LAWS(GAU)-1986-2-5

RAJA BHAIRABENDRA NARAYAN BHUP Vs. COLLECTOR GOALPARA

Decided On February 18, 1986
RAJA BHAIRABENDRA NARAYAN BHUP Appellant
V/S
COLLECTOR, GOALPARA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Caveat Litigants - Litigants Beware Thou shalt suffer for thy sin ! The respondent was happy as the tiny appeal pended before this Court. He was never up and doing, did not ask for expeditious hearing of the appeal u/s. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act dispensing the formalities of the preparation of the paper book nor did he pray for early hearing. Now the respondent is bound to suffer under any circumstances, no matter whether the appeal is allowed or dismissed. Now, "Judicial Justice" has struck him in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhag Sungh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, AIR 1985 SC 1576, the respondent is to pay enhanced solatium @ 30% of the market value and redoubled interest @ 15% per annum in terms of the provisions contained in the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. So, the delay is bound to enburden the respondent but the ultimate sufferers are the little Indians, as the respondent shall pay from the people's exchequer ! Insofar as the appellant is concerned the money value has gone down, may not be to its Nadir ! Even if the appellant succeeds it will not be on a par with the amount of compensation he would have, received long 11 years back. So, the delay has caused injustice to both the parties. We, therefore, exhort all who are directly and indirectly connected with litigations to ask for early hearing of the cases pending before the Courts and allow the Courts to dispense judicial justice and partly relieve themselves the burden of old pending litigations in the dockets of the courts. It is perhaps the prime duty of the learned members of the noble profession to see that old causes are expeditiously disposed exacting early disposal of the cases. The litigants have suffered. We feel for them. But the time will speak who are responsible for the delay and causing miseries to the litigants ! We proceed to dispose the appeal today and right now.

(2.) The relevant facts necessary for disposal of the appeal : A small parcel of land measuring 4 bighas 2 kathas 15 lechas was acquired by the Collector, Goalpara for the construction of a police Out Post with staff quarters at Krishnai, a township in the district of Goalpara under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short "the Act". The Notification u/s. 4(1) of "the Act" was issued on 17-3-1966, which is the relevant date for our purpose. The Collector determined the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per bigha on the basis of his subjective satisfaction and he troubled not to collect any contemporaneous sale deed to determine the market price of the land at the relevant date. Being aggrieved by the award of the Collector, the appellant asked for and obtained a reference u/s. 18 of "the Act" claiming market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per bigha. The claimant examined 5 witnesses and proved 4 sale deeds. The Collector examined one witness, produced a note marked Ext. 'Ka' describing the area of the acquired land as well as the nature of the houses standing thereon and a sketch map of the acquired land. Learned Judge having held that the award of the Collector had no basis or foundation but upheld it on the score that he did not find any material to hold that the claimant was entitled to further compensation and dismissed the reference with costs against the claimant. Learned Judge held that the sale deeds were in respect of the better class of lands than the acquired land, the acquired land was 'bhit' land whereas the lands in the sale deeds produced by the claimant were of "Chandina class". Learned Judge assumed that Chandina lands were better lands and fetched more price. Learned Judge rejected the sale deeds mainly on the grounds that they were not in respect of comparable lands and dismissed the claim of the appellant. Hence the appeal.

(3.) The connotation of the terms 'Compensation' and 'market value' and the recognised scheme for the determination of market value : The key to the word 'compensation' is found in S.23 of "the Act". The 'market value' on the basis of which compensation is payable under S.23 means that price which a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities when laid out in the most advantageous manner excluding of course, any advantage due to the carrying out of the scheme for the purpose for which the property is acquired. The term 'market value' has acquired a definite connotation by the decisions of the Supreme Court. The method of valuation cannot be exact as it is the estimate based more or less on a guess work. The land has to be valued not only with reference to its condition at the time of declaration under S.4 of the Act but its potential value should also be taken into account. The market value to be estimated must be the value of that land in the open market which a willing seller might be expected to realise. It is generally ascertained on a consideration of the price obtained by sale of adjacent lands with similar advantages. It is one of the methods of valuation. The market value may be ascertained on the basis of : (i) the opinion of experts; (ii) the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages, and, (iii) a number of years' purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired. However, these are not exhaustive but illustrative cases. The Court is required to arrive as near as possible at estimate of real market value. The Court may choose one method or even two or all the methods to determine the true and correct valuation of the land. The market value is to be estimated not merely by existing use of the land but by the best use to which a willing purchaser would put it. These principles are called from (1) South Eastern Railway Company v. London County Council, (1915) 2 Ch 252; (2) Special Land Acquisition Officer v. T. Adinarayan Setty, AIR 1959 SC 429 (430); (3) Raghubans Narain Singh v. U. P. Government, (1967) 1 SCR 489; (4) State of Gujarat v. Vakhatsinghji Vajesinghji Vaghela, AIR 1968 SC 1481; (5) Radhakishan Laxminarayan v. Collector of Akola, (1968) 1 SCWR 692 : 1968 SCD 647; (ii) Sri Rani M. Vijayalakshamamma Rao Bahadur v. Collector of Madras, (1968) 2 SCJ 869; (7) Tribeni Devi v. Collector of Ranchi, AIR 1972 SC 1417 : (1912) 3 SCR 208; (8) Union of India v. Ram Mehar, AIR 1973 SC 305 : (1973) 2 SCR 720; (9) Dollar Company v. Collector of Madras, AIR 1975 SC 1670; (10) State of West Bengal v. Shyamapada, AIR 1975 SC 1723; (11) Thakur Kanta Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2219; (12) Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board v. H. Narayanaiah, AIR 1976 SC 2403; (13) Prithvi Raj Taneja v. State of M.P., (1917) 1 SCC 684 ; (14) Collector of Raigarh v. Dr. Harisingh Thakur, (1979) 1 SCC 236; (15) Raja Srivalgoti Sarvagna Kumar Krishna Yachandra Bachadurvaru v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (1979) 4 SCC 356. In Shyamapada (supra No. 10) the Supreme Court has observed "that while the classification for revenue purposes might have its own rationale, it is not uncommon to find that land which has a lower classification for revenue purposes fetches a higher price in the market". Indeed, lands of lower classification contiguous or adjacent to commercial or industrial area, undoubtedly fetch price at par with commercial lands. Similarly, lands having lower classification but used and utilised to fetch lucrative end product fetch high price. The situation of the land, its utilization, its potential or latent value are the relevant factors, the label or classification for revenue purposes may not be the true criterion for determining the market value of the land.