published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40470
Page 1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5311 OF 2012
(arising out of SLP(C)No.34284 of 2011)
AHSANUL HODA … APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR … RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.
This appeal has been filed by the claimant
appellant against the judgment and order of the Patna
High Court dated 10.2.2011 by which the High Court
reduced the compensation awarded to the claimant, by
fixing the lower market rate of the land in question
and set aside the part of the order passed by the
Reference Court granting Rs.10,000/ towards damages of
standing crops.
2. Certain lands in Mauja Mothabari, Thana Katoria,
Pargana Sarohi, District Bhagalpur (now Banka) were
acquired for the construction of the Ornireservoir.
Land measuring 3.54 acres of Khata No.111, Khasra
No.2925 of same village belonging to the appellant was
also acquired. The Collector by an award order dated
16.10.1984 fixed the compensation of Rs.6513.60 for the
1Page 2
entire land based on market rate at Rs.16 per decimal.
No amount was awarded towards damages of standing
crops.
3. The Reference Court to which the claims of the
land owners for higher compensation were referred,
determined the market value as Rs. 250/ per decimal
i.e. Rs. 25,000/ per acre. The Reference Court based
its decision on two sale transactions submitted by the
claimant dated 25.11.1980 and 16.10.1975 (Ext.1 and
Ext.1/b) relating to sale of plots in the neighbouring
area. Considering the fact that the sale deeds were
related to small extent of land of nearby village and
the acquisition was related to a larger extent, the
Reference Court was of the view that certain
percentage could be deducted while determining the
value of the land in question. However, as sale deeds
were of the earlier period, after such deduction,
appropriate increase in the value of the land from the
date of the sale deed to the date of the Notification
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was made.
4. The respondent preferred an appeal before the High
Court. The High Court disposed of the said appeal by
impugned judgment dated 10.2.2011. The High Court
2Page 3
modified the judgment of the Reference Court with
regard to the market value by reducing the market rate
from Rs.250/ per decimal to Rs.100/ per decimal and
set aside the part of the order whereby sum of
Rs.10,000/ was granted by the Tribunal as damages of
standing crops.
5. During the pendency of the appeal before the High
Court and after 23 years of the acquisition, the
appellant received a sum of Rs. 5,69,531/ on 4.7.2007
as per determination of the Reference Court and paid a
sum of Rs 56,953/ towards tax. The effect of
impugned judgment passed by the High Court is that the
claimant has to refund part of the amount received by
the claimant as compensation.
6. The questions that arise for our consideration
are:
(i) Whether the market value as fixed by the
Tribunal is excessive as contended by the
State of Bihar;
(ii) Whether the Tribunal rightly compensated
the claimant for damages of standing crops.
7. The High Court by its impugned judgment modified
the compensation and set aside the part of the order
3Page 4
relating to compensation for standing crops on three
counts, namely; (a) The sale deeds dated 25.11.1980
(Ext.1) and 16.10.1975 (Ext.1/b) related to smaller
area of 25 and 6 ½ decimals of land respectively; (b)
Aforesaid sale deeds do not relate to agricultural land
but homestead land as in the boundary of one of the
saledeed ‘Masjid’ and ‘road’ is shown; (c) OPW1,
Shri Ratneshwar Pd. Singh has stated that there was no
crop standing on the land at the time of the
possession.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the
judgment passed by the High Court on the following
grounds:
(i) In the absence of any other evidence except
the sale deeds (Ext.1 and Ext.1/b), the
determination of market value is not based on any
evidence but on mere presumption and surmises.
(ii) The High Court wrongly relied on the
statement of OPW1, Ratneshwar Pd. Singh, who
was posted elsewhere at the time of acquisition
of the land. On the other hand, the Reference
Court decided the quantum of payment towards
damages of standing crops on the basis of evidence
on record.
4Page 5
9. Learned counsel for the State justified the order
passed by the High Court. It was contended that the
compensation with regard to larger area cannot be
determined on the basis of sale deeds related to
smaller area. As the sale deeds at Ext.1 and Ext.1/b
related to homestead land having shown ‘road’ or
‘masjid’ in the boundary, no comparison can be made
with the agricultural land acquired for other purpose.
10. Before the Reference Court claimant produced seven
witnesses, AW1 to AW7 and three sale deeds, Ext.1,
Ext.1/a and Ext.1/b. On behalf of the State, one
witness OPW1, Ratneshwar Pd. Singh, an assistant to
the Land Acquisition Officer, Medium Irrigation
Project, Bhagalpur and the two valuation Khatiyans,
Ext. A and A/1 were produced.
11. AW6, the claimant, himself in his deposition
stated that 3.54 acres of his land acquired is ‘three
fasla’ (produced three crops in an area) and was
irrigated from the Orni river. At the time of taking
possession by State, potato, wheat and sugarcane were
standing crops which were damaged causing a loss of Rs.
10,000/ to Rs.12,000/. The market value of the land
at the time of acquisition was between Rs. 50,000/ to
Rs. 60,000/ per acre. Similar statements were made by
5Page 6
other witnesses i.e. AW1 to AW5. They supported the
claim of the claimant.
12. Kanhaiya Lall Ghosh, A.W.7, a deed writer proved
sale deeds Ext. 1 dated 25.11.1980, Ext. 1/a dated
6.10.1980 and Ext.1/b dated 16.10.1975. He stated
that he was the deed writer of Exts.1, 1/a and 1/b. By
Ext.1/a, Bibi Rahana Sultana and others sold 70
decimals of land for consideration of Rs.7,000/ on
6.10.1980. By Ext.1/b dated 16.10.1975, Seikh Janual
and others sold 6 ½ decimals of land for consideration
of Rs. 1500/ .
13. Ratneshwar Pd. Singh, OPW1 deposed before the
Reference that the land of the appellant measuring
3.54 acres had been acquired by the State vide L.A.
Case No. 76/8182 and department paid Rs. 5664/
towards value of the land and Rs. 849.60 as
additional compensation; a sum of Rs. 6513.60 in total
was paid as compensation. He specifically stated that
he was not posted at the time of acquisition and
whatever he stated is based on the official record.
14. Ext. A and Ext. A/1, valuation Khatiayan mainly
contains Khata No., Khesra No., area acquired, rate
per acre, value of the land determined and other
statutory benefits provided to one or other claimant.
6Page 7
Those Exts. A and A/1 do not show anything about the
market value of any land of the village or the nearby
village.
15. The Reference Court, based on the sale deeds
Ext.1 and Ext.1/b and considering the evidence on
record, determined the market value at Rs.250/ per
decimal and allowed a sum of Rs.10,000/ towards damage
of standing crops.
16. This Court in number of cases has taken judicial
notice of the fact that there is a steady increase in
the market value of the land and has also adopted the
procedure for determining the increased market value
and relied upon the transaction at a given rate per
year.
17. In General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation Limited vs. Rameshbhai Jilvanbhai Patel and
Another reported in (2008) 14 SCC 745, this Court
observed that in the absence of other acceptable
evidence, a cumulative increase of 10 to 15 per cent
is permissible with reference to acquisitions in 1990.
In the decades preceding 1990s, the quantum of increase
was considered to be less than 10 per cent per annum.
18. This Court in Sardar Joginder Singh vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Another (2008) 17 SCC 133, noticed
7Page 8
that the said case related to acquisition in the year
1979 and relying upon the award related to an
acquisition of 1969 observed that the general increase
between 196979 can be taken to be around 810 per cent
per annum. If this increase is calculated
cumulatively, the total increase in 10 years would be
around 100 per cent.
19. The question relating to the value of larger
extent of agricultural land, if required to be
determined with reference to price fixed for small
residential plot, came for consideration before this
Court
in Haridwar Development Authority Vs. Raghubir
singh and Others (2010)11 SCC 581.
In the said case, this Court held as follows:
“When the value of a large extent of agricultural
land has to be determined with reference to the
price fetched by sale of a small residential
plot, it is necessary to make an appropriate
deduction towards the development cost, to arrive
at the value of the large tract of land. The
deduction towards development cost may vary from
20% to 75% depending upon various factors. Even
if the acquired lands have situational
advantages, the minimum deduction from the
market value of a small residential plot, to
arrive at the market value of a larger
agricultural land, in the usual course, will be
in the range of 20% to 25%. In this case, the
Collector has himself adopted a 25% deduction
which has been affirmed by the Reference Court
and the High Court. We, therefore, do not
propose to alter it.”
8Page 9
Therefore, it is clear that mere reliance made by
a Court on sale deeds of smaller residential area for
determination of market value of larger agricultural
area, the same will not render the determination
illegal until and unless it is shown that the
determination was not proper.
20. In the instant case, the average value of the
saledeeds relied upon by the Reference Court (Ext.1
and Ext.1/b) was Rs. 401/ at the time of acquisition.
Therefore, as the saledeeds were in relation to
smaller plots, the deduction of 37% was made by the
Reference Court and thereafter, by allowing
appropriate 10% increase in the value of the land from
the date of the sale deeds upto the date of
Notification under Section 4 of the Act, the Reference
Court arrived at a figure of Rs.250/ per decimal.
The High Court while arriving at figure of Rs. 100/
per decimal considered only the fact that the sale
deeds relied upon were in relation to smaller plots and
those sale deeds(Ext.1 and Ext.1/b) were related to
homestead land and hence fixed Rs. 10,000/ per acre as
compensation.
It completely failed to consider the
increase in price of land and the deduction made by the
9Page 10
High Court is nearly 75% which is not in accordance
with law.
As Ext.1 and Ext.1/b which were related to smaller
area, were the only sale deeds available for
comparison, the same were relied upon by the Reference
Court,
but the High Court erred completely in
disregarding the said sale deeds and thus arrived at a
finding of Rs.100/ per decimal as market value on
mere presumption and surmises.
There was no evidence
on record to arrive at this value and, even if it was a
case of deduction, the High Court has not given any
reason in support of the same.
21. The High Court also committed error in holding
that the sale deeds (Ext.1 and Ext.1/b) relate to
homestead land, on the ground that a ‘road’ and a
‘masjid’ has been shown in the boundary of one of the
exhibits.
From the copies of Ext.1 and Ext. 1/b on
record (Annexure P12 Colly), we find no citation in
Ext.1 showing the land as homestead land. On the other
hand Ext.1/b specifically cites that the land is an
agricultural land for which the annual revenue rent of
Rs.25 is payable.
22. The High Court disregarded the evidence adduced by
the claimants in its entirety without any reason;
10Page 11
however, it relied on evidence of an officer of the
State (OPW1) Ratneshwar Pd. Singh and set aside the
compensation in relation to the standing crops.
The
Reference Court has clearly recorded in its order that
the said State Officer was not posted in that area at
the time of acquisition and his knowledge was limited
to the official record.
The record was silent as to the standing crops.
The Khatiyans (Ext.A and Ext.
A/1) were also not relating to standing crops.
The
fact that the Collector had not allowed any amount
towards damage of standing crops and that no such
amount is mentioned in the Khatiyan does not mean that
no standing crop was there at the time of taking
possession of the land.
On the contrary, the
witnesses AW1 to AW5 appeared and supported the
statement of claimant that at the time of the
possession, standing crops were there which were
damaged causing loss to the extent of Rs.10,000 to Rs.
12,000/.
During their cross examination the
respondents could not extract any other material
evidence against the claimants.
23. In view of the finding as recorded above, we have
no other alternative but to set aside the order passed
by the High Court and restore the award passed by the
11Page 12
Reference Court. The impugned judgment passed by the
High Court is accordingly set aside and the appeal is
allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the
appellant the compensation in terms of the award passed
by the Reference Court after adjusting the amount
already paid within three months. There shall be no
separate order as to costs.
………………………….........…………………….J.
(G.S. SINGHVI )
….........…………………………………………….J.
(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
NEW DELHI,
JULY 1 , 2013.
12
Page 1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5311 OF 2012
(arising out of SLP(C)No.34284 of 2011)
AHSANUL HODA … APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR … RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.
This appeal has been filed by the claimant
appellant against the judgment and order of the Patna
High Court dated 10.2.2011 by which the High Court
reduced the compensation awarded to the claimant, by
fixing the lower market rate of the land in question
and set aside the part of the order passed by the
Reference Court granting Rs.10,000/ towards damages of
standing crops.
2. Certain lands in Mauja Mothabari, Thana Katoria,
Pargana Sarohi, District Bhagalpur (now Banka) were
acquired for the construction of the Ornireservoir.
Land measuring 3.54 acres of Khata No.111, Khasra
No.2925 of same village belonging to the appellant was
also acquired. The Collector by an award order dated
16.10.1984 fixed the compensation of Rs.6513.60 for the
1Page 2
entire land based on market rate at Rs.16 per decimal.
No amount was awarded towards damages of standing
crops.
3. The Reference Court to which the claims of the
land owners for higher compensation were referred,
determined the market value as Rs. 250/ per decimal
i.e. Rs. 25,000/ per acre. The Reference Court based
its decision on two sale transactions submitted by the
claimant dated 25.11.1980 and 16.10.1975 (Ext.1 and
Ext.1/b) relating to sale of plots in the neighbouring
area. Considering the fact that the sale deeds were
related to small extent of land of nearby village and
the acquisition was related to a larger extent, the
Reference Court was of the view that certain
percentage could be deducted while determining the
value of the land in question. However, as sale deeds
were of the earlier period, after such deduction,
appropriate increase in the value of the land from the
date of the sale deed to the date of the Notification
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was made.
4. The respondent preferred an appeal before the High
Court. The High Court disposed of the said appeal by
impugned judgment dated 10.2.2011. The High Court
2Page 3
modified the judgment of the Reference Court with
regard to the market value by reducing the market rate
from Rs.250/ per decimal to Rs.100/ per decimal and
set aside the part of the order whereby sum of
Rs.10,000/ was granted by the Tribunal as damages of
standing crops.
5. During the pendency of the appeal before the High
Court and after 23 years of the acquisition, the
appellant received a sum of Rs. 5,69,531/ on 4.7.2007
as per determination of the Reference Court and paid a
sum of Rs 56,953/ towards tax. The effect of
impugned judgment passed by the High Court is that the
claimant has to refund part of the amount received by
the claimant as compensation.
6. The questions that arise for our consideration
are:
(i) Whether the market value as fixed by the
Tribunal is excessive as contended by the
State of Bihar;
(ii) Whether the Tribunal rightly compensated
the claimant for damages of standing crops.
7. The High Court by its impugned judgment modified
the compensation and set aside the part of the order
3Page 4
relating to compensation for standing crops on three
counts, namely; (a) The sale deeds dated 25.11.1980
(Ext.1) and 16.10.1975 (Ext.1/b) related to smaller
area of 25 and 6 ½ decimals of land respectively; (b)
Aforesaid sale deeds do not relate to agricultural land
but homestead land as in the boundary of one of the
saledeed ‘Masjid’ and ‘road’ is shown; (c) OPW1,
Shri Ratneshwar Pd. Singh has stated that there was no
crop standing on the land at the time of the
possession.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the
judgment passed by the High Court on the following
grounds:
(i) In the absence of any other evidence except
the sale deeds (Ext.1 and Ext.1/b), the
determination of market value is not based on any
evidence but on mere presumption and surmises.
(ii) The High Court wrongly relied on the
statement of OPW1, Ratneshwar Pd. Singh, who
was posted elsewhere at the time of acquisition
of the land. On the other hand, the Reference
Court decided the quantum of payment towards
damages of standing crops on the basis of evidence
on record.
4Page 5
9. Learned counsel for the State justified the order
passed by the High Court. It was contended that the
compensation with regard to larger area cannot be
determined on the basis of sale deeds related to
smaller area. As the sale deeds at Ext.1 and Ext.1/b
related to homestead land having shown ‘road’ or
‘masjid’ in the boundary, no comparison can be made
with the agricultural land acquired for other purpose.
10. Before the Reference Court claimant produced seven
witnesses, AW1 to AW7 and three sale deeds, Ext.1,
Ext.1/a and Ext.1/b. On behalf of the State, one
witness OPW1, Ratneshwar Pd. Singh, an assistant to
the Land Acquisition Officer, Medium Irrigation
Project, Bhagalpur and the two valuation Khatiyans,
Ext. A and A/1 were produced.
11. AW6, the claimant, himself in his deposition
stated that 3.54 acres of his land acquired is ‘three
fasla’ (produced three crops in an area) and was
irrigated from the Orni river. At the time of taking
possession by State, potato, wheat and sugarcane were
standing crops which were damaged causing a loss of Rs.
10,000/ to Rs.12,000/. The market value of the land
at the time of acquisition was between Rs. 50,000/ to
Rs. 60,000/ per acre. Similar statements were made by
5Page 6
other witnesses i.e. AW1 to AW5. They supported the
claim of the claimant.
12. Kanhaiya Lall Ghosh, A.W.7, a deed writer proved
sale deeds Ext. 1 dated 25.11.1980, Ext. 1/a dated
6.10.1980 and Ext.1/b dated 16.10.1975. He stated
that he was the deed writer of Exts.1, 1/a and 1/b. By
Ext.1/a, Bibi Rahana Sultana and others sold 70
decimals of land for consideration of Rs.7,000/ on
6.10.1980. By Ext.1/b dated 16.10.1975, Seikh Janual
and others sold 6 ½ decimals of land for consideration
of Rs. 1500/ .
13. Ratneshwar Pd. Singh, OPW1 deposed before the
Reference that the land of the appellant measuring
3.54 acres had been acquired by the State vide L.A.
Case No. 76/8182 and department paid Rs. 5664/
towards value of the land and Rs. 849.60 as
additional compensation; a sum of Rs. 6513.60 in total
was paid as compensation. He specifically stated that
he was not posted at the time of acquisition and
whatever he stated is based on the official record.
14. Ext. A and Ext. A/1, valuation Khatiayan mainly
contains Khata No., Khesra No., area acquired, rate
per acre, value of the land determined and other
statutory benefits provided to one or other claimant.
6Page 7
Those Exts. A and A/1 do not show anything about the
market value of any land of the village or the nearby
village.
15. The Reference Court, based on the sale deeds
Ext.1 and Ext.1/b and considering the evidence on
record, determined the market value at Rs.250/ per
decimal and allowed a sum of Rs.10,000/ towards damage
of standing crops.
16. This Court in number of cases has taken judicial
notice of the fact that there is a steady increase in
the market value of the land and has also adopted the
procedure for determining the increased market value
and relied upon the transaction at a given rate per
year.
17. In General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation Limited vs. Rameshbhai Jilvanbhai Patel and
Another reported in (2008) 14 SCC 745, this Court
observed that in the absence of other acceptable
evidence, a cumulative increase of 10 to 15 per cent
is permissible with reference to acquisitions in 1990.
In the decades preceding 1990s, the quantum of increase
was considered to be less than 10 per cent per annum.
18. This Court in Sardar Joginder Singh vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Another (2008) 17 SCC 133, noticed
7Page 8
that the said case related to acquisition in the year
1979 and relying upon the award related to an
acquisition of 1969 observed that the general increase
between 196979 can be taken to be around 810 per cent
per annum. If this increase is calculated
cumulatively, the total increase in 10 years would be
around 100 per cent.
19. The question relating to the value of larger
extent of agricultural land, if required to be
determined with reference to price fixed for small
residential plot, came for consideration before this
Court
in Haridwar Development Authority Vs. Raghubir
singh and Others (2010)11 SCC 581.
In the said case, this Court held as follows:
“When the value of a large extent of agricultural
land has to be determined with reference to the
price fetched by sale of a small residential
plot, it is necessary to make an appropriate
deduction towards the development cost, to arrive
at the value of the large tract of land. The
deduction towards development cost may vary from
20% to 75% depending upon various factors. Even
if the acquired lands have situational
advantages, the minimum deduction from the
market value of a small residential plot, to
arrive at the market value of a larger
agricultural land, in the usual course, will be
in the range of 20% to 25%. In this case, the
Collector has himself adopted a 25% deduction
which has been affirmed by the Reference Court
and the High Court. We, therefore, do not
propose to alter it.”
8Page 9
Therefore, it is clear that mere reliance made by
a Court on sale deeds of smaller residential area for
determination of market value of larger agricultural
area, the same will not render the determination
illegal until and unless it is shown that the
determination was not proper.
20. In the instant case, the average value of the
saledeeds relied upon by the Reference Court (Ext.1
and Ext.1/b) was Rs. 401/ at the time of acquisition.
Therefore, as the saledeeds were in relation to
smaller plots, the deduction of 37% was made by the
Reference Court and thereafter, by allowing
appropriate 10% increase in the value of the land from
the date of the sale deeds upto the date of
Notification under Section 4 of the Act, the Reference
Court arrived at a figure of Rs.250/ per decimal.
The High Court while arriving at figure of Rs. 100/
per decimal considered only the fact that the sale
deeds relied upon were in relation to smaller plots and
those sale deeds(Ext.1 and Ext.1/b) were related to
homestead land and hence fixed Rs. 10,000/ per acre as
compensation.
It completely failed to consider the
increase in price of land and the deduction made by the
9Page 10
High Court is nearly 75% which is not in accordance
with law.
As Ext.1 and Ext.1/b which were related to smaller
area, were the only sale deeds available for
comparison, the same were relied upon by the Reference
Court,
but the High Court erred completely in
disregarding the said sale deeds and thus arrived at a
finding of Rs.100/ per decimal as market value on
mere presumption and surmises.
There was no evidence
on record to arrive at this value and, even if it was a
case of deduction, the High Court has not given any
reason in support of the same.
21. The High Court also committed error in holding
that the sale deeds (Ext.1 and Ext.1/b) relate to
homestead land, on the ground that a ‘road’ and a
‘masjid’ has been shown in the boundary of one of the
exhibits.
From the copies of Ext.1 and Ext. 1/b on
record (Annexure P12 Colly), we find no citation in
Ext.1 showing the land as homestead land. On the other
hand Ext.1/b specifically cites that the land is an
agricultural land for which the annual revenue rent of
Rs.25 is payable.
22. The High Court disregarded the evidence adduced by
the claimants in its entirety without any reason;
10Page 11
however, it relied on evidence of an officer of the
State (OPW1) Ratneshwar Pd. Singh and set aside the
compensation in relation to the standing crops.
The
Reference Court has clearly recorded in its order that
the said State Officer was not posted in that area at
the time of acquisition and his knowledge was limited
to the official record.
The record was silent as to the standing crops.
The Khatiyans (Ext.A and Ext.
A/1) were also not relating to standing crops.
The
fact that the Collector had not allowed any amount
towards damage of standing crops and that no such
amount is mentioned in the Khatiyan does not mean that
no standing crop was there at the time of taking
possession of the land.
On the contrary, the
witnesses AW1 to AW5 appeared and supported the
statement of claimant that at the time of the
possession, standing crops were there which were
damaged causing loss to the extent of Rs.10,000 to Rs.
12,000/.
During their cross examination the
respondents could not extract any other material
evidence against the claimants.
23. In view of the finding as recorded above, we have
no other alternative but to set aside the order passed
by the High Court and restore the award passed by the
11Page 12
Reference Court. The impugned judgment passed by the
High Court is accordingly set aside and the appeal is
allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the
appellant the compensation in terms of the award passed
by the Reference Court after adjusting the amount
already paid within three months. There shall be no
separate order as to costs.
………………………….........…………………….J.
(G.S. SINGHVI )
….........…………………………………………….J.
(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
NEW DELHI,
JULY 1 , 2013.
12
