COLLECTOR OF PANCHMAHALS Vs. DESAI KESHAVLAL PANALAL DECD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The lands under acquisition in all admeasuring 50 acres-30 gunthas They form a compact block of agricultural lands though no doubt they are shown in separate survey numbers. They are situated in the village of Sampoi in Zalod Taluka. The village Sampoi was a personal Inam village and since the tenants have had no right to sell any such lands there are no instances of sale in that village. The lands are at a distance of half a mile from the village side of Sampoi. The population thereof as per census of 1951 is 2624. To the west of these lands under acquisition is the sim of village Varod. On the eastern side there is a road going from Zalod to Dohad. To the south of these lands runs the river Manchhan. The water remains in this river throughout the year except in the months of May and June. Beyond this river Manchhan towards the south is a small village Tandi. Of the lands under acquisition S. No. 66 abuts and can be said to be on the bank of the river Manchhan. In S. No. 88 there is a well in respect of which separate compensation is claimed at the rate of Rs. 500.00. This well Was a katcha well. As already stated hereabove the Land Acquisition Officer valued lands at the rate of Rs. 300.00 per acre except in respect of S. No. 88 which came to be valued at the rate of Rs. 450.00 since there stood a well in that land. The learned Judge however valued all the lands at a fiat rate of Rs. 800.00 per one acre of land and rejected the claim in respect of the well situated in S. No. 88. The award of the learned Civil Judge is mainly based on an instance of salt: in respect of S. No. 6/5 situated in the village of Varod. That transaction was said to have taken place on 14th December 1956. It related to 26 bighas of land and the sale-price thereof was Rs. 600.00 The market price that way came to Rs. 827-58 nP. per one acre of land. The learned Judge also found that there were two other instances of sale in respect of S. Nos. 58/1 and 58/1/A as per Exs. 53 and 54 dated 8-6-48 and 6-5-49 respectively. Which the former admeasured 1 acre-16 gunthas the latter admeasured I acre-17 gunthas. Having regard to the price paid for the same the rate per only acre of land came to Rs. 1428-59 nP. in respect of the land comprised under the sale-deed Ex. 53 and Rs. 1249-82 nP. in respect of the land comprised under the sale-deed Ex. 54 in the case. While the learned Judge found them to he comparable instances in so far as the lands were similar to the lands under acquisition hut since they were old transactions and that way not comparable in point of time the same came to be rejected. The claim however made before this Court as also in the lower Court was Rs. 1200.00 per one acre of land and since the award is challenged by both the sides with regard to the compensation awarded in the matter the question that would arise to be determined by this Court is as to what amount of additional compensation for the lands under acquisition should be awarded to the claimants The other question that would arise is whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation for the well situated in S. No 88 and if so what amount.

(2.) Before we consider the effect of the arguments advanced by the learned advocates appearing for both the sides it appears essential to point out that a notion prevails among the Courts below hearing such matters arising under the Land acquisition Act that they sit as it were in appeal against the award of the Land Acquisition Officer and they deal with the reasons given in the award on that basis. Sometimes they go to the length of passing remarks against them as done in the present case such as about the careless manner in which the indiscriminate average has been calculated by the Deputy Collector The award given by him is based on some enquiry required to be held under sec. 11 of the Act and he has then to make an award showing details as set out thereunder. What is therefore before the Court in the reference is the finding and it is that part which becomes a subject-matter of reference to be dealt with by the Court. The other part containing reasons given by the Land Acquisition Officer does not necessarily form part of the record unless the Land Acquisition Officer has been examined and he has stated the game which led him to come to a particular conclusion That part can also be taken into account if both the sides agree to the same being read as a part of the evidence in the case. The award given by him becomes in the nature of an offer which stands and would bind the State on whose behalf that offer has been made if it is accepted by the claimants in respect of the lands under acquisition. If however that award is challenged by the claimants on the ground of inadequacy of compensation or otherwise permissible in law and taken to Court by a reference made under sec. 18 of the Act a judicial proceeding commences before the Court. The person who challenges the same becomes as it were a plaintiff in the Court and he has to show to the satisfaction of the Court that the amount awarded has not been the proper market value of the property under acquisition and that he should be awarded at a particular rate or price set out in the reference. In other words the proceedings before the Court start afresh and it is on the legal evidence produced before is that it has to arrive at his own judicial finding and pass an award under the provisions of the Act. In those circumstances the trial Court does not sit in appeal on any such award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and consequently one would expect the Court to refrain at any rate from passing any remarks such as about his having dealt with the matter ill a careless manner and the like and even if on the material before it it was obliged to pass any remarks it must be said that they should be in a restrained and dignified language.

(3.) Now it is well settled that the best method of determining the true market price of any land or property under acquisition at the date of notification published under sec. 4 of the Act is to base it on instances of sale of the same land or a portion of land having taken place by about the same time. The next best method is to look for other instances of sale comparable in time and quality in other words the instances of sale should have been in respect of lands in the nearby locality or area having the same and similar advantages or disadvantages as the lands under acquisition. Those instances must also be nearer In point of time to the date of notification published under sec. 4 of the Act for the acquisition of lands. We are therefore required to consider the instances of sale in this matter and and out as to whether they fulfil the test of being comparable both in point of time as also in regard to the quality of the lands under acquisition. The market price of the lands under acquisition has to be ascertained as on 19-6-58.