1996 JTR(SC) 1212
1996 AIR(SC) 3500 ; 1996 AIR(SCW) 3507 ; 1996 3 CurCC(SC) 315 ; 1996 6 Scale 83 ; 1996 10 SCC 635 ; 1996 Supp4 SCR 400 ; 1996 KHC 1314 ; 1996 6 Supreme 416
1996(6) Supreme 416
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
State of Bihar -Appellant
versus
Ratan Lal Sahu & Ors etc.-Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos 10669-70 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 3102-03
of 1995)
Decided on 8-8-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : H.L.Agarwal, Sr. Advocate, R.P. Singh and B.B. Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondents : D.P.Mukherjee and Sanjay Ghosh, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
When the water is being used from the tank and the well for cultivation of the land, no separate value could be granted towards the tank and the well.
Act Referred :LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.23, S.4(1)
A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4(1) authorized the publication of notification on June 14, 1972 for acquiring twenty acres and forty decimals of land for the Getalsud Dam project in Ranchi District, while Section 23 provided the framework for determining compensation and prohibited separate valuation of water bodies when water is used for cultivation. These statutory provisions directly govern the fixation of compensation and the legal basis for disallowing separate valuation of the tank and well in this case.
B) Key legal principles include that compensation for land acquired must reflect the correct market value, Class I wet crop land cannot be valued piecemeal based on older awards, separate value for tanks and wells is not permitted when such water sources are used for cultivating the land, and enhanced compensation along with interest and solatium is payable from the date of possession as per statutory mandates.
Facts of the case:
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on June 14, 1972 for acquiring 20:40 acres of land for the Getalsud Dam. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation on November 16, 1977, totaling Rs. 1,59,505.33. Subsequent appeals reached the High Court, which confirmed the award in 1994 relying on an earlier compensation rate of Rs. 10,000 per acre and a separate sum for the tank and well. The present appeals challenge the incorrect application of law in determining compensation.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the reference Court incorrectly relied on an earlier unrelated award and did not apply the correct principles of law. It held that all 20 acres should be treated as Class I wet crop land, valued uniformly at Rs. 6,000 per acre, and that no separate value can be granted for the tank and well. The additional amount under Section 23(1-A) was declared illegal, and the earlier award was set aside for under-compensation.
Issues:
Whether compensation based on an incorrect earlier award and separate valuation of water bodies can be sustained, and whether the correct market value for Class I wet crop land should be uniformly applied in such acquisition proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi:
The correct market value for acquired Class I wet crop land is determined by uniform valuation per acre, water bodies do not attract separate compensation when used for cultivation, and reliance on an unrelated earlier award without proper analysis is legally unsustainable, warranting enhancement of compensation to the true market value.
Result:
The appeals are allowed, compensation is enhanced to Rs. 6,000 per acre for all 20 acres, separate value for the tank and well is disallowed, the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) is set aside, and interest along with solatium is payable to the claimants.
A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4(1) authorized the publication of notification on June 14, 1972 for acquiring twenty acres and forty decimals of land for the Getalsud Dam project in Ranchi District, while Section 23 provided the framework for determining compensation and prohibited separate valuation of water bodies when water is used for cultivation. These statutory provisions directly govern the fixation of compensation and the legal basis for disallowing separate valuation of the tank and well in this case.
B) Key legal principles include that compensation for land acquired must reflect the correct market value, Class I wet crop land cannot be valued piecemeal based on older awards, separate value for tanks and wells is not permitted when such water sources are used for cultivating the land, and enhanced compensation along with interest and solatium is payable from the date of possession as per statutory mandates.
Facts of the case:
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on June 14, 1972 for acquiring 20:40 acres of land for the Getalsud Dam. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation on November 16, 1977, totaling Rs. 1,59,505.33. Subsequent appeals reached the High Court, which confirmed the award in 1994 relying on an earlier compensation rate of Rs. 10,000 per acre and a separate sum for the tank and well. The present appeals challenge the incorrect application of law in determining compensation.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the reference Court incorrectly relied on an earlier unrelated award and did not apply the correct principles of law. It held that all 20 acres should be treated as Class I wet crop land, valued uniformly at Rs. 6,000 per acre, and that no separate value can be granted for the tank and well. The additional amount under Section 23(1-A) was declared illegal, and the earlier award was set aside for under-compensation.
Issues:
Whether compensation based on an incorrect earlier award and separate valuation of water bodies can be sustained, and whether the correct market value for Class I wet crop land should be uniformly applied in such acquisition proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi:
The correct market value for acquired Class I wet crop land is determined by uniform valuation per acre, water bodies do not attract separate compensation when used for cultivation, and reliance on an unrelated earlier award without proper analysis is legally unsustainable, warranting enhancement of compensation to the true market value.
Result:
The appeals are allowed, compensation is enhanced to Rs. 6,000 per acre for all 20 acres, separate value for the tank and well is disallowed, the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) is set aside, and interest along with solatium is payable to the claimants.
ORDER
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
2. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) (for short, the Act ) was published on June 14, 1972 acquiring 20:40 acres of land for construction of Getalsud Dam in Ranchi District of Bihar State. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award under Section 11 dated November 16, 1977 granted total compensation of Rs. 1,59,505.33. On reference, the Subordinate Judge, Ranchi awarded compensation @ Rs. 10.000/- per acre; for the tank and well, he granted a sum of Rs. 1,69,890/-. He also awarded additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. Dissatisfied therewith, the appellant carried the matter in appeals. The High Court in the impugned judgment and decree in Original Decree Nos. 108 and 109 of 1987 dated January 10, 1994 confirmed the award and decree of the reference Court. Thus, these appeals by special leave.
3. We have gone through the judgment of the High Court and the reference Court. The learned Judge has not referred to the correct principles of law in determining the compensation. It is an admitted position that the reference Court has relied upon an earlier award in respect of a neighbouring village determining the compensation of land in Rs.10,000/- per acre. We do not have any material on record, nor has it discussed in neither judgments the basis for reliance as regards the relevant value of the land etc. Under those circumstances, relying on that judgment per se may not be wholly correct. It is not in dispute that these are Class I wet crop lands. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation for Class 1 lands @ Rs. 2,266/- and proportionately decreased the value as regards the quality of the other lands. We take all the 20 acres of land as Class I land since there is no acceptable material as regards the quality of the land.
4. Under these circumstances, taking the totality of the facts and circumstances, we think that the appropriate market value would be Rs. 6,000/- per acre. It is now settled law that when the water is being used from the tank and the well for cultivation of the land, no separate value could be granted towards the tank and the well. This court elaborately considered, this aspect of the matter in the case of O. Janardhan Reddy & Ors. v. Spl. Dy. Collector L.A. Unit-IV, LMD. Karimnagar, A.P. & Ors1 Accordingly, we hold that the respondents are not entitled to the separate value of Rs. 1,69,890/- towards the value of the land and the well. Since the award of the Collector is of November 16, 1977, the grant of the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) is clearly illegal. Accordingly, the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) for a sum of Rs.1,16,000 also stands set aside.
5. The claimants are entitled to the interest from 1.1.1966, the date on which the possession was taken for a period of one year @ 9% and thereafter @ 15% till date of deposit on the enhanced compensation. The claimants are also entitled to the solatium at 30% on the enhanced compensation till date of deposit. The claimants are also entitled to the additional amount @ Rs. 12% on the market value from the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) to the date of award of the Collector or from the date of taking possession of the land, whichever, is earlier.
6. The appeals are accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances without costs.
Appeals accordingly allowed.
*******