LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Friday, August 26, 2011

Indisputably, for the purpose of computation of amount of compensation a large number of factors have to be taken into consideration, namely, nature and quality of land, whether irrigated or unirrigated, facilities for irrigation like existence of well, etc. presence of fruit-bearing trees, the location of the land, closeness to any road or highway, the evenness thereof whether there exists any building or structure." 13.Since the High Court has not considered the oral evidence and also not properly analysed the documentary evidence available on record, the judgment and order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained and has to be interfered with. This is also because of the fact that the High Court proceeded on a wrong notion that the sale deeds of tiny pieces of land could be the determining factor as the land acquired in the present case is Ac. 4.98 Page 8 of 10 decimals as against the sale deeds by which not even 1 decimal of land was sold. There is total misreading of the evidence on record and also misinterpretation of the legal proposition settled by this Court.


                                                               REPORTABLE






                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA






                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION








                   CIVIL APPEAL NO.  2672 of 2004








 SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER                                 ....Appellant 










                                  VERSUS








MAHARANI BISWAL & ORS.                                ....Respondents










                                  JUDGMENT










ANIL R. DAVE, J.










1. The present appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 






  04.10.2001 passed by the High Court of Orissa whereby the High 






  Court, vide a common judgment, dismissed First Appeal No. 428 






  of   1990   filed   by   the   Special   Land   Acquisition   Officer   and   partly 






  allowed   First   Appeal   No.   369   of   1990   filed   by   the   Respondents 






  herein.










                                   Page 1 of 10



2. The   issue   that   falls   for   consideration   in   the   present   appeal   is 






   whether   the   assessment   and   determination   of   compensation 






   awarded   to   the   respondents   for   acquisition   of   their   land   and 






   increasing it from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 75,000/- per acre is on the 






   higher   side   and   is   a   proper   reflection   of   the   market   price   of   the 






   land.








3. The   facts   leading   to   the   filing   of   the   present   case   are   that   Land 




   measuring   Ac.   4.98   decimals   appertaining   to   Plot   Nos. 






   6588/6861,   6567,   6576,   6565,   6561   to  6564,   6581,   5873,   6566 






   and   6560   under   Khata   No.   88   situated   in   village   Lodhani   under 






   Parajang  Police   Station  in   the   District   of  Dhenkanal  was  notified 






   to   be   acquired   for   Parajang   Distributory   as   per   Revenue 






   Department   declaration   No.   9420   dated   18.02.1987.   The   Land 






   Acquisition   Officer   vide   order   dated   02.03.1988   granted 






   compensation   for   the   acquired   land   at   the   rate   of   Rs.   3100/- 






   (Taila   Land)   and   Rs.   5490/-   (Sarad   Land)   per   acre.   The   owner-






   claimants received the compensation  so determined under protest 






   and   moved   the   Ld.   Subordinate   Judge   by   L.A.   Misc.   No.   37/88 






   under   Section   18   of   the   Land   Acquisition   Act,   1894   (hereinafter 






   referred to as "the Act") against the order of the Land Acquisition 










                                       Page 2 of 10



   Officer dated 02.03.1988.








4. The Ld. Subordinate Judge,  after receiving evidence,  by an order 






   dated   06.09.1990,   determined   the   compensation   of   the   acquired 






   land at the rate of  Rs. 10,000/- per acre.






5. Aggrieved   by   the   aforesaid   order   of   the   Ld.   Subordinate   Judge 






   dated   06.09.1990,     the   claimants   filed   First   Appeal   No.   369   of 






   1990 and the Land Acquisition Officer filed First Appeal No. 428 of 






   1990 before the High Court of Orissa. The High Court vide order 






   dated 04.10.2001, by a common judgment, dismissed First Appeal 






   No.   428   of   1990   filed   by   the   Land   Acquisition   Officer   and   partly 






   allowed First Appeal No. 369 of 1990 filed by the claimants   and 






   thereby   enhanced   the   compensation   of   the   said   land   from   Rs. 






   10,000/- per acre to Rs. 75,000/- per acre.








6. Aggrieved   by   the   aforesaid   order   dated   04.10.2001,   the   Land 




   Acquisition Officer has filed this appeal, upon which, we heard the 






   learned counsel appearing for the parties.








7. The   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   appellant   drew   our 






   attention to the impugned judgment and order passed by the High 






   Court   and   by   making   reference   to   the   same,     the   counsel 






   submitted   that   despite   clear   findings   recorded   by   the   Reference 








                                     Page 3 of 10



  Court   determining   compensation   of   the   land   acquired   at   Rs. 






  10,000/-   per   acre   on   proper   appreciation   of   the   documentary   as 






  also  of  oral  evidence   on  record,     it  was  not  justified   for   the   High 






  Court   to   enhance   the   compensation   to   Rs.   75,000/-   per   acre 






  without properly appreciating the documents on record.








8. He also submitted that the High Court relied upon the sale deeds 






  by which very small pieces of land were sold and transferred.   He, 






  therefore, submitted that the price at which such small pieces of 






  lands   were   sold   did   not   reflect   the   correct   market   value. 






  Moreover, he submitted that the land was not much developed as 






  there were hardly four or five houses in the vicinity.  He drew our 






  attention  to   the   evidence   led before  the   court  to  substantiate   his 






  claim.     He   also   submitted   that   expenses   were   required   to   be 






  incurred by the Government to make the acquired land fit for the 






  purpose for which it was being acquired.  It was submitted that in 






  that  regard,   deduction  was  required  to  be  made  as certain  lands 






  were   going   to   be   lost   for   which   deduction   was   called   for   as   has 






  been repeatedly held by this Court, but  that was not done by the 






  High Court  in the present case and, therefore,  the judgment and 






  order is required to be set aside and quashed.










                                     Page 4 of 10



9. Counsel   appearing   for   the   respondents   however,   refuted   the 






   aforesaid   submissions   while   submitting   that   the   aforesaid   sale 






   deeds   relate   to   lands,     which   are   located   near   the   acquired   land 






   and   so   they   were   the   best   guide   to   determine   the   compensation 






   and, therefore, the High Court was justified in relying on the said 






   sale deeds and arriving at a just and fair compensation.








10.  In  order   to   appreciate   the   aforesaid   contentions   of   the   counsel 






   appearing   for   the   parties,   we   have   ourselves   scrutinized   the 






   records.   The entire burden is placed on respondent to prove and 






   establish that they are entitled to more than Rs. 3,100/- per acre 






   which was determined by the Land Acquisition Officer.     In order 






   to   prove   the   said   fact,   the   respondent   examined   four   witnesses 






   and   relied   upon   five   sale   deeds   which   were   exhibited   as   Ext.   3 






   which   is   dated   14.9.1988,   Ext.   4   dated   15.4.1985,   Ext.   5   dated 






   25.5.1984,   Ext.   6   dated   15.7.1985,   whereas   the   Respondents' 






   claimants also relied on Ext. 7 to show the location of G.P. Office 






   and Grain Gola Office. The respondents also filed on record a map 






   as Ext. 8 which discloses that a road runs in between the acquired 






   land.       However,   there   is   no  evidence   to   show   that   the   aforesaid 






   road,   which   runs   in   between   the   acquired   land   is   a   national 






   highway.  No such documentary evidence was placed on record to 








                                     Page 5 of 10



  prove   the   said   fact.       The   notification   under   Section   4   in   the 






  present   case   was   issued   on   18.2.1987   and,   therefore,   market 






  value   as   existing   near   about   the   said   date   and   near   about   the 






  same   land   is   to   be   determined   and   assessed.       The   Reference 






  Court   has   very   elaborately   and   minutely   discussed   the   entire 






  evidence  on  record including the  deposition  of the witnesses and 






  on   appreciation   thereof   has   come   to   a   definite   finding   and 






  conclusion  that  the   acquired  land   on the  date  of  issuance   of  the 






  notification   under   Section   4   cannot   be   valued   and   assessed   at 






  more than Rs. 10,000/- per acre.   Consequently, the said amount 






  was   determined   by   the   Reference   Court   as   just   and   fair 






  compensation for the land acquired.








11.As against the aforesaid findings giving cogent reasons, the High 






  Court,   failed   to   indicate   as   to   how   the   aforesaid   findings   are 






  unreasonable and unjustified fixing the compensation of the land 






  at   Rs.   10,000/-   per   acre.     The   High   Court   enhanced   the 






  compensation   to   Rs.   75,000/-   per   acre   without   any   appreciation 






  of   the   evidence   on   record   and   also   without   considering   the 






  findings   of   the   learned   Reference   Court   and   ultimately   rejecting 






  the same.   It was necessary for the High Court to give reasons for 






  its   disagreement   with   the   findings   of   the   Reference   Court   but 








                                   Page 6 of 10



  nothing of that nature was done by the High Court and the High 






  Court   arrived   at   an   abrupt   decision   raising   the   compensation   to 






  Rs. 75,000/- per acre.










12.In this regard, we may refer to the judgment of this Court in the 




  case of Navanath and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra reported 






  in   (2009) 14 SCC 480,  in which this Court while discarding the 






  findings   of   the   High   Court,   which   were   found   to   be   based   on 






  surmises and conjecture, restored to the findings of the Reference 






  Court   which   were   based   on   detailed   examination   of   materials 






  brought on record held thus: -






        "31.   .................The   Reference   Judge   had   taken  


        into consideration  the  evidences adduced  on behalf  


        of   both   the   parties   not   only   with   regard   to   the  


        classification   of   the   land   but   also   the   number   of  


        trees, their age, the quality, etc. We may notice that  


        the   learned   Reference   Judge   determined   the  


        question in regard to the classification of land on the  


        basis   of   the   evidences   adduced   before   it   by  


        individual   landowners;   by   way   of   example,   having  


        regard   to   the   fact   that   the   claimants   had   failed   to  


        prove that the land had any irrigational  facility,  the  


        learned   Reference   Judge   classified   the   lands   as  


        jirayat  lands. If the  State  was  aggrieved  thereby, it  


        was   bound   to  show that   the   findings  arrived   at  by  


        the   Reference   Court   is   not   sustainable   having  


        regard to the materials brought on record.






        32.  The   finding   of   fact   arrived   at   by   the   learned  


        Reference   Judge   on   the   basis   of   the   materials  


        brought   on   record,   in   our   opinion,   could   not   have  








                                    Page 7 of 10



          been   interfered   with   by   the   High   Court   on   the  


          surmises and conjectures..............."








The Court further observed: -






          "46.   ....................A   court   of   law   must   base   its  


          decision   on   appreciation   of   evidence   brought   on  


          record   by   applying   the   correct   legal   principles.  


          Surmises   and   conjectures   alone   cannot   form   the  


          basis of a judgment."








With   regard   to   computation   of   the   amount   of   compensation   this 


Court held as follows: - 




          "44. Indisputably, for the purpose of computation of  


          amount   of   compensation   a   large   number   of   factors  


          have to be taken into consideration, namely, nature  


          and quality of land, whether irrigated or unirrigated,  


          facilities   for   irrigation   like   existence   of   well,   etc.  


          presence   of   fruit-bearing   trees,   the   location   of   the  


          land,   closeness   to   any   road   or   highway,   the  


          evenness  thereof  whether   there  exists  any  building  


          or structure."










13.Since   the   High   Court   has   not   considered   the   oral   evidence   and 






   also not properly analysed the documentary evidence available on 






   record, the judgment and order passed by the High Court cannot 






   be sustained and has to be interfered with.     This is also because 






   of the fact that the High Court proceeded on a wrong notion that 






   the   sale   deeds   of   tiny   pieces   of   land   could   be   the   determining 






   factor   as   the   land   acquired   in   the   present   case   is   Ac.   4.98 










                                      Page 8 of 10



  decimals as against the sale deeds by which not even 1 decimal of 






  land was sold. There is total misreading of the evidence on record 






  and also misinterpretation of the legal proposition  settled by this 






  Court.






14.  Considering  the entire facts and circumstances  of the  case, we 






  set   aside   the   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   and 






  we   are   of   the   considered   opinion   that   the   High   Court   should 






  discharge   its   duty   and   responsibility   of   appreciating   the   entire 






  evidence on record as it is the last court of appeal in view of the 






  provisions   of   Section   54   of   the   Act.         The   High   Court   shall 






  appreciate   the   entire   evidence   on   record   and   thereafter   give   a 






  proper   finding   on   the   basis   of   both,   oral   and   documentary 






  evidence   by   taking   notice   of   the   observations   made   herein   and 






  thereafter   decide   all   the   issues   that   are   raised   before   it   by   the 






  parties.






15.We  also desire that this case requires early disposal  by the  High 




  Court   and,   therefore,   we   direct   the   parties   to   appear   before   the 






  High Court on 15th September, 2011 for obtaining the dates in the 






  appeal.






16.With   the   above   observations   and   directions,   this   appeal   is 






  disposed   of   as   allowed   but   leaving   the   parties   to   bear   their   own 










                                     Page 9 of 10



  costs.






                                                ............................................J


                                                  [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma]










                                                ............................................J


                                                [Anil R. Dave]


New Delhi


August  24,  2011. 










                                     Page 10 of 10