STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Vs. AYODHYA PRASAD DUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. 1. Though the State acquired the land of the respondent in land acquisition proceeding, it feels aggrieved by the higher compensation determined by the learned Court below in the matter of reference made under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (fort short 'the Act of 1894') by the Collector.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for decision of the appeal are that the State issued notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Act of 1894 on 9/5/2008 initiating process of acquisition of land in Village-Mohabhatta for stated public purposes. The area proposed to be acquired included 1.15 acres of land of the respondent-owner. The land acquisition proceeding eventually culminated in passing an award on 17/8/2009, under which, the Land Acquisition Officer assessed compensation in respect of the land situated in Khasra No.252 & 253 situated in Patwari Halka No.5, Tahsil Bilha District Bilaspur belonging to the respondent. In respect of 1.15 acres of land, compensation at the rate of Rs.6,41,000.00 per hectare was assessed. Feeling aggrieved by the award, the respondent sought reference of the dispute under Sec. 18 of the Act of 1894. Reference made by the Collector to the District Judge was adjudicated after affording the parties an opportunity to lead oral and documentary evidence. By impugned order, learned Court below held that compensation was not properly assessed. According to the impugned order while assessing compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer did not take into consideration the proximity of the land with the main road and that the land is situated very near to other developed land which are valuable for residential and commercial purposes. Taking into consideration the rates of sale and purchase of land situated in adjacent Village-Rahangi in the year 2012, learned Court below held that the respondent was entitled to compensation at a higher rate and after adding solatium at the rate of 30% and also 12% on the market value in respect of the relevant period as specified in Sec. 23(1A) of the Act of 1894, awarded Rs.12,59,626.00 to the respondent. It is this award which is under challenge.

(3.) Brief and pointed submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State in this appeal is that while assessing compensation payable to the respondent, learned Court below has committed patent illegality and has awarded compensation dehors the scheme of computation as embodied in Sec. 23 and 24 of the Act of 1894. It is contended that the compensation having been awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, if the respondent had a higher claim, it was his burden to lead clinching, oral and documentary evidence to prove that on the relevant date, the market value of the land was more than what was awarded. The only evidence led by the respondent-claimant was that in the nearby villages, sale and purchase of plots in the year 2012 was on a higher rates which was wholly irrelevant because according to mandate of Sec. 23 of the Act of 1894, the market value of the land, as on the date of issuance of notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Act of 1894 is required to be seen and not the rates of sale and purchase on any subsequent date, much less 4 years after the date of issuance of notification. It is next contended that the learned Court below has assessed higher value of the land on the basis that looking to the development of adjacent area in near future, it will gain commercial and industrial value which is also prohibited area of consideration in view of provision contained in Sec. 24 of the Act of 1894. Therefore, the entire basis for enhancing compensation is illegal and impermissible under the law. The respondent could not place any evidence of sale and purchase of land of similar nature in the nearby area during the period 2008-2009, therefore, assessment of compensation on the basis of Government guidelines cannot be said to be improper. In order to support her submission, learned Additional Advocate General relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the cases of Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs Special Land Acquisition Officer , 1988 AIR(SC) 1652 , State of Punjab Vs. Amarjit Singh and anr. , 2011 4 SCC 734 , Loveleen Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others , 2018 7 SCC 492 .