STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. RAJIYA VANO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') the State of Madhya Pradesh has called in question the legal validity of the award passed by the Reference Court in MJC No. LA 28/96 by the IXth Additional District Judge, Bhopal.

(2.) THE undisputed facts are that the land in question admeasuring 87. 79 acres situated in Village Chananpura and 142. 41 acres of Village damkhera of District Bhopal were acquired for construction of Spill Channel of Kaliya-Gota Project in the Revenue District of Bhopal. The possession of the land was taken over in the year 1984 but notification under Section 4 (1)was issued on 2-2-91 which was published in the Official Gazette dated 29-3-91. It is not disputed that the notification under Section 4 (1) was published in two daily newspapers on 9-2-91. Objections were invited by publication of notice in the newspaper on 25/26-12-91. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued and published in the Official Gazette, dated 17-8-92. Notice under section 9 (1) of the Act was issued to the land owners on 24-9-92 and eventually an award was passed on 8-7-93 by the Land Acquisition Officer. The award passed was approved by the Commissioner, Bhopal on 6-6-94.

(3.) THE Land Acquisition Officer upon hearing the interested parties and taking note of the documents, namely, sale-deeds for the period 15-11-90 to 28-12-90 in respect of adjoining village, namely, Akbarpur determined the compensation under Section 23 (1) of the Act and fixed the same at Rs. 71,574. 65. The Collector under the Land Acquisition Act also granted additional compensation under Section 23 (1-A) by allowing 12% interest per annum on the market value of the land for a period of ten years, the date of taking over of possession, i. e. , 1-7-84 till passing of the award, i. e. , 6-6-94, and further granted solatium at the rate of 30% on the excess amount under section 23 (2) of the Act. Being dissatisfied with the award the claimants who are the respondents herein preferred an application under Section 18 of the act seeking reference to the Civil Court, and accordingly the Collector referred the matter to the Civil Court for determination of compensation. Before the Reference Court it was putforth that the amount fixed by the Land acquisition Officer was totally unjust and required to be enhanced. It was urged that when the notification under Section 6 was issued on 7-8-92 the compensation should have been determined on the market value on that date, but not from the date when notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act came into existence. It was also contended that the interest which has been granted under Section 23 (1-A) from the date of notification should have been granted from the date of taking over of possession. The award was also criticized with regard to grant of interest under Section 28 of the Act. Before the Reference court the claimants examined number of witnesses and certain sale-deeds were brought on record and marked as Exhibits. The Reference Court came to hold that the Land Acquisition Officer has erred in law by determining compensation on the basis of market value which was prevalent at the time of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, i. e. , 2-2-91. In his opinion it should have been fixed on the base of the date of notification under Section 6 of the act. Being of this view the Reference Court proceeded to determine the market value as on 10-7-92, the date of notification issued under Section 6 of the Act. He took note of the sale-deeds which were brought on record before him. On a scrutiny of the same he found that not a single sale deed pointed out that the value of the land per acre was Rs. 5 lacs. He referred to the sale-deeds contained in Documents (D-l and D-2) which showed the market value at Rs. 2,35,000/- but observed that the said sale-deeds related to June, 1993 and November, 1993 which are after the date of notification issued under section 6 of the Act. He also made a reference to other sale-deeds but as the transactions under those sale-deeds were relatable to small pieces of land he did not place reliance on the same for the purpose of determining the market value.- Thus, the Reference Court did not accept the sale-deeds which were pressed into service by the claimants. However, he referred to the sale-deeds of November and December, 1990 which were mentioned in the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. On that basis he did not accept the determination of the Land Acquisition Officer which was Rs. 71,575/- per acre. The reference Court placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of MP. Grah Nirman Mandal, Bhopal and another Vs. Umashanker and another, 1990 jlj 240, wherein it has been held that ordinarily in five years time the price of the land increases by 100%. Applying the said principle he expressed the view that within a period of two years the price would increase by 1. 5 times. He accepted the market value at Rs. 75,835/- in the year 1990 and taking note of the notification issued in July, 1992, enhanced the price to Rs. 1,13,752/- per acre. Similar value was also fixed for the land situated in Village Chananpura. Thereafter, the Reference Court determined the date of taking over of possession as 1-7-84 and granted interest at the rate of 12% from 1-7-84 till 5-7-94 which is the date of award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. On that basis he determined the compensation of Village Chananpura and Village damkhera. The Reference Court also granted solatium at the rate of 30%. It is pertinent to state here that the Reference Court determined the compensation area-wise and thereafter in Paragraph 23 fixed the quantum qua each claimant.