EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CAPITAL PROJECT GANDHINAGAR Vs. PATEL VITTHALBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 22.2.1991 passed by the Extra Assistant Judge Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur in a group of Land Acquisition Cases for which reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was made. The appeals filed by the State are against the enhanced rates granted by the learned Judge while the appeals filed by the claimants are for claiming further amounts. The additional claim made in the High Court is Rs. 100/- per sq.mtr. The Land Acquisition officer had fixed the price of irrigated land at Rs. 24.00 per sq.mtr. for Category-1 being lands which about on the Naliya Road. He awarded Rs. 22.00 per sq.mtr. for Category-2 being non irrigated land which also about on the Naliya Road. For Category-3 being irrigated lands having no frontage he awarded Rs. 22 per sq.mtr. and for Category-4 which were non irrigated lands having not frontage rate of Rs. 20.00 per sq.mtr. was awarded. In the Reference Cases filed by the claimants the Extra Assistant Judge fixed the compensation for irrigated lands of categories I and 3 at Rs. 104/- per sq.mtr. and in respect of Categories 2 and 4 at Rs. 9/- per sq.mtr. Thus he awarded additional amount of Rs. 80/- per sq.mtr. to the claimants of Category-1 Rs.72/- per sq.mtr. to the claimants of Category-2 Rs.82/- per sq.mtr. to the claimants of Category-3 and Rs.74/- per sq.mtr. to the claimants of Category-4. In case of new tenure lands he directed that deduction of 5% should be made from the compensation fixed. Solatium and interest were awarded at the rates prescribed by law.

(2.) The lands which are the subject matter of this group were noticed under section 4 of the Act for acquisition on 7.7.1983 for the purpose of Gandhinagar capital development Sector 4. Notifications under section 6 of the Act were issued between 13.9.1984 and 19.12.1985. Admittedly all the lands were agricultural lands. The Land Acquisition Officer gave his award on 22.9 and the possession of these lands was taken away between 22.9.1986 and 8.10.1986. Against the award at the rate of Rs. 20/- to Rs. 24 per sq.mtr. made by the Land Acquisition officer the claimants in their Reference claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 300/- per sq.mtr.

(3.) Before the Lower Court reliance was placed on auction sale of various plots which were situated in Sectors 16 22 21 and 11. These instances did not find favour with the Lower Court as these plots were in developed Sectors. The Lower Court also did not accept the evidence in the form of revenue entries at Exh. 93 to 100 relied upon on behalf of the State for showing the value of the lands which was reflected in those entries. These were discarded on the ground that they could not be accepted as evidence of sale transactions. Reliance was placed by the claimants on valuation report prepared by one Mr. Rami produced at Exh. 71 This Valuation Report also did not find favour with the Lower Court on the ground that admittedly he had not assessed the value of agricultural land as he had no licence to assess such agricultural lands and he had taken into consideration the auction sale price of plots sold in Sectors 21 and 20 which were not in the vicinity of the lands under acquisition which were in Sector 4. The theory adopted by the expert regarding fall in purchase price of rupee was not approved for its application in case of assessing the market value of land. The Lower Court then considered the judgment and award at Exh. 61 in the Land Acquisition case No. 215 of 1984 and found that it was in respect of Lands which were situated in Sector 14 and one of the survey numbers was on eastern side of Sector 13. It was noted that these lands were not in the vicinity of the lands under acquisition. The Lower Court then found that approximate distance of the lands in question in Sector 4 from Sectors 11 16 20 and 21 was not less than 2 1/2 K.Ms. This factual aspect is not disputed. In the judgment (Exh. 61) it was found that net profit of land in question was Rs. 13/- to Rs. 15/- per sq.mtr. and on that basis it was found that amount of Rs. 130/- per sq.mtr. would be sufficient to compensate the claimants. Adopting this method and relying upon the evidence of the claimants that the net profit from the lands in question was Rs. 10 0 per Bigha the Court found that the income would come to Rs. 4.35 per sq.mtr. per year and an amount of Rs. 43.50 was required to be deposited at the rate of 10% interest for coming income of Rs. 4.35 per sq.mtr per year. The Lower Court however found this to be inadequate and adopting the method of capitalising return by applying 15 multiples in computing the capitalised value of the land found that net income per sq.mtr. would come to Rs. 65 The Court then proceeded to observe that while fixing the compensation potential development of lands under acquisition must be considered. The learned Judge then observed as under: these lands acquired in Sector 4 would not after its acquisition be used for agricultural purpose. These lands will definitely be used for non agricultural purpose and so this factor I would like to consider very much for fixing the price of these lands. Finding that there were no comparable instances and discarding the expert evidence the Lower Court further observed as under: And so we have to resort to the method of capitalised return. But this method only would not serve purpose in fully compensating the claimants because we have yet to consider future potential development of this land under acquisition because these lands are now to be used for agricultural purpose. After their acquisition they will be used for non agricultural purpose namely for residence shopping commercial etc. So the question would be how much more compensation should be allowed for the factor of potential development over and above the amount of Rs. 65/- which we have arrived by applying method of capitalising return and number of year purchase. There is no guideline for fixing value of land for this factor of the potential development of the land which is to be acquired by the Government. I think that on this count the reasonable amount would be the amount double that the amounts of Rs. 65 which we have arrived at applying the method of capitalising return for potential development . Having arrived at the figure of Rs. 130/- per sq.mtr. the Lower Court then proceeded to deduct 20 for development-costs and arrived at the figure of Rs. 104/- per sq.mtr. for irrigated lands and Rs. 94/- per sq.mtr. for non irrigated lands.