SYED ABDUL BASIR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) is directed against the judgment and decree dt. 26.9.95 passed by the Civil. Judge (SD), Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as the reference Court) in reference No. 21/69, whereby the Reference Court has dismissed the reference made under the said Act. This is one of the long drawn litigation with checkered history, and incomplete record. The lands in question bearing Khasra Nos. 5103 to 5108 were sought to be acquired as per the notification dt. 13.1.64 issued under section 4 of the said Act, for the western Railways, Bombay. The notification under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the said Act was thereafter issued on 4.2.64 and the notices were also issued under section 9 of the said Act for taking the possession thereof. It appears that the possession of the said lands was thereafter delivered to the Western Railways on 17.4.64. It further appears that the award was made by the S.D.O. and Land Acquisition Officer, Ajmer on 24.9.1968 after considering the claims raised by three persons named Shri Ram Nath, Shri Abdul Bashir and Shri Bhagchand Soni. The Land Acquisition Officer while determining the market value of the lands in question in the said award, made reference under Section 30 of the said Act, to the Court for deciding the disputes with regard to the apportionment of the amount of compensation. As transpiring from the record, the respondents deposited Rs. 5,45,559.73/ - on 24.2.69 before the Court of Land Acquisition Officer, pursuant to the award. Though there is no clarity as to when the appellant and the other two claimants applied to the Land Acquisition Officer for making reference under Section 18 of the said Act, as the complete record of the case is not available, it appears that one report (undated) was made by the S.D.O. and Land Acquisition Officer, Ajmer purported to be under Section 19 of the said Act. There is also no clarity from the record available as to which of the references was registered as the Reference Case No. 21/69. It also appears that the said Reference remained pending before the Reference Court for about 25 years, and that though number of issues were involved in the case, the Reference Court without touching those issues passed the impugned judgment dismissing the said Reference Case No. 21/69. Being -aggrieved by the same, the appellant had preferred the present appeal, which had remained pending for about 15 years for final disposal.

(2.) THE learned senior counsel Mr. N.K. Maloo for the appellant submitted that though the acquired lands bearing Survey No. 5103 to 5107 were situated on the main. Ajmer Beawer Road which was part of National Highway No. 8, the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded the compensation at the meager rate of Rs. 20/ - -. per sq yard, and the same was confirmed by the Reference Court without any application of mind. According to him, thought the sale deed dt. 19.4.65 in respect of the other land situated nearby the subject land was produced, showing the market value of the lands at the relevant time to be Rs. 29/ - per seq. yard, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation @ Rs. 20/ - per sq. yard. He further submitted that the Reference Court also without assigning any reasons confirmed the said value ignoring the legal position settled by the Apex Court in various decisions. He further submitted that the land Acquisition Officer and the Reference Court has awarded only Rs. 1,000 - for the Land bearing Khasra No. 5107 on the ground that it was a 'Nala' without realising its potential value. According to him, at present the hospital has been constructed on the said land and therefore the amount of compensation be suitably increased. As regards the land bearing khasra No. 5106, he submitted that though the entire khasra admeasuring 18 Biswas was sought to be acquired, the Government had taken possession of only 13 Biswas and the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded the compensation accordingly, which was not proper. Lastly, he submitted that the Reference Court has committed an error in not awarding the additional amount @ 12% under Section 23(1A), solatium @. 30% under Section 23(2) and the interest as per Section 28 of the said Act. Mr. Maloo has relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in case of Hans Raj Sharma (dead) by Lrs. vs. Collector, Land Acquisition, Tehsil & District Doda, : (2005) 1 SCC 553, in case of State of U.P. vs. Major Jitendra Kumar & Ors., : AIR 1982 SC 876, in case of M/s. Printers House Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mst. Saiyadan (Deceased) by Lrs. & Ors., : AIR 1994 SC 1160, in case of Narain Das Jain (since deceased) by Lrs. vs. Agra Nagar Mahapalika, Agra, : (1991) 4 SCC, 212 and in case of Tejumal Bhojwani (dead) through Lrs. & Ors. vs. State of U.P., : (2003) 10 SCC 525 and various decisions of this Court in support of his submissions.

(3.) AS stated hereinabove, this case has a checkered history. The incomplete record shows that the notification under Section 4 of the said Act was issued on 13.1.64, the notification under Sec. 6 of the said Act was issued on 4.2.64 and possession of the land was taken over on 17.4.64. However, there is nothing on record to show as to from whom the possession of the lands was taken by the respondent -authorities. There is also no clarity as to whether the appellant was in actual physical possession or not when the respondent -authorities took the possession. Be that as it may, it appears that the award was made on 24.9.68 by the Land Acquisition Officer. He, while passing the award also made the reference under Sec. 30 of the said Act, the Court for apportionment as there were three claimants. It further appears from the impugned order passed by the Reference Court that the said three claimants had also made the applications to the Land Acquisition Officer for referring their matters to the Court under Section 18 of the said Act. Although neither the said applications of 'the said claimants under Section 18 nor the order of the Land Acquisition Officer making reference under Sec. 19 of the said Act are on record, this Court presumes that such references must have been made at the instances of the said claimants, as the Reference Court has cursorily mentioned about the same in the impugned order. It further appears that the said reference remained pending before the Reference Court for about 27 years as there were other litigations amongst the said claimants pending in respect of the lands in question.