PARVATHIBAI Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimants as also the Gulbarga Development Authority have both filed appeals in respect of the enhancement allowed by the Reference Court in relation to LAC Nos. 57 and 58 of 1992. Two areas comprising of 18 acres 31 guntas in Sy. No. 49 and 11 acres 12 guntas in Sy. No. 50 of Badepur Extension, Gulbarga were acquired vide preliminary notification dated 8-9-1988 for purposes of forming house sites. The land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation computed at Rs. 15,500/- per acre and the claimants had approached the Reference Court for enhancement to the extent of Rs. 2 lakhs per acre, the principal ground being that in the case of certain other sales that have taken place in the area, the prices varied from Rs. 8 to Rs. 12. 50 ps. per sq. ft. in various instances, but the real ground that was urged very strongly was the fact that these lands are located in the proximity of the Gulbarga-Sedam Road and Gulbarga Ring Road, wherein the entire area has been fully developed insofar as there are residential buildings, office buildings, schools, hospitals and the like. The authority had seriously opposed any enhancement and the grounds urged in support of the enhancement. The contention was, the fact that admittedly at the time of acquisition these lands were categorised as agricultural lands, that no non-agricultural permission had been obtained and furthermore, various statistics were sought to be produced by the Secretary in support of his contention that the total infrastructural facilities would have to be provided in respect of these lands and the bottom line of the argument therefore was to the effect that the Reference Court would have to take into consideration the abnormally heavy expenditure under this head and consequently, that the compensation awardable cannot take for its basis some of the prices that prevail in respect of even the adjoining developed areas. We need to say that the learned Judge who presided over the Reference Court has done a very careful and thorough analysis of the material that was placed before it, we have been impressed by the fact that he has adopted a very fair and balanced approach and that he has ultimately enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1 lakh per acre. As indicated earlier, the claimants who contend that they should be awarded at least Rs. 1. 5 lakhs per acre have both preferred appeals against the decision and the authority has also preferred cross appeals contending that no enhancement at all to be awarded on the special facts and circumstances of this case.

(2.) WE have heard the learned Counsels representing the contesting parties and the learned Government Advocate on merits. The principles governing this class of cases are now well-defined and it is really not necessary for us to re-state the law or for that matter to re-activate those principles. We have however been very carefully guided by some of the changes in respect of a few finer areas that have come about in the decisions both by this Court as also the Supreme Court in the recent past and we have been guided by these principles while deciding these appeals. We first start by very briefly summarising the factual position that falls for consideration. There is no doubt about the fact that the lands were categorised as agricultural lands. This would undoubtedly have considerable bearing on the aspect of developmental expenditure but the learned Counsel representing the authority as also the learned government Advocate were extremely emphatic about the fact that it makes a major difference as far as the potential value of the lands are concerned. On the other hand, Mr. Shankar, learned Counsel who represents the claimants pointed out something of considerable significance to us insofar as his contention is that it is the location or situation of the lands that are of paramount importance and not the question as to whether they are agricultural lands or non-agricultural lands. Towards this end, he demonstrated to us from the sketches that are on record as also from the CDP produced by the authority itself, that the whole of that area is not only urban area but that the whole of that area has also been developed to the extent that these plots are possibly among the only ones that have not so far been built upon. The argument is that in such a situation the potentiality is what the Court is required to assess and not the categorisation as far as the revenue records are concerned. We have evaluated the rival contentions and what we need to observe is that in a situation such as the present one where agricultural lands are located in the midst of a relatively developed area, that the question as to whether non-agricultural permission had been obtained or not is of secondary consequence because those lands as has emerged from the evidence on record were not being used for any agricultural operations, that they had been leveled out and they were on par with any other lands on which building or developmental activity would take place. Some marginal allowance would certainly have to be made for the fact that no non-agricultural permission had been obtained, but this factor would not materially change the value of the lands because in our considered view, it is really the developmental potentiality that is of paramount significance. To this extent, the Reference Court has done a comparative analysis of the sales transactions in the areas that are within the immediate proximity and the learned Single Judge has finally arrived at valuation of Rs. 8/- per sq. ft. Thereafter, what has been done is that a deduction of Rs. 3/- per sq. ft. has been applied insofar as the learned Single Judge has taken the average value in respect of the comparative transactions and then deducted Rs. 3 per sq. ft. as indicated by us balancing out the average market value at Rs. 5 per sq. ft. While computing the compensation the learned Single Judge has thereafter deducted 53% under the head of developmental expenditure and finally arrived at the figure of Rs. 2. 53 ps. per sq. ft. which works out to Rs. 1,02,601/- per acre, which has been rounded off to Rs. 1 lakh per acre.

(3.) THE learned Counsel who represents the authority has drawn our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in V. G. Kulkarni v The special Land Acquisition Officer, wherein, though the Reference Court had awarded a sum of Rs. 3. 90 lakhs per acre, the Supreme Court confirmed the High Court decision in reducing the compensation to Rs. 67,200/- per acre principally on the ground that there was no evidence of actual development having taken place near the land in question. He also drew our attention to another decision of the Supreme Court in government of Andhra Pradesh v H. E. H. , The Nigam, Hyderabad, wherein the Supreme Court had observed that the Courts need to take into account the high costs of development which justified deductions between 331/3% to 65%. The learned Counsel also drew our attention to one of the companion acquisitions in respect of which another Division bench of this Court on 21-9-2002 approved the compensation of Rs. 65,000/- per acre which had been awarded by the Reference Court and refused to enhance the same and jt is his submission that in the light of this decision the compensation of Rs. 1 lakh per acre which has been awarded by the Reference Court is liable to be reduced. The appellants' learned Counsel brought it to our notice that on the other hand, while arguing the similar appeal he had advanced the submission that in another case relating to the same acquisition in respect of which the judgment has been produced at Exhibit P. 11 to these proceedings, that the Division Bench of this Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1. 07 lakhs per acre and that the decision in question has been accepted and not appealed against. His submission is that unfortunately, the judgment copy was not available and that therefore he could not produce the same before the other Division Bench, that this fact was pointed out to the Apex Court in an appeal filed against the decision in M. F. A. No. 239 of 1997 clubbed with M. F. A. Nos. 55 and 877 of 1997 referred to by us supra, and that the Apex Court has permitted the petitioners to withdraw the special leave petition with liberty to apply for review of the decision before the High Court. The submission canvassed is that the law on the point is now well-settled by virtue of the ratio in Major dhian Singh v Union of India, wherein the Apex Court very clearly laid down the principle that where valuation has been accepted by a Court in respect of comparable land that the Courts are obliged to follow the same principle and the same standard while deciding the other similar cases. We hasten to add here that while the claimants' learned Counsel has vehemently submitted that in the light of the earlier decision the compensation must be enhanced to Rs. 1. 75 lakhs per acre and that there is no need to go into any elaborate debate on this issue, the respondents' learned Counsel were quick to point out that even in respect of lands which are the subject-matter of the same acquisition that there can be and that in fact there are potential differences, for instance, they brought it to our notice that the lands covered by the earlier case were non-agricultural lands whereas the lands in the present case are agricultural lands. That secondly, the exact location, the exact size of the plots and the several other factors which we do not need to recount contribute towards the justification for higher valuation as far as those plots were concerned. We do concede that no Court will apply a mechanical equaliser as far as this set of cases are concerned and that undoubtedly if there are any facts which differ or differentiate that these will have to be taken into account.