MEHTAR Vs. COLLECTOR DURG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, dated the 8th March, 1973, passed in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 9 of 1971. The principal question that arises for consideration is the determination of the market value of the land acquired on the date of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act.

(2.) THE State Government has acquired for public purpose 127.52 acres of land in mouza Kasaridih, in tahsil and district Durg. The notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 2 -12 -1959 (published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette dated the 4th December, 1959). Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on the 6th May, 1962. The Land Acquisition Officer gave an award earlier on 6 -7 -1961, but soon after, discovered that no award could be made without a proper notification under Section 6. Before he could initiate fresh proceedings, for the determination of compensation, one Smt. Suroj Kumari filed a writ petition before the High Court for quashing the award dated the 6th July 1961. The High Court quashed the award, directing the Land Acquisition Officer to proceed afresh in accordance with the provisions of law. The Land Acquisition Officer fell into an error again. He proceeded on the basis of the previous notices issued under Sec. 9 of the Act instead of issuing fresh notices, which the law contemplated ought to be issued after the publication of the notification under S.6. He did not withdraw the award D/ - the 6th July, 1961, and acted on the statements and evidence previously recorded, without giving opportunity to the claimants to put in additional evidence, if they so desired. The matter, therefore, came up again before the High Court and the second award made on 6th October, 1964, was also quashed, because it was based on no enquiry and was without any opportunity having been given to the claimants. Smt. Sarojkumari v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 1966 MPLJ 437 : (AIR 1966 Madh Pra 197) which reports the decision of this Court. We are dealing now with the third award made by the Land Acquisition Officer on the 4th August, 1969. The procedural errors, whatever were committed earlier in the matter of notices under Section 9, were not repeated, it appears, in the proceedings that commenced after the decision of the High Court on 15 -12 -1965 in Miscellaneous Petition No. 309 of 1965. At least there is no challenge in that regard. The earlier invalid notices under Section 9, which vitiated the awards made on 6 -7 -1961 and 6 -10 -1964 could not, however, invalidate or render nugatory the validity of the Land Acquisition proceedings upto the stage of declaration made under Section 6. The failure to give proper notices under Section 9 could only have the effect of preserving the rights of the claimants which would accrue to them if proper notices had gone to them, necessarily, therefore, from a stage of finality reached by the declaration under Section 6. There can be no doubt about this position of law. To cite an authority, reference may be made to the Tuticorin Municipal Council. Tuticorin v. A. R. A. S. Arunagiri, ILR (1966) 1 Mad 336. No invalidity attached to the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and the crucial date for determination of the market value would be the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act i.e., the 4th December, 1959.

(3.) THE Additional District Judge, who heard the references under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, was of the view that the land had substantial value as a building -site on the date of the notification; houses were coming up in the vicinity of the Kasaridih abadi which was hardly 250 yards away from the acquired lands, and on the other side towards the north, lay the Uttai -Durg road with a poultry farm, a Bakery, Kaleys' bungalow and garrage, and bungalow of the Officers abutting. The Sector 9 of the Bhilai Steel Plant was hardly at a distance of 1? miles. The land lay in between the two roads, Uttai -Durg and Durg -Boarsi. The claimants relied upon certain sale -deeds relating to plots in close vicinity of the abadi, sold in 1958 and 1959, which indicated that the price was almost Re. 1/ - per square foot there. The learned Judge proceeded on that basis to hold that for the Land 250 yards, away from the built -up area, the price should be 50 Nps. per square foot and should further be reduced as one went deeper towards the East. The other factor which the Judge took notice of was that the bigger plots could not possibly fetch the price which the smaller plots did and the bigger plots would need substantial expenditure on the lay -out of roads and in providing other amenities. He, therefore, divided the land into two categories and valued the first category land at Rs. 12,000/ - an acre and the second category land at Rs. 7,000/ - an acre. The land that appeared to him closer to the Uttai -Durg road or to the Kasaridih abadi was put in the first category; the rest in the second category. Necessarily, the line of division could have no mathematical basis. He had to depend on conjecture.