1996 JTR(SC) 1174
1996 3 CCC(SC) 380 ; 1996 3 CLT(SC) 286 ; 1996 3 CurCC(SC) 380 ; 1996 6 Scale 38 ; 1996 10 SCC 751 ; 1990 Supp1 SCR 349 ; 1996 Supp4 SCR 277 ; 1996 6 Supreme 711
1996(6) Supreme 711
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Indore Development Authority -Appellant
versus
Smt. Satyabhama Bai & Ors. etc. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 10188-89 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 21466-67 of 1994)
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 4847-48 and 4849-50 of 1995
Decided on 5-8-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : A.K. Chitale, Gopal Subramaniam and M.C. Bhandare, Sr. Advocates, Niraj Sharma, R.K. Sanghi, N.M. Sharma, Amit Prabhat, Sudhanshu Atreya, A.P. Dhamija and S.K. Jain, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
While determining compensation relying upon the sale deeds marked u/s 51A of the Land Acquisition Act, the claimants are enjoined to call as witnesses the vendor or vendee to prove the sale transactions as genuine in nature and also the extent of consideration paid.
Act Referred :LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.17(4), S.51(a), S.4(1)
A) Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on January 12, 1979, and possession of the land was taken on August 25, 1980, dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A by exercise of the power under Section 17(4). The Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation under Section 11, which was later enhanced by civil Court and High Court relying upon sale deeds marked under Section 51-A of the Act. The appeals and cross-appeals were filed challenging the compensation determination.
B) Filing of certified copies of sale deeds under Section 51-A is only to enable claimants to dispense with the obligation to produce original sale deeds from disinclined owners, but claimants must call witnesses to prove the transactions' genuineness and the consideration paid. Reliance on untested and unproved sale deeds is a grievous error of law.
Facts of the case:
The land acquisition proceedings involved notification in 1979, possession taken in 1980, compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, enhancements by lower courts based on marked sale deeds, and appeals to the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The High Court and Tribunal committed grievous error by relying on untested sale deeds. The documents were marked without examining any connected persons, so the sale deeds cannot determine compensation.
Issues:
Whether sale deeds marked under Section 51-A can be relied upon to determine compensation without examining the connected persons.
Ratio Decidendi:
Compensation must be based on proven evidence; marked sale deeds without examination of witnesses are insufficient and lead to setting aside the awards.
Result:
All appeals allowed, set aside awards, case remitted to reference Court for disposal in accordance with law, no costs awarded.
A) Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on January 12, 1979, and possession of the land was taken on August 25, 1980, dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A by exercise of the power under Section 17(4). The Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation under Section 11, which was later enhanced by civil Court and High Court relying upon sale deeds marked under Section 51-A of the Act. The appeals and cross-appeals were filed challenging the compensation determination.
B) Filing of certified copies of sale deeds under Section 51-A is only to enable claimants to dispense with the obligation to produce original sale deeds from disinclined owners, but claimants must call witnesses to prove the transactions' genuineness and the consideration paid. Reliance on untested and unproved sale deeds is a grievous error of law.
Facts of the case:
The land acquisition proceedings involved notification in 1979, possession taken in 1980, compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, enhancements by lower courts based on marked sale deeds, and appeals to the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The High Court and Tribunal committed grievous error by relying on untested sale deeds. The documents were marked without examining any connected persons, so the sale deeds cannot determine compensation.
Issues:
Whether sale deeds marked under Section 51-A can be relied upon to determine compensation without examining the connected persons.
Ratio Decidendi:
Compensation must be based on proven evidence; marked sale deeds without examination of witnesses are insufficient and lead to setting aside the awards.
Result:
All appeals allowed, set aside awards, case remitted to reference Court for disposal in accordance with law, no costs awarded.
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on January 12, 1979. The possession of the land was taken on August 25, 1980 dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A by exercise of the power under Section 17(4). The Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation in his award under Section 11 on May 26, 1980 @ Rs. 44,000/- per hectare. On reference, the civil Court by its award dated March 28, 1990 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1.50 per sq. ft. with solatium and interest thereon. The claimants filed the appeals and State filed the cross appeals. The High Court by its judgment and order dated August 31, 1994 relying upon Exs. P5 to P8 and the sale deeds marked thereof under Section 51-A of the Act, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 3/- per sq. ft. Thus, these appeals by special leave.
3. It is not well settled legal position as laid in the case of P. Ram Reddy & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad & Ors.1 followed by catena of other decisions that filing of the certified copies of the sale deeds and marked thereof under Section 51-A is only to enable the claimants to dispense with the obligation to produce the original sale deed from the owners who are disinclined to part with their valuable title deed during long pendency of the proceedings. However, the claimants are enjoined to call as witnesses the vendor or vendee to prove the transactions as genuine in nature and also the extent of consideration paid and relative nature of value of land as required under law. In this case, though the documents, Exs. P-5 to P-8 have been marked, none of the persons connected with the documents has been examined.
4. Under these circumstances, the sale deeds cannot be relied on to determine the compensation. The High Court and the Tribunal, therefore, obviously committed grievous error of law in relying upon those untested and unproved sale deeds in determining the compensation. The award of the reference Court and also that of the High Court stands set aside. The matter is remitted to the reference Court for disposal in accordance with law.
5. All the appeals are allowed, but, in the circumstances without costs.
6. Pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on April 21, 1995, the respondents in C.A. SLP (C) Nos. 21466-67/94 had furnished the bank guarantee to the extent of the half of the enhanced compensation and have withdrawn the same. The order would continue pending disposal of the reference application under Section 18 of the Act and depending upon the award that may be passed, appropriate direction will be given by the reference Court for adjustment or recovery thereof.
Appeal allowed.
*******