STATE OF M P Vs. AHAD BROTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') assailing the correctness of a decision of the Learned IVth Additional District Judge, Bhopal in a reference under Section 18 of the Act.

(2.) UNDER a notification dated 23-12-1962 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act land comprising of Khasras Nos. 870, 871, 872, 873 and 1623/873 in possession of the respondent-claimant was acquired by the State Government for building of certain residential houses. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value at the rate of Rs. 450/- per acre and awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for the land and Rs. 6,600/- for trees standing thereon. Being dissatisfied with the determination made by the Land Acquisition Officer the claimant sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act which was duly made by the Land Acquisition Officer. Before the Civil Court the respondent filed a statement of claim alleging that the land in question had potential value as a building site and the market value per square yard was Rs. 4/- at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The claimant also claimed certain amount on account of levelling and improvement of land. Initially the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Bhopal by order dated 31-7-1969 rejected the prayer for enhancement on the ground that no case had been made out. The claimant preferred First Appeal No. 82/69 whereby this Court allowed the appeal and directed the reference Court to decide the matter afresh on the basis of the market value prevailing on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. After the matter was remanded the reference Court took up the matter afresh for adjudication. Evidence was adduced by both the parties whereupon the learned Additional District Judge found the market value of land to be Rs. 2/- per sq. ft. and awarded compensation at that rate. The reference Court also awarded interest at the rate of 3 per cent per annum and 15 per cent as compensation for compulsory acquisition. The State feeling aggrieved by the said determination preferred First Appeal No. 141/80 before this Court. In appeal the State filed an application for amendment of its reply filed before the reference Court. Another application was filed seeking permission to file documents to throw light upon the character of the right of the claimant over the disputed land. It was putforth before this Court in the First Appeal that the respondent is only a licensee or at best a lessee and it is that right alone for which the compensation has to be ascertained. This Court partially allowed the application for amendment and permitted two additional pleas to be raised by the State Government. It also allowed the application for taking additional evidence on record. In essence, this Court entertained the defence of the State that the right of the claimant over the land in question requires to be determined as that would be the essential factor for determination of compensation. As this Court permitted the pleas to be raised, it was thought appropriate to remand the matter. For clarity it is apposite to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment passed by this Court while remanding the matter :

(3.) AFTER the matter was remanded the parties adduced further evidence before the reference Court. One Awadhnarayan who was working in the office of the Director Land Records was examined as DW. 1. According to him the draft-agreement, Ex. P-4, was executed between the Commissioner, Bhopal and the claimants. He has also proved that Ex. P-l, the letter dated 17-9-1953 which was sent by the claimant to the Director Land Records. The State Government also brought number of documents on record. The said witness admitted that the land in question was taken for the claimant and compensation was paid by the claimant. According to him no lease-deed was executed between the parties. One J. P. Shrivastava was examined as DW. 2 who could not state that whether the land belongs to the State Government or not. As there was dispute with regard to the contents of Ex. P-l 1 and 13 a report from the expert was called for, who has indicated that in Ex. P-l1 the words "realised from you" were typed later on at a different point of time. The expert was also examined as DW. 3. Controverting the aforesaid evidence adduced before the reference Court on behalf of the State Government the claimant examined Abdul Rahuf Khan as PW. 3 who had stated that their firm was the owner of the land and it was given to them for Bone Mill Factory in the year 1950 for which they had paid Rs. 1,669/- towards compensation and that was the sale price of the land. He had proved that the direction under Ex. P-7 whereby the State Government had required the firm to pay the compensation and stated with regard to the receipt of the compensation amount.