be of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to the land acquired;and
(iv)it should possess similar advantages.
10. It is only when these factors are present, it can merit a consideration as a comparable case ( See The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Banglore V. T. Adinarayan Setty).1"
25. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that in the Building Rules 53% of the land is required to be left out and the Court has laid as a general rule that for laying the roads ands other amenities 33-1/3% is required to be deducted. In this case Hon'ble Apex Court made deduction at the rate of 53% from the value disclosed in the sale deed relied upon by the High Court and fixed market rate of the acquired land at Rs.40/- per square yard.
26. The learned counsel for the appellant also cited before us another ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'V. Hanumantha Reddy Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal R. Officer' reported in 2004 (54) ALR 141(S.C.). In this case a chunk of land measuring 5.39 acres was acquired and the Land Acquisition Officer fixed market value of the land at Rs.45,000/- per acre, equivalent to Rs.10/- per square yard. The claimant prayed for a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the Civil Judge determined the market value of the land at Rs. 78/- per square yard and after allowing deduction of 1/4th for developmental purposes, arrived at Rs.58/- per square yard as net payable. Aggrieved with his order the claimants as well as the Land Acquisition officer filed appeals before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the claimants and partly allowed the appeal filed by the Land Acquisition Officer and fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.45/- per square yard and after making 1/3rd deduction for developmental purposes determined the value of the acquired land at Rs.30/- per square yard for consideration of the amount of compensation. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the order passed by the High Court was completely justified.
27. The learned counsel for the appellant also cited before us a Division Bench ruling of this Court in 'Allahabad Development Authority , Allahabad Vs. Shakeel Ahmad and others' reported in 2004 (2) AWC 986. In this case 5 Bighas 11 Biswas land was acquired and the Reference Court had fixed the rate of compensation at Rs.115/- per square meter,i.e. Rs.2,60,000/-per Bigha. In an appeal filed by the Allahabad Development Authority it was argued before the Court that the trial court had relied upon the sale deeds of small piece of land in which the land was sold at the rate of square meter and this rate could not be applicable where a larger area of land was acquired. While considering this contention their Lordships referred to the following observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Collector of Lakhimpur V. Bhuban Chandra Duta' AIR 1971 SC 2015:
"In our opinion the High Court overlooked the fact that the plots which were subject-matter of sale deeds Exhibits -1 to 4 were comparatively of small areas and it is like the one which was the subject-matter of acquisition has to be sold it cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots can be sold."
28. It may be mentioned that in this case market rate as mentioned in the exemplar was Rs.224/- per square meter and this Court reduced it to half for assessing the market value of the acquired land and held that the market rate of the acquired land could be determined at Rs.112/- per square meter.
29. Then this Court considered the matter of deduction of development charges and relied upon the following observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Basant Kumar Vs. Union of India and another' 1996 (11) SCC 542:
"........It is settled legal position that if the land is already developed then what has to be seen is the nature of development and money expanded by the developer and as to what was the market value prevailing on that basis as on the date of notification, and what was the situation of the acquired land on that date: all these and other relevant facts have to be taken into consideration and then market value should be determined. Merely Because a land is developed or developing land, it would not be that same compensation is to be adopted to determine the market value for the entire land as a developed land. If it is to be developed, it is a settled legal position that at least 1/3rd of the compensation has to be deducted towards providing amenities, like roads, parks, electricity, sewage, water facilities etc. This Court had upheld deduction of even 60% towards development charges......"
30. It may be mentioned that in the above ruling Hon'ble Apex Court had observed that deduction can be made even in those cases where the land is developed and relying upon the above observations this Court made further deduction of 1/3rd towards development cost and fixed the market rate of the acquired land at Rs.80/- per square meter.
31. It becomes clear from perusal of the aforesaid rulings cited by both the parties that in most of the cases suitable deductions have been made in fixation of market value of the acquired land where larger area of land was acquired and no suitable sale deed of large area of land was available and reliance had to be placed on the sale deeds of small piece of land. Suitable deductions were also made for developmental purposes.
32. In the present case, the position is that 1½ acres of land which is situated in Quasba Etawah closely adjacent to Etawah Farrukhabad road has been acquired. This land was originally proposed to be acquired in the notification dated 4.6.1976 issued under section 4 of the Act and was the part of 33.87 Acres of land which was being acquired for Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Etawah. This land was included in the award of of Special Land Acquisition Officer dated 12.10.1978. The compensation of this entire land measuring 33.87 acres was assessed at Rs.3,19,888.79P. by the Special Land Acquisition officer vide order dated 12.10.1978. The respondent no.1 Bishan Das filed writ petition no. 9035 of 1978 against the above award and this Court vide its judgment dated 4.11.1980 set aside the award against the claimants' land situated in plots no. 834, 835, 836, 837 and 838 on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner, and quashed the notification dated 24.8.1978 under section 6 of the Act. Thereafter the claimant Bishan Das executed two sale deeds of two decimals land each situated in plot no. 834 in favour of Pahalu Mal and Narayan Dass on 24.7.1982 for Rs.17,380/- at the rate of Rs.20/- per square feet. It may be mentioned that a fresh notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of 1.50 acres of land of plots no. 834, 835, 836, 837 and 838 was issued on 26.4.1982 and its last publication was made on 21.8.1982. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that these two sale deeds for two decimals of land were collusively executed by Bishan Das in favour of the above named vendees after issue of notification under section 4 of the Act on 26.4.1982 with a view to present them as exemplars for obtaining high price of the acquired land and this rate is even higher than the circle rate of the land adjacent to Etawah Farrukhabad road which was fixed at Rs.15 to 20 per square feet by the Collector, Etawah on 20.11.1982. His contention was that the circle rate must have been lesser in July, 1982 when the above two sale deeds were executed by Bishan Das. Even if the above contention of collusive sale deeds is not accepted. for want of any direct evidence on the point, it is to be seen that when the aforesaid two sale deeds of small fractions of land of two decimals at the rate of Rs.20/- per square feet were being relied upon by the Special Land Acquisition officer for determination of the prices of one & half acres of land, his act of making 25% deduction in the price taking into consideration the larger area of the acquired land as compared to two decimals of land sold vide aforesaid sale deeds at the rate of Rs.20/- per square feet as well as the legal requirement of making deduction for developmental purposes cannot be termed to be illegal and it was justified in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Addl. District Judge fell in error by passing an order for setting aside the aforesaid deduction at the rate of 25%.
33. The appeal in this way deserves to be allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the court below, whereby it had awarded a sum of Rs.5,58,897.97P. as additional compensation alongwith interest thereon is liable to be set aside. Th e Addl. District Judge had also passed an order on 28.3.1989 in Civil Misc. Review Application no.19 of 1988 making some amendments in the rate and period of interest on the above amount. However, since the appeal is being allowed and no additional amount is payable to the claimants as compensation, the question of payment of any interest on that amount does not arise and so the order passed by him on the review application is also liable to be set aside.
34. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs and the judgment and decree dated 19.11.1988 of the court below passed in L.A. Reference no. 76 of 1986, Bishan Das and others Vs. State of U.P., and the order dated 28.3.1989 passed in Civil Misc. Review Application no. 19 of 1988 are hereby set aside and the above L.A. Reference and the review application are dismissed with costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.