MARWADI PADMAJI MIACHAND Vs. DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF ADONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have been greatly assisted by the learned District Judge s careful analysis of all the evidence in the case. But there is nothing to show on what basis the calculation of the valuation of the lands is based.

(2.) The award of the Deputy Collector does not contain any reasons, and in our opinion the remarks of the Calcutta High Court in Harlsh Chunder Neogy v. The Secretary of State for India in Council (1907) 11. C.W.N. 117. are applicable in this case. They say " Now the ordinary rule of onus probandi in these cases is that the claimant (who is a plaintiff) must prove that the valuation made by the Collector is insufficient, The theory is that the Collector in arriving at his award performs administrative and quasi judicial functions. He may take evidence and come to a conclusion on such evidence. The award under Section 11 of the Act becomes final, if it is not challenged within a definite time before the tribunal of the special Judge, and that Judge, therefore fills the position to some extent of an Appellate Court. The burden of proof is thus ordinarily on the claimant in the Court of the special Judge, but the burden must vary according to the nature of trip enquiry made by the Collector. If no evidence has been taken by the Collector, and if no reasons have been given in his decision to support his conclusion, the claimant has a very light burden to discharge. The mere ipse dixit of a Collector has very little weight, and is not prima facie evidence of the correctness of his award. Instances are not uncommon where the Collector has not given the grounds on which the amount of compensation was determined by him and the legal result of his failure to comply with the provisions of 19 (i) (d) of the Act is to make it incumbent on the Collector to justify before the special Judge, an award which is a mere brutum fulmen. It seems to us that it is necessary to have some affirmative basis for valuing the land and it is not satisfactory to proceed on the ground that the claim put forward is manifestly too high and therefore to decide that the Deputy Collector s award must stand.

(3.) One point of general importance was alluded to at the outset with which we think it desirable to deal before we consider the evidence of value which is before us. It was argued that the probability that the Municipatity would acquire some lands near the town of Adoni was known long before the notification. This fact is alluded to by the learned District judge in paragraph 8 of his judgment and we accept it as a finding, This fact however does not alter the necessity for our valuing the land at its market value at the date of the publication of the declaration under the Land Acquisition Act, Section 23(1) first clause, notwithstanding that the Market value may have been affected by speculations as to land development in the town. Adopting the language of their Lordships of the Privy Council, speculations as to the effects which any suggested development may produce on prices must be excluded except to the extent to which it is shown that such speculations had actually entered into the market price of the land to be acquired, at the date of the declaration. Secretary of State for Foreign affairs v. Charlesworth Pilling & Co. (1900) I.L.R. 26 B, at p. 28. Where however the speculations are based on a hope that those lands may themselves be acquired which are in the market, from the prices paid for which land the market price of the land actually acquired is sought to be deduced, in such cases the speculative value so paid may for obvious reasons be of little assistance in arriving at the valuation of the market Value of the lands acquired. But when it is known that there will be some scheme of development and it is hoped that the scheme will enhance the value of the lands not actually acquired, there can be no doubt that such enhancement in the value of the market rates must be taken into account.