Nelson
Fernandes and Ors Vs. Special Land Acquisition officer,South Goa & Ors [2007] Insc 240 (2 March 2007)
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan & Altamas Kabir
(Arising Out of SLP (C) NOS. 16533-16534 OF 2005) WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1137 OF 2007 (Arising Out of SLP (C) NOS. 16503-16504 OF 2005)
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2007 (Arising Out of SLP (C) NOS. 16533-16534 OF 2005)
Leave granted.
The above appeal was filed against the final judgment and order dated
01.03.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Goa in
First Appeal Nos. 66 of 2002 and 75 of 2002 arising out of Land Acquisition
Case No. 58 of 1996 wherein the Division Bench rejected the claim of
compensation of the appellants for acquisition of the land belonging to them of
Rs.750/- per sq. metre and reduced the rate of compensation from Rs.192/- per
sq. metre as awarded by the District Judge to Rs.38/- per sq. metre after re-
appraising the evidence and substituting their own finding of facts in place of
the findings of the District Judge.
In the above case, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (hereinafter called the 'Act' for short) was published by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer South Goa for acquisition of land for construction of new
BG line for the Konkan Railways.
The notification was published in the local dailies on 5th and 6th August, 1994. Under Section 6 of the Act a declaration stating the government's
intention to acquire the land for the purpose of construction of new broad
gauge line of the Konkan Railways between Roha and Mangalore was made on
09.11.1994. An award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer
granting compensation to the appellant @ Rs.4/- per sq. metre and Rs.59,192/-
for trees standing on the said land. The appellant on 06.12.1996 made an
application before the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter for
determination of compensation under Section 18 of the Act and claimed a sum of
Rs.89,06,250/- for the acquired land and Rs.71,000/- for the trees standing
thereon. Reference under Section 18 was made by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer to District and Sessions Judge on 28.02.1996 and reference under
Section 19 of the Act was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Margao.
Evidence was adduced by the appellant - Mr.
Nelson Fernandes before the Addl. District Judge. Two sale deeds dated
13.12.1993 are annexed and marked as Annexure-P5. Evidence was adduced by
Government Approved Valuer - Pratima Kumar on the valuation report submitted by
her before the Addl. District Judge, Margao on 15.12.2000. Evidence was adduced
by Bartoleuma Gama on the sale of land by him @ Rs. 449/- per sq.
metre by sale deed being Ex.AW1/B was annexed and marked as Annexure-P7.
The Addl. District Judge passed an award increasing the rate of compensation
from Rs. 4/- per sq.
metre to Rs.192/- per sq. metre, but did not give any compensation for the
trees standing on the said land.
First Appeal Nos. 66 and 75 of 2002 were preferred by both the appellants
and the respondents before the High Court against the judgment and award dated
29.08.2001 of the learned District Judge.
First Appeal Nos. 66 of 2002 and 75 of 2002 were disposed of by the Division
Bench of the High Court by rejecting the appeal of the appellants and allowing
the appeal of the respondents. The Division Bench rejected the report of the
valuer and the findings of the District Judge and reduced the rate of
compensation from Rs.
192/- per sq. metre as awarded by the District Judge to Rs. 38/- per sq.
metre. Hence the above appeal.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2007 (Arising Out of SLP (C) NOS. 16503-16504 OF 2005)
Leave granted.
The above appeal was filed against the final judgment and order dated
09.03.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Goa in
First Appeal Nos. 63 and 67 of 2002 arising out of Land Acquisition Case No.
391 of 1995 wherein the Division Bench rejected the claim of compensation of
the appellants for acquisition of the land belonging to them of Rs.470/- per
sq. metre and reduced the rate of compensation from Rs.108/- per sq. metre as
awarded by the District Judge to Rs.27/- per sq. metre after re- appraising the
evidence and substituting their own finding of facts in place of the findings
of the District Judge.
In the above case, notification under Section 4 of the Act was published by
the Special Land Acquisition Officer, for acquisition of land for construction
of new BG line for the Konkan Railways. The notification was published in the
local dailies. Declaration was made on 16.06.1992 and award was passed on
24.01.1995 granting compensation to the appellant @ Rs. 4/- per sq.
metre and Rs.82,282/- for trees standing on the land.
The appellant on 27.03.1995 made an application before the Land Acquisition
Officer to refer the matter for determination of compensation under Section 18
of the Act and claimed a sum of Rs. 470/- per sq. metre for the acquired land
and in support of their contention relied on 3 sale deeds of adjoining plots,
one award and a report of a valuer. Reference under Section 18 was made by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer to the District and Sessions Judge on
06.09.1995. Evidence was adduced by the appellant before the District Judge on
30.02.1999 and 24.09.1999. Evidence was adduced by Government Approved Valuer -
Pratima Kumar on the valuation report submitted by her before the Addl.
District Judge, Margao on 15.12.2000. Evidence was adduced by Antonio Rosario
Rodrigues on the purchase of land by him at Rs.
480/- per sq. metre by sale deed being Ex.AW1/F was marked as Annexure-P7.
Likewise, evidence adduced by Maria Piea Carvalho on the purchase of land by
her at Rs.200/- per sq. metre by sale deed being AW1/E was marked as
Annexure-P8.
The Addl. District Judge passed an award increasing the rate of compensation
from Rs.4/- to Rs.108/- per sq. metre but did not give any compensation for the
trees standing on the said land.
First Appeal No. 67 of 2002 was preferred by the appellants and 63 of 2002
was preferred by the respondents before the Bombay High Court at Goa against
the judgment and award dated 29.08.2001 of the District Judge. Both the appeals
were disposed of by the Division Bench by rejecting the appeal of the
appellants and allowing the appeal of the respondents. The Division Bench
rejected the report of the valuer and the findings of the District Judge and
reduced the rate of compensation from Rs. 108/- per sq. metre as awarded by the
District Judge to Rs. 27/- per sq. metre. Hence the above appeal.
We heard Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel for the appellant and
Mr. Atul Y. Chitale, learned counsel for the Konkan Railways.
Though notice was served on the first respondent - Special Land Acquisition
Officer South Goa and service of notice is complete, there is no representation
on behalf of respondent No.1. However, Mr. Atul Y. Chitale, learned counsel
appeared and made his submissions.
Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing for the claimants
submitted that the Division Bench was under the obligation to satisfy the
conditions imposed under Section 23 of the Act for the purpose of determining
the amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellants and that the Court
is bound and obliged to ensure that its judgment is in conformity with the
provisions of the statute. He further submitted that Court cannot reject the
opinion of an expert and substitute its own opinion in place instead of the
same.
Likewise, the Court has committed an error in regard to the rate of
compensation to be awarded for acquisition of land after rejecting all the
evidence on record including the opinion of expert. It is also submitted that
Court cannot fix separate rate of compensation for similarly placed lands and
that the Court has to consider the sale of land in the locality and the
facilities available thereon.
Mr. Dwivedi, learned senior counsel took us through the pleadings and the
grounds alleged in the grounds of appeal and submitted that while fixing the
rate of compensation, the District Judge did not consider that the land in
question was situated at a place which is of high commercial value and is well
connected to other cities and that the High Court has failed to appreciate that
the compensation awarded by the Courts below has no basis whatsoever and was
not supported by cogent reasons. Likewise, the Court did not consider the
future prospect of development of the land in question and also failed to
appreciate that the trees grown by the appellants on the land in question were
of high value at the time of awarding the compensation. It is also submitted
that the High Court has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence submitted
in support of the claim made by the appellants. According to the learned senior
counsel, the High Court ought to have enhanced the compensation awarded to the appellant
in view of the evidence adduced by it. The High Court also did not assess the
damages that the appellant is bound to sustain by such acquisition. The High
Court also erred in passing the order impugned holding that the appellant was
entitled to compensation @ Rs.38/- per sq. metre and that the Division Bench
erred in passing the order impugned thereby reducing the rate of compensation
from Rs.192/- to Rs.38/- without considering the prayer of the appellant to fix
the rate of compensation at Rs.750/-.
Thus, it is argued that the High Court has erred in passing the order
impugned in utter mis-interpretation of the evidence on record and that the
High Court by the impugned order rejected the just and equitable claim of the
appellant and acted in a flagrant error of law and facts which, according to
the appellant, resulting in manifest injustice being caused to the appellant.
The High Court also erred in holding that the appellant's land was hilly and
deduction of 65% ought to have been made by the learned Judge and not 33% as
done by him.
Likewise, the learned Judges of the Division Bench have also erred in
holding that the acquired land had lost its significance after construction of
a bridge over the Zuari River.
Similar argument was also advanced by the other counsel in the other
connected appeals. It was submitted that the High Court failed to appreciate
that the land in question was well developed and the construction thereon and
the same was acquired and that the High Court has failed to appreciate that the
compensation awarded by the Courts below had no basis whatsoever and was not
supported by cogent reasons. It was further argued that the Court did not
consider that the land in question was substituted at a place which is of high
commercial value and well connected to other cities. Concluding his arguments,
learned senior counsel submitted that the High Court at Goa has erred in
passing the order impugned thereby reducing the rate of compensation from
Rs.108/- as an order passed by the learned District Judge to Rs. 27/- without
considering the prayer of the appellant to fix the rate of compensation at Rs.
470 per sq. metre. It was also submitted that the High Court has erred in
passing the order impugned without any application of mind and also by
rejecting the just and equitable claim of the appellant and acted in a flagrant
error of law and facts. Therefore, it was submitted that the order passed by
the High Court is erroneous and resulting in manifest injustice being caused to
the appellant.
Mr. Atul Y. Chitale, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 - Konkan
Railways submitted that the land acquired by the State Government for KRCL
project in question is for public purpose and not for any commercial
exploitation and for construction of new broad gauge line for Konkan Railway
adjacent to the land already acquired for the same purpose earlier. He further
submitted that the acquired land is 11,875 sq. metres, hilly area, about 30
metres from the road level and is undeveloped land as most of the area is a low
lying area and that the topography of the acquired land in question are such
that a major part of the land is of Bharad type with fess paddy fields
cultivated for both the seasons, part of the land is under coconut cultivation
and some portion is under water and to develop the land would be expensive, as
the land would require to be filled up and then developed. According to learned
counsel, the Land Acquisition Officer, in his award, took into consideration
the following in fixing the rates:
1) prevailing conditions of the land;
2) rates awarded recently for such types of land and approved by the
Government and;
3) restrictions under Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964.
He further submitted that the Land Acquisition Collector arrived at the
valuation of the trees, after considering the fact that the valuation had been
done by the technical staff of the Directorate of Agriculture and Deputy
Conservator of Forests and, therefore, the appellant would be entitled to the
market value of the land as on the date of publication of the notification
under Section 4 of the Act i.e. on 01.08.1994 and that the rate of land
approved by the Government under Section 11(1) of the Act in respect of
untenanted Bharad/garden in orchard zone types of land in village Cortalim as
on 17.01.1995 was Rs. 4/- per sq. metre. He then submitted that the valuation
report of Mrs. Pratima Kumar cannot be relied upon by the appellant as she is
not competent to value the land in question and that the valuation of Rs.500/-
per sq. metre arrived at by the valuer is not based on any known method of
valuation, but is solely on the basis of the facility available. Further no
reasons have been given in support of the opinion arrived at by the valuer.
Learned counsel also submitted that the compensation payable to the
appellant for the acquired land cannot be based on the average price of the two
sale deeds dated 11.12.1993 relied upon by the appellant as the sale deed dated
11.12.1993 pertain to plots that are smaller in size i.e. Rs.365/- sq. metre
and Rs.275/- sq.
metre. This apart, plots were not developed by making roads, drainages etc.
as required under the planning law and sub-divisions made were also approved by
the Town and Country Planning Department as well as the village panchayat.
Hence, the price at which the plots were sold i.e. at Rs.250 per sq. metre
cannot be considered for the purpose of valuation of the acquired land.
Further, the price fetched for smaller plots cannot be applied to lands covering
large area as held by this Court in various judgments and, in particular, 1977
(1) SCC 684 Prithvi Pradesh and Anr. It is further argued that the acquired
land in question is located at a distance of 15 kms. from the airport, 20 kms.
from Vasco city, 18 kms. from Panaji, 3 kms. from Cortalim market and there is
no approach road to the location.
It was further submitted that the comparable sales method of valuation of
land can be adopted in case where the acquired land in question is being
compared to the similar type of acquired land, made pursuant to the same
preliminary notification. But if any of the factors such as location, shape,
size potentiality or tenure of the acquired land widely differs from the other
plots then the market value of the acquired land has to be determined
independently of the others as held by this Court in Printer House Pvt. Ltd.
vs. Mst. Saiyadan (deceased) by LRs and Others, 1994 (2) SCC 133. It was also
submitted that while determining the amount to be awarded for the acquired land
in the year 1994, the LAO while passing the award dated 25.08.1995, in terms of
the provisions of the Act had considered:
a) the area and the nature of the acquired land, b) the objects filed by the
petitioner, c) damages sustained by the petitioner, d) inspected the land under
acquisition to ascertain the advantages and disadvantages from the valuation
point of view, e) the market value of trees, structure etc.
f) the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964
as applicable to the Acquired land, g) the rate of land approved by Government
under section 11(1) of the said Act in respect of various types of land in the
aforesaid villages which are as follows:
Letter of Dy.
Collector (L.A) of Collectorate of South Goa No.
Date Village Type of Land Rate per Sq.
Mtrs. Rs.
Ps.
2/4/94- CVS/57- LAR/418 19.09.1994 Sancoale Tenanted Double Cropped Paddy
9.00 Coconut Bharad Marshy/Under Water 4.00 2.00 2/4/94- CVS/90- LAR/474
24.10.1994 Sancoale (Addl.) Tenanted Double Cropped Paddy 9.00 2/4/94- CVS/65-
LAR/12 17.01.1995 Cortalim Untenanted Bharad/ Garden in Orchard Zone 4.00
According to the learned counsel, the High Court, after considering all the
above-mentioned facts, had correctly made the deduction, that the land in
question is an undeveloped stretch of land which is held by the tenants and has
no marketable title and cannot be used for any other purpose other than what it
was being used for now and that no approvals to develop the land has been taken
from the appropriate authority. It is also submitted that for laying of the
track, respondent No.2 had to carry out the filling of the acquired land up to
6 metre of height. Concluding his argument, learned counsel for the Konkan
Railways submitted that the High Court, after hearing both the parties and
after considering the evidence on record had correctly reduced the compensation
awarded by the ADJ from Rs. 192/- per sq. metre to Rs. 38/- per sq. metre for
the acquired land by a well-reasoned judgment and order and that in view of the
above, this Court should dismiss the civil appeal filed by the appellants with
costs.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions with reference to the
pleadings, documents and annexures filed in the instant case. In the instant
case, no document whatsoever was filed by both the respondents.
In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded, the LAO shall be
guided by the provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act. As per Section 22 of
the Act, the market value of the land has to be determined at the date of
publication of notice under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 25.08.1994. As per
Section 24, the LAO shall also exclude any increase in the value of land likely
to accrue from use to which it will be put once acquired.
The market value of the land means the price of the land which a willing
seller is reasonably expected to fetch in the open market from a willing
purchaser. In other words, it is a price of the land in hypothetical market.
During the site inspection, it has been observed that the land under
acquisition is situated in Sancoale and Cortalim village adjacent to the land
already acquired for the same purpose earlier.
In the instant case, two sale deeds were relied upon dated 13.12.1993 which
is 8 months before Section 4(1) notification. The property was sold at Rs. 250
per sq.
metre. We have perused the sale deed and the recitals in the document. The
property is an extent of Rs. 385/- sq.
metre as shown in the plan attached. Thereafter, the owners as recited in
the partition deed developed the said property by making roads, drainage etc.
as required under the planning laws which were approved by the town and country
planning authorities on 22.10.1993 and by the village panchayat by their
license VPC/4 93- 94/754 dated 15.11.1993. The land in question is more
particularly described in the second schedule. An extent admeasuring 385 sq.
metre was sold for a total price of Rs. 96,250/- which was the then market
value. Another sale deed was sold on the same date admeasuring around 257 sq.
metres as shown in the plan attached. It is stated in the deed that all the
co-owners have developed the property by making roads, drainage etc. as
required under the standing laws. The total sale consideration is Rs.64,250/-
The Government registered valuer Mrs. Pratiba Kumar was examined as witness AW
2. She is also a panel valuer for LIC, GIC and Bank of India. She has
prepared the valuation report at the request of the appellants. According to
the report, the acquired land admeasures 11,875/- sq. metres and the said
property is a joint property of the applicants which is situated close to the
ferry point at Cortalim and it is abutting the public road and that the
acquired land aborts the acquired land of LAC 391/95 which touches the public
road which was acquired for Konkan Railways broad gauge line. The acquired land
is situated in settlement zone S2 police station, petrol pump, salgaonkar ship
yard, government warehouse within a range of about 200 metres and market,
school, bank etc.
are within a range of 1 km and in the year 1994 and even prior to a point
when electricity, telephone and water facility were available to the acquired
land. After taking into consideration all the factors mentioned in her report,
she has arrived at the market value of Rs. 500/- per sq.
metre. Nothing has been elicited from her in the cross- examination in
regard to her statements made in the chief examination. It is thus seen from
the above report that the approved valuer, taking into consideration the
location of the property amenities available and also the cost of similar
properties in the locality, has arrived at the present fair market rate of the
land which was fixed at Rs. 500 per sq. metre.
The Addl. District Judge South Goa considered the 2 sale deeds relied upon
by the appellants. Both the sale deeds are dated 13.12.1993 Ex AW1/B and Ex
AW1/C.
The executants of the sale deed was examined as AW3 and AW1. According to
them, the land was sold @ Rs.
250/- per sq. metre which is situated about 3 kms away from the acquired
land and that the second sale deed is in respect of Rs. 257 sq. metres and also
situated at a distance of about 3 kms. Both the sale deeds are about 8 months
prior to the acquisition of the land. Both the lands were sold @ Rs. 250/- per
sq. metre.
It was argued that small extent of land sold cannot be taken into account.
According to the District Judge deduction has to be made where there is larger
area of undeveloped land under acquisition provision has to be made for
providing the minimum amenities of town line such as water connections, well
laid out roads, drainage facility, electricity connections etc and that the
process necessarily involves deduction of the cost of factors required to bring
the undeveloped lands on par with the developed lands.
In the instant case, taking the average of both the sale deeds Ex. AW 1/B
and AW 1/C the District Judge made a deduction @ 33% for the development
charges and on deduction of 33% from Rs. 250/- per sq. metre the actual price
of the acquired land would be approximately Rs. 192/- per sq. metre which,
according to the opinion of the District Judge would be reasonable for the
acquired land. By holding so, he passed the following Award.
"Award This compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is enhanced
to Rs. 192/- per sq.mt. The respondents shall pay to the applicants the said
compensation in addition to proportionate solatium charges on the amount
thereof and the interest at the rate of 9% during the period of one year from
the date of possession of the land delivered to the respondents in terms of
section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act and thereafter at the rate of 15% per
year under section 28 of the said Act from the date of expiry of the period of
one year till the actual payment of the whole amount of compensation plus 12%
interest over and above the market value of the land from the date of
notification under section 4 of the Act up to the date of the award or taking
possession whichever is earlier in terms of section 1A of section 23 of the LA
Act. The amount already paid shall be adjusted against the compensation awarded
and the applicants shall be entitled to the refund of the court fee paid by
them and the costs of Rs. 1000/- to be paid by the respondents."
The High Court, in para 10 of its judgment, however, held that the District
Judge was not justified in principle to take an average of the price of two
sale deeds and apply the same for fixing the compensation payable to the
claimants. The High Court held that the two sale deeds could be used as a guide
for the purpose of fixing the compensation to the acquired land and the same
could be used but by making further deductions.
According to them, to carry out the development of such land which was not
at one level the applicant would have to spend a considerable amount towards
the development, namely, level terracing roads etc. and, therefore, considering
the nature of the land which was hilly at least a deduction of 65% ought to
have been taken by the Addl. District Judge and not 33% as done by him. Again,
the High Court was of the view that the District Judge ought to have made a
further deduction of at least 10% since the distance between the acquired land
and the plots was about 3 kms. Further, the High Court held that the prices fetched
from small plots cannot be applied to the lands covering large area and,
therefore, a further deduction ought to have been made on this ground of at
least of 10%. The High Court, therefore, held that considering the location of
the acquired land vis-`-vis its nature and the plot of the sale deeds, the
District Judge ought to have made a deduction of at least 85% and in view of
the said deduction, the price of the acquired land works out to Rs.
37.50 which is rounded of to Rs.38/- per sq. metre. A further direction was
issued that the compensation paid towards the trees must be adjusted from the
compensation fixed for the lands.
In our opinion, the High Court has adopted a rough and ready method for
making deductions which is impermissible in law. We have already noticed the
valuers report. No reason whatsoever was given by the Reference Court or by the
High Court as to why the report of the valuer and her evidence cannot be relied
on.
In our opinion, the compensation awarded by the High Court had no basis
whatsoever and was not supported by cogent reasons and that it did not consider
the future prospect of the development of the land in question. The High Court
also did not assess the injury that the appellant is likely to sustain due to
loss of his future earnings from the said land and also did not assess the
damage already suffered due to diminution of the profits of the land between
the time of publication of the notice and time of the collector taking
possession. The Division Bench of the High Court has miserably erred in passing
the order impugned thereby reducing the rate of compensation from Rs. 192/- to
Rs. 38/- and in utter mis-reading of the evidence on record and acted in a
flagrant error of law and facts. In our view, the orders passed by the Division
Bench resulted in manifest injustice being caused to the appellants. The High
Court also erred in passing the order by holding that the opinion of the
government approved valuer was not based on any opinion method of valuation but
solely on the basis of facilities available to the land. In our view, the High
Court ought to have appreciated that the government approved valuer is an
expert in her field and the opinion of such an expert ought not to have been
rejected shabbily.
Both the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the District Judge and of the
High Court have failed to notice that the purpose of acquisition is for
Railways and that the purpose is a relevant factor to be taken into
consideration for fixing the compensation. In this context, we may usefully
refer the judgment of this Court Gujarat reported in JT 2005 (4) SC 282. This
Court held that the purpose for which the land is acquired must also be taken
into consideration in fixing the market value and the deduction of development
charges. In the above case, the lands were acquired because they were submerged
under water of a dam. Owners claimed compensation of Rs. 40/- per sq. ft. LAO
awarded compensation ranging from Rs. 35/- to Rs. 60/- per sq.
mtr. Reference Court fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 200/- per sq.
mtr. and after deduction of development charges, determined the compensation @
Rs. 134/- per sq. mtr. In arriving at the compensation, Reference court placed
reliance on the comparative sale of a piece of land measuring 46.30 sq. metre @
Rs. 270 per sq. mtr. On appeal, the High Court awarded compensation of Rs.
180/- per sq. mtr. in respect of large plots and Rs. 200/- per sq. mtr. in
respect of smaller plots. On further appeal, this Court held that since the
lands were acquired for being submerged in water of dam and had no potential
value and the sale instance relied was a small plot measuring 46.30 sq. mtr.
whereas the acquisition in the present case was in respect of large area,
interest of justice would be subserved by awarding compensation of Rs. 160/-
per sq. mtr. in respect of larger plots and Rs.175/- per sq. mtr. for smaller
plots.
reported in JT 1996 5 SC 580, this Court held that the purpose by which
acquisition is made is also a relevant factor for determining the market value.
We are not, however, oblivious of the fact that normally 1/3 deduction of
further amount of compensation has been directed in some cases.
However, the purpose for which the land acquired must also be taken into
consideration. In the instant case, the land was acquired for the construction
of new BG line for the Konkan Railways. This Court in Hasanali SCC 422 and
L.A.O. vs. Nookala Rajamallu, 2003 (10) Scale 307 had noticed that where lands
are acquired for specific purposes deduction by way of development charges is
permissible. In the instant case, acquisition is for laying a railway line.
Therefore, the question of development thereof would not arise. Therefore, the
order passed by the High Court is liable to be set aside and in view of the
availability of basic civic amenities such as school, bank, police station,
water supply, electricity, high way, transport, post, petrol pump, industry,
telecommunication and other businesses, the claim of compensation should
reasonably be fixed @ Rs.
250/- per sq. mtr. with the deduction of 20%. The appellant shall be
entitled to all other statutory benefits such as solatium, interest etc. etc.
The appellants also will be entitled to compensation for the trees standing on
the said land in a sum of Rs. 59,192 as fixed. I.A. No. 1 of 2006 for
substitution is ordered as prayed for.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2007 (Arising Out of SLP (C) NOS. 16503-16504 OF 2005)
In this case, the LAO awarded compensation to the appellant @ Rs 4/- per sq.
mtr. and Rs.82,282/- for trees standing on the said land. The appellants
claimed a sum of Rs. 470/- per sq. mtr. for the acquired land and in support of
their contention relied on 3 sale deeds of adjoining plots, one award and a
report of a valuer. The District Judge in accordance with the rate of
compensation from Rs.4/- to Rs.108/- but did not give any compensation for the
trees standing on the land. In the first appeal preferred by the appellant and
the appeal preferred by the respondents, the High Court against the judgment and
award dated 29.08.2001 of the District Judge rejected the appeal of the
appellants and allowed the appeal of the respondents. The Division Bench
rejected the report of the valuer and findings of the District Judge and
reduced the rate of compensation from Rs. 108/- as awarded by the learned
District Judge to Rs. 27/-. This case also stands on the same footing as that
of the other appellant in SLP (C) Nos. 16533-16534 of 2005. Therefore, they are
also entitled to compensation on par with the other appeal. In this case, the
appellant adduced two sale deeds AW1F and AW1E on the purchase of land by him
at Rs. 480 per sq. mtr.
and Rs. 200 per sq. mtr. respectively. The Government valued approver also
submitted his report and also deposed before the Court. The land in question is
also acquired for the same purpose. Therefore, the appellant in this case is
also entitled to the same compensation at Rs. 250/- per sq. mtr. with deduction
of 20%. The appellant will be entitled to compensation for the trees standing thereon
at Rs. 82,232/- as justified by the L.A.O. The appellant will also entitled to
all the other statutory benefits such as solatium, interest etc. Both the
appeals are ordered accordingly. Since the acquisition was made under Section
4(1) notification and the matter was pending from the year 1996 the appellant
shall be entitled for payment of compensation now fixed by this Court together
with solatium, interest and other statutory benefits as permissible under law
and that the compensation and other payment shall be made within 3 months from
today after adjusting the payments which have already been made. No costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2