Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Arora,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Arora, J.) Heard Sri D.C. Mukherji, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The instant first appeal has been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 against the judgment/award/order dated 13.05.2004 passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 01/95, Anand Bahadur Singh vs. State and others, whereby the claim of the appellant for enhancement of compensation was rejected.
The factual matrix of the case in brief is that vide notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was issued on 25.08.1993 for acquisition of land of the appellant situated at the main road from Gonda to Balrampur bearing Gata No. 326 measuring 22 acres 04 dismil for construction of Training Centre and Demonstration Farm for Uttar Pradesh Ganna Kishan Sansthan. Thereafter, the notification under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued on 07.10.1993.
The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the land of the appellant is situated on Gonda to Balrampur road and was surrounded by Abadi area. At the relevant time 150 trees of Mangoes, 30 trees of Lemon and Guava, 10 trees of Sheesam and 15-20 trees of Teak, 1 tree of Banyan, 1 Neem and 55 trees of Eucalyptus were standing over the land in question. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as the SLAO) himself inspected the site on 06.12.1992 and submitted inspection report indicating therein that the land exists on western side on Gonda-Balrampur road and on both side roads are there, residential building, depot of Forest Department, various shops as well as several development work were going on and, thus, the SLAO himself found that the entire land has building potential.
The further submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the market value of the land was approximately Rs.9,12558/- per acre but the SLAO at the time of making award relied on exemplar sale-deed No.12 dated 20.01.1994 wherein the value of 430 sq. ft. land was mentioned as Rs.9,000/- and on the basis of said exemplar the value of one acre of land comes to Rs.9,12558/- but the SLAO committed error in calculation and instead of making award on the basis of said market value the award was given at lesser value. He has also committed error by dividing the land for residential purposes in two belts and made assessment by improper division and also wrongly and illegally made deduction from the compensation amount at the rate of 30% and 50%. The SLAO has also not considered the relevant material facts and did not give proper interest in calculating the amount of award. The SLAO in his award held that 100 mt. wide strip on the road is deemed for residential purpose and in spite of this, he awarded the compensation by treating only 150 ft. wide land as residential without assigning any reason, whereas the building of Ganna Kishan Sansthan has been constructed on the area of 6.30 acre land, which is evident from Khasra-Paper No.Ga-2/86. The SLAO while giving the award divided the land for residential use into two blocks from 150 ft. wide strip. The first belt/ block for 1.212 acre land and second belt/ block of 1.060 acre land. For the first block, on the basis of sale deed No.12 a deduction of 30% was made and value of the second belt was determined by making 50% deduction from the value of the land of first block/ belt. The deduction made was contrary to the rules. There was no reason or justification for making 50% deduction and even 30% deduction of the first block/ belt was excessive and wrong. The appellant had also claimed the value of standing trees on the acquired land, but the same was not considered by the SLAO while making the award. The appellant also claimed that the Tubewell, a Pakka House and Nali are also existed over the plot No.326 but the same was also not considered.
The appellant feeling aggrieved against the award dated 20.01.1994 moved an application for making reference to the District Judge. The Reference Court framed six issues and issue Nos.1, 2 and 5 were framed on the point "whether the compensation for the land in question has been given in accordance with Section 23 and whether the compensation amount was less than the market value". The Reference Court decided the issue Nos. 1, 2 and 5 against the appellant without appreciating and considering the relevant facts and circumstances.
Sri D.C. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that he is confining the grievance of the appellant only to the extent of belting system applied for making payment of compensation. As the land was acquired for construction of Uttar Pradesh Ganna Kishan Sansthan and, therefore, there was no question of division of the land into two blocks/ belts for determination of market value. Even otherwise, as per the inspection made by the SLAO, the entire land was surrounded by Abadi and the development activities were in its full swing. Further submission is that appellant is entitled for compensation of entire land without adopting the belting system.
Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his submissions placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer, Chittoor vs. Smt. L. Kamalamma AIR 1998 Supreme Court 781, in which it has been held that the acquired land having potentiality of being developed as urban land the belting method cannot be applied. The relevant para-7 of the judgment reads as under:-
"7.The argument advanced by Sri Nageshwar Rao that the classification by Land Acquisition Officer was in order and ought not to have been interfered with by the Reference Court or the High Court does not appeal to us. When a land is acquired which has the potentiality of being developed into an urban land, merely because some portion of it abuts the main road, higher rate of compensation should be paid while in respect of the lands on the interior side should be at lower rate may not stand to reason because when sites are formed those abutting the main road may have its advantages as well as disadvantages. Many discerning customer may prefer to stay in the interior and far away from the main road and may be willing to pay reasonably higher price for that side. One cannot rely on mere possibility so as to indulge in a meticulous exercise of classification of the lands as was done by the Land Acquisition Officer when the entire land was acquired in one block and therefore, classification of the same into different categories does not stand to reason."
Learned counsel for the appellant also relied on the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Trishala Jain and another vs. State of Uttaranchal and another 2011 (6) SCC 47, in which it has been held that if all lands were similarly placed and were surrounded by developed area and if all acquired land were intended to be used for same purpose, in such situation the application of belting system will not be applicable. The relevant paras-18 and 19 are being reproduced as under:-
"18. As already noticed, the SLAO, in all cases, while giving its award had applied the belting system and categorizing the land into three different categories had awarded the compensation accordingly. However, the Reference Court had held that the land as a whole was similarly placed and was surrounded by developed areas and it was to be used for one purpose i.e construction of Government Polytechnic Institute, thus there was no question of applying the belting system.
19. Keeping in view the documentary and oral evidence on record, the Reference Court set aside the belting system and awarded uniform compensation to all the claimants. This finding of the Reference Court was upheld by the High Court in the impugned judgments. The correctness of this concurrent view has also not been questioned by any of the parties in the present appeals before us. Therefore, the concurrent finding recorded by the courts below which remained unchallenged before this Court need not be disturbed by this Court."
Learned Standing Counsel fairly accepted that the entire land was acquired for the purpose of establishment of Uttar Pradesh, Ganna Kishan Sansthan and, therefore, the belting system applied for determining the compensation by the SLAO was not correct. He further submitted that as far as the compensation with regard to trees are concerned, the same has already been given to the appellants.
We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
Admittedly, the land of the appellant bearing Gata No. 326 measuring 22 acres and 4 decimal was acquired for construction of training and development farm of Utter Pradesh Ganna Sansthan and before determining the compensation SLAO inspected the cite on 06.12.1993 and submitted report indicating therein that the land existed at western side of Gonda-Balrampur Road and on the southern side of road there are residential buildings, on the northern side of road the depot of Forest Department alongwith various shops are in existence, as well as several development works were going on in the area and on the basis of said inspection, he came to the conclusion that 100 meter wide strip on the road is deemed for residential purpose, but SLAO while making award divided the land for residential use in two blocks from 150 ft. wide strip. The first belt/block for 1.212 acres land and second belt/block of 1.060 acres land. For the first block on the basis of sale-deed No.12 a deduction of 30% was made and value of second belt was determined by making 50% deduction from the value of the land of first belt/block. The reference court affirmed the award. From perusal of record, it is evident that the entire land as a whole was similarly placed and surrounded by developed area and has been used for one purpose i.e. the construction of Uttar Pradesh Ganna Kisan Sansthan, and thus, we do not find any good ground for applying the belting system.
In view of above as well as settled proposition of law, the first appeal deserves to be accepted and, thus, we hold that the appellant will be entitled for the same amount of compensation for his entire land, and accordingly the compensation be determined for entire land on the basis of value determined for the first belt/block i.e. Rs.5,60,000/-. The award and reference are modified to this extent.