SAIFUDDIN AHMED HAZARIKA Vs. COLLECTOR OF SIBSAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment and award dated 20-5-74 passed by the learned Arbitrator (District Judge) at Jorhat in Misc. (Arbitration) Case No. 11 of 1971. A bunch of Arbitration Miscellaneous cases were taken up by the learned Arbitrator-cum-District Judge, Jorhat in respect of the land which was requisitioned long back in 1965 and subsequently acquired in 19-70 under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, for brevity the Act. About 300 bighas of land situated in different blocks, namely, Block Nos. 14, 15, 16 and 17 of Jorhat town under different dags were involved in the proceeding. The appellant herein who was the claimant in Arbitration Case No. 11/71 was the owner of 2 bighas 3 kathas and 15 lechas of land. This land was included in Block No. 16 and also acquired along with other land under different Blocks as aforesaid. His land was first requisitioned in 1965 and subsequently acquired in 1970 alongwith the land belonging to other owners in Block Nos. 14, 15 and 17 of Jorhat town. On such acquisition of the land, the learned Collector, after consulting some sale deeds of the contemporary period, divided the lands into various categories and assessed the valuation of the land for each block. The categories of land were made by the Collector in the following manner:

(2.) Mr. A. Sarma, the learned counsel has submitted that the learned Arbitrator failed to consider the two vital documents as produced by the appellant to justify his claim. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the Collector had no basis to classify the land into different categories, the land being situated in the same advantageous position and in a compact area near Jorhat town. However, at this stage we are not to consider this aspect of the matter as raised by M Sarma as regards classification of the land made by the Collector for the purpose of assessment of market value of the land. The next submission of Mr. Sarma is that if the sale deed Ext. 3 which is of the year 1966 is considered for assessing the market value of the land of the appellant in the year 1970 (year of acquisition of the land) it would apparently be clear that the market value of tire acquired land of the appellant would be much more than what was assessed by the S.D.C. in the year 1966 to be at Rs. 2000.00 per katha. It is however not denied by any of the parties that the acquired land is quite nearer to the main town and in the vicinity of the area of Agricultural University, Jorhat. It is observed by the learned Arbitrator:- "that the claim of the land owners that the area was by that time developed and still in developing stage even after 1965 the year of requisition". However, the learned Arbitrator, though considered all aspect of the matter, but failed to consider the relevant documents as produced by the claimant, namely, Exts. 3 and 4 to assess the market value of the land. Mr. K.P. Sharma, the learned Government Advocate has submitted that the learned Arbitrator while discussing the merit of each case also considered the case of the appellant and observed that the land belonging to the appellant cannot fetch more amount as because the land of the appellant is situated adjacent to feeder roads and not on the main road. We have also considered this aspect of the matter as argued by Mr. Sarma. We however, do not find that the learned Arbitrator did consider the relevant documents as produced by the appellants. Moreover, the appellant himself had adduced evidence and he was also cross-examined on these documents. We have perused the evidence. He has categorically stated that the area has been rapidly progressing and the sale deed Ext. 3 shows that in the year 1966 the nearby land measuring 6 bighas 3 kathas was sold at Rs. 99,000.00 However, this acquired land is a big area measuring about 300 bighas. But one aspect cannot be overlooked. It is as regards the categorisation of the land as made by the Collector basing on revenue records. Ext. 4, the certificate issued by the Sub-Deputy Collector, Titabar Circle in 1966 clearly shows that the valuation of the appellants land at that time was assessed at Rs. 2000.00 per katha. This certificate was issued when the appellant applied for loan from the Government for sugar cultivation in the land. If that was the estimated market price as assessed by the Sub-Deputy Collector, Titabar and approved by the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat then the market value of the land of the appellant was at Rs. 10,000.00 per bigha in the year 1965-66. There is also findings of the learned Arbitrator based on evidence on record that the area was situated close to the main town of Jorhat and in the vicinity of the Agricultural University, Jorhat. If Ext. 4 is taken into consideration it must be held that the market price fixed and assessed by the Collector for the land of the appellant at Rs. 6000.00 per bigha was inadequate as per valuation of the Sub-Deputy Collector, Titabar which was approved by the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat. Therefore, it could simply be held that at the time of issuing Ext. 4 in the year 1966 the appellant could get Rs. 10,000.00 per bigha as the market value of the acquired land.

(3.) The next question is - What would be the just and adequate compensation for the land during the period when the land was finally acquired? In assessing the market value of the land the provisions of Sec. 8 of the Act may be looked into. Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 8 is the relevant provision which is almost similar with the provisions prior to the Requisitioning and Acquisition Amendment Act, 1968 (Act 31 of 1968). It runs as follows: