SUMATRA BAI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CERTAIN land of the appellant, together with a house standing thereon, has been acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer, Balaghat. The acquisition is for the purposes of a school. For her khasra No. 310/1, area 0. 68 acre, and the house standing thereon, the Land Acquisition Officer, by his award dated 29 May 1956, assessed Rs. 1131/- as compensation payable to her. She did not accept the award and applied for a reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land acquisition Act.

(2.) THE Additional District Judge, Balaghat disposed of the reference in the following manner. He found that the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer was based purely on the report of the Revenue Inspector and his own impressions which he formed on spot inspection. It appeared to him that the Land Acquisition officer did not at all apply his mind to the question of valuation and just accepted the report of the Revenue Inspector and in doing so the Land Acquisition Officer "abdicated his functions to the Patwari and the Revenue Inspector and pronounced the award without even considering the correct ness of the report". The learned Judge further observed that the Patwari gave some information to the land Acquisition Officer mentioning therein sales of some lands in favour of different persons in particular areas, but the parties were not called upon to. file any sale deeds, nor was any evidence recorded by the Land Acquisition Officer. He further remarked that it was the duty of the Land Acquisition Officer to permit the parties to file sale deeds in respect of the neighbouring lands and to see that they were duly proved. But even the Parwari and the Revenue Inspector were not examined; nor was any evidence given on behalf of the State Government. Having said all this the learned Additional District Judge merely held that the award given by the Land Acquisition Officer was invalid being not in accordance with law. From this he concluded that the proceedings before the Civil Court also became ineffective. In the result, he declared the reference incompetent and rejected it on the ground that there was no valid award.

(3.) IT is impossible to sustain the decision of the learned Additional District Judge. In the penultimate paragraph of his order, the Additional District Judge points out what should have been done by the Land Acquisition Officer. He says that the assessment of the compensation is normally made on the basis of the prices of the lands in the vicinity sold within a reasonable time prior to the date of acquisition. He expressed surprise that the Land Acquisition. Officer made no effort to find out the prices fetched in such sales. If any such sales were made, the prices would indicate the fair market value. If such data were not available, the other considerations relevant for determining the market value of the land were the profit or loss which was derived from similar lands nearabout. It was for the Land acquisition Officer to find out the value of such lands and also consider other data which might be available, but the Land Acquisition Officer made no such endeavour.