1996 JTR(SC) 1217
1996 4 CCC(SC) 1 ; 1996 3 CLT(SC) 309 ; 1996 4 CurCC(SC) 1 ; 1996 Supp JT 501 ; 1996 2 PLJR(SC) 215 ; 1996 6 Scale 287 ; 1996 6 SCC 197 ; 1996 Supp4 SCR 415 ; 1996 7 Supreme 4
1996(7) Supreme 4
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
State of Bihar -Appellant
versus
Madheshwar Prasad -Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 10915-16 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 4012-13
of 1994)
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 Respondent : S.B. Sanyal, Sr. Advocate, S.B. Upadhyay, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Claimants are not entitled to the value of the well since well was being used for irrigation of the land acquired.
Act Referred :LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.28, S.23(2), S.23, S.23(1)(a), S.4
(A) Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on September 16, 1981 for acquiring 3 acres 17 decimals of land for the Suvarnarekha Project. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs. 14,445 per acre, later enhanced by the Subordinate Judge to Rs. 15,055 per acre. Both the State and the claimants appealed to the High Court, which enhanced compensation to Rs. 45,000 per acre under Section 23(1)(a), treating the land as cultivable, and additionally granted Rs. 20,000 for a well and statutory solatium with interest under Sections 23, 23(2), 23(3), 28, and 4. This Court examines the validity of that enhancement. The reliance on sale deeds under Section 51-A of the Act for determining market value is assessed in light of evidentiary standards and comparative valuation principles.
(B) Compensation must be determined on the basis of market value, and certified copies of sale deeds are admissible as secondary evidence under Section 51-A; however, the valuation must be supported by contemporaneous market evidence and cannot be based solely on unverified sale transactions. The claimant is not entitled to a separate valuation of a well used for irrigation of the acquired land.
Facts of the case:
The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on September 16, 1981 for acquiring 3 acres 17 decimals of land for the Suvarnarekha Project. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs. 14,445 per acre, which was enhanced to Rs. 15,055 per acre by the Subordinate Judge. Both parties appealed to the High Court, which enhanced compensation to Rs. 45,000 per acre, relying on sale deeds, and granted Rs. 20,000 for a well. This Court reviewed the valuation evidence and the applicability of statutory provisions.
Findings of Court:
The High Court was not justified in enhancing compensation solely on the basis of unverified sale deeds without comparable market evidence. The land, being near a national highway but 4 km from urban center Jamshedpur, warrants compensation of Rs. 22,000 per acre. The claimant is not entitled to a separate valuation for the well used for irrigation. Statutory interest and additional compensation under Sections 23(3), 28, and 23(1-A) apply from relevant dates.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was justified in enhancing compensation to Rs. 45,000 per acre based on sale deeds without corroborative market evidence, and whether the claimant is entitled to a separate valuation for the well used for irrigation.
Ratio Decidendi:
Compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 must reflect the market value supported by credible evidence; certified sale deeds alone are insufficient without comparable transactions. A well used for irrigation on the acquired land cannot be separately valued. Enhanced compensation, solatium, and interest must be calculated as per statutory provisions.
Result:
Appeals allowed partly; compensation set at Rs. 22,000 per acre with statutory solatium and interest, and no separate valuation for the well.
(A) Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on September 16, 1981 for acquiring 3 acres 17 decimals of land for the Suvarnarekha Project. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs. 14,445 per acre, later enhanced by the Subordinate Judge to Rs. 15,055 per acre. Both the State and the claimants appealed to the High Court, which enhanced compensation to Rs. 45,000 per acre under Section 23(1)(a), treating the land as cultivable, and additionally granted Rs. 20,000 for a well and statutory solatium with interest under Sections 23, 23(2), 23(3), 28, and 4. This Court examines the validity of that enhancement. The reliance on sale deeds under Section 51-A of the Act for determining market value is assessed in light of evidentiary standards and comparative valuation principles.
(B) Compensation must be determined on the basis of market value, and certified copies of sale deeds are admissible as secondary evidence under Section 51-A; however, the valuation must be supported by contemporaneous market evidence and cannot be based solely on unverified sale transactions. The claimant is not entitled to a separate valuation of a well used for irrigation of the acquired land.
Facts of the case:
The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on September 16, 1981 for acquiring 3 acres 17 decimals of land for the Suvarnarekha Project. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs. 14,445 per acre, which was enhanced to Rs. 15,055 per acre by the Subordinate Judge. Both parties appealed to the High Court, which enhanced compensation to Rs. 45,000 per acre, relying on sale deeds, and granted Rs. 20,000 for a well. This Court reviewed the valuation evidence and the applicability of statutory provisions.
Findings of Court:
The High Court was not justified in enhancing compensation solely on the basis of unverified sale deeds without comparable market evidence. The land, being near a national highway but 4 km from urban center Jamshedpur, warrants compensation of Rs. 22,000 per acre. The claimant is not entitled to a separate valuation for the well used for irrigation. Statutory interest and additional compensation under Sections 23(3), 28, and 23(1-A) apply from relevant dates.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was justified in enhancing compensation to Rs. 45,000 per acre based on sale deeds without corroborative market evidence, and whether the claimant is entitled to a separate valuation for the well used for irrigation.
Ratio Decidendi:
Compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 must reflect the market value supported by credible evidence; certified sale deeds alone are insufficient without comparable transactions. A well used for irrigation on the acquired land cannot be separately valued. Enhanced compensation, solatium, and interest must be calculated as per statutory provisions.
Result:
Appeals allowed partly; compensation set at Rs. 22,000 per acre with statutory solatium and interest, and no separate valuation for the well.
ORDER
Leave granted.
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act ) was published on September 16, 1981 acquiring 3 acres 17 decimals of land for Suvarnarekha Project. The Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated September 3, 1985 granted compensation at Rs. 14,445 per acre. On reference, the Subordinate Judge enhanced it to Rs. 15,055/- per acre. Both the State as well as the claimants filed the appeals in the High Court. The High Court in the impugned judgment in FA No. 105 and 93 of 1987 dated June 1, 1993 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 45,000/- per acre treating the acquired land in Don-1 as cultivable land. It also granted Rs. 20,000 towards the well and statutory solatium and interest. Thus, these appeals by special leave.
2. The question that arises for consideration is : whether the High Court was justified in enhancing the compensation to Rs. 45,000 per acre ? The High Court has relied upon the sale deed Ext. 3/A dated March 16, 1981 pertaining to lead of an extent of 25 decimals of Don-II lands and 14 decimals of Don-I lands sold for consideration of Rs. 16,000. It also relied upon another sale deed of the year 1983 with value of Rs. 1,10,000 per decimal; in other words, Rs. 45,000/- per acre. Unfortunately, neither the vendor nor the vendee has been examined in proof of passing of the consideration under the sale deed etc. Only a clerk of the Sub-registrar was called as witnesses to prove the sale deeds which are the certified copies of the sale deeds. No doubt, under Section 51-A of the Act, the certified copy of the sale deed is admissible as evidence to get over the difficulties of the owner of the document would not produce the original title deeds. The clerk of the Sub-registrar has proved that material as secondary evidence but other factors aliunde has to be established that the sale deed offers comparable value for determining the compensation at Rs. 45,000/- per acre.
3. This Court had elaborately considered and laid this principle of law in a catena of decisions, the latest being R. Ram Reddy & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad & Ors.1. Therefore, it needs no reiteration.
4. But, the fact is that the lands are situated very near to the national highway but 4 km. away from the Jamshedpur city. Under these circumstances, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the reasonable compensation would be Rs. 22,000/- per acre. The claimants are not entitled to the value of the well i.e. Rs. 20,000/- since the well was being used for irrigation of the land. For the reason, it cannot be separately valued as held by this Court in O. Janardhan Reddy & Ors. v. Spl. Dy. Collector, L.A. Unit-IV, LMD, Karimnagar, A.P. & Ors.2.
5. The appeals are accordingly partly allowed. The market value of lands is determined at Rs. 22,000/- per acre with solatium and interest and also additional amount as per Section 23(3) @ 30% on the enhanced compensation, interest under Section 28 for the first year at 9% and thereafter at 15% on the enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession till date of deposit. They are also entitled to the additional amount at 12% p.a. under Section 23(1-A) of the Act from date of notification under Section 4(1) till date of award or taking possession whichever is earlier. No costs.
Appeals allowed partly.
*******