JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal which arises out of judgment dt/-20-ll-73 passed by the learned District Judge, Rampur in Land Acquisition Case No. 24/71, Mumtaz Ali Khan v. Collector, Rampur.
2. The claimants were Ex Zamindars. The land in question was in possession of occupancy tenants (Only landlord claimants have preferred reference under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act as well as this appeal and not the tenants). The total acquisition was 3.30 acres land the notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 19-3-62. The possession was taken on 21-1-65. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) gave his award on 22-3-70. The land in question was agricultural land on the date of notification under S. 4 aforesaid. But the SIAO took into consideration the potential value of the land as it could be used for building purposes too. He accordingly valued the land 1.75 paisa per square yard. As the land was actually in possession of the occupancy tenants, the share of compensation was opportioned in the ratio of 10 for claimant Zamindars and 6 for tenants. Total amount including interest @ 6% from the date of possession was allowed to the claimants, which came to Rs. 25604.30 paisa under the award.
3. On the request of the claimants, reference under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was made and heard by the learned District Judge, Rampur.
4. The main contention of the claimants was that the value of the land has been grossly undervalued by the SLAO. Its valuation should have been assessed @ Rs. 24/- per square yard. However, the claimants confined their claim to only Rs. 16 per square yard. Their contention was that the land in question was situated centrally within the municipal limits of Rampur and contiguous to Civil Lines the industrial area of the city-apart from two national highways-one Bareilly-Moradabad Road and the other Rampur --Nainital Road. It was surrounded by several industrial and commercial establishments and industrial growth had already increased the potential value of the land to a great extent. It possessed all modern amenities. It could be utilized for both residential and commercial purposes. The compensation for trees was also claimed, which has not been challenged before me.
5. The State on the other hand stressed on the point that the claimants were merely Zamindars. The actual possession was of the occupancy tenants. The claimants had only a right to realise rent from the tenants. Further it was contended that the end had no building potential. It was merely an agricultural land on the date of notification. The land was accessible from the national highways aforesaid. There was only a small path way up to railway crossing. The situation of the land was highly undeveloped and there is a drain on one side. There was no building activity going on nor was there any pressure for that during the past several years.
6. Taking all these factors into consideration, the learned District Judge agreed with the assessment of valuation made by the SLAO. He accordingly dismissed the claim of the appellants.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this appeal.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. I find that there is absolutely no force in this appeal and it deserves to be dismissed, except for some benefits on technical grounds i.e. the benefit of increase in solatium and interest rate because of the amendments made in the Land Acquisition Act subsequently.
9. A map was got prepared during the course of trial. That is the part of the record. The disputed land has been shown by red colour. There is a road in extreme east. Thereafter there are quarters of power house. Then there is a Nalla. Thus the access from the east is totally closed. Towards south, there are quarters of power house. Hence the disputed land could not be approached from the south. Towards the west, there is railway land running from north to sough. In between the land in dispute and the railway line, coal stock of power house from south to north is visible. Thus the land in dispute could not be approached even from the west. So is the position from the northern side also. This way, this is a picture of completely locked plot of land. In modern days, a land, which is not accessible, is practically worthless. Pedestrians may go but people having vehicles will refuse to go. So for a modern civilized man, this land was practically useless. This fact of the situation of the land in dispute has been correctly taken note of by the learned District Judge in the body of his judgment. I concur with the observations made by him that the situation of the land is very peculiar and that has a lot to do with the assessment of the compensation at a very diminished rate as done by him as well as the SLAO.
10. In order to get enhanced compensation, the learned counsel for the appellants stressed that roads, Dalmia Hospital, quarters, establishments etc. apart from petrol pump nearby would add towards the potential value of the land in question. But all these arguments appear to be myth, when we have an eye on the map prepared by the Amin. The learned District Judge has rightly observed that there is no evidence on the record to prove that there is pressure on the land to start building constructions thereon. Thus in the recent past, no building activity was visible. So even on this point, this land had a diminished potential for building purposes.
11. The exemplars relied upon by the claimants have been serially dealt with by the learned District Judge. At page 10 of the judgment, there is a mention of the exemplar of sale of plot No, 150 in I960, measuring 300 square yards @ Rs.7/- per square yard i.e. Exhibit 9. The learned District Judge took into consideration the situation of that land vis-a-vis the disputed land and has observed as follows:--
"While that plot was in a highly developed area the land in question was not at all so."
Learned counsel for the appellant could not show that this observation of the land District Judge is in any way ill-founded. Therefore, when the learned District Judge rejected this exemplar, he committed no legal mistake.
12. Some other exemplars showing very high rates going up to Rs. 48/- per square yard were also relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants in this court as well as before the learned District Judge. These exemplars were rightly rejected because they were not properly connected in evidence. The learned Judge has observed as follows:--
"These exemplars cannot be considered here for two reasons-one is that no evidence has been given to show as to where these plots exist. Again these sales took place in 1966, which is after about 4 years of the acquisition and so also they cannot be said to be exemplars of sales at the relevant period."
This way, even this observation of the learned Judge could not be successfully challenged by the learned counsel before me. I find that the considerations which weighed before the learned Judge, were valid in law. Without proper connection by oral and documentary evidence exemplars were redundant and they were rightly rejected by the learned Judge.
13. Exhibit 6 is a sale deed in respect of plot No. 15A having an area of 250 square yards only. Rate of payment was Rs. 10,20 paisa per square yard. The sale deed had took place on 25-11-65. This sale deed was rightly rejected by the learned Judge as a valid exemplar. Firstly, it was for a small piece of land, namely, 250 square yards only. Secondly, it was a sale transaction which took place much after the notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is a matter of common knowledge and very well recognized by the apex court in catena of decisions that small pieces of land fetch higher price. Therefore, they were not valid exemplars. Secondly, the sales which took place after notification under S. 4, could be safely ignored because the prices are likely to get higher and the market will start fluctuating towards the higher side on account of certain public constructions likely to be raised upon the acquired land. Exhibit 7 was a sale deed dt/-7-8-62 of plot No. 200 Exhibit 10 was the sale deed for plots 61 and 62 dt/-14-1-49. This sale deed could not be taken note of as good exemplar because it is not in the neighbourhood of the period of acquisition before this court. The judgment of another District Judge in another reference was also relied upon. But it has been rightly rejected by me learned lower court because the judgment was under appeal. The oral evidence of P.W. 1 was not relevant in connecting the disputed property with the other exemplars. The statement of P.W. 2 Sardar Singh was found to be highly imaginative, and it was found that the land which he was referring to in his statement, was on the road side.
14. Sale certificate Exhibit 7 dt/- 25-11-65 was rightly rejected as it was made 3 years after the disputed acquisition. Exemplar Exhibit 12 in respect of plot No. 64 shown by Exhibit 11 was also not applicable to the facts of the present case because the land covered by these documents were situate in commercial area, whereas the disputed land is situate much to the east of Nainital road. It was certainly not situate in commercial area as evidence from the Amin's map noted above. The Amin has clearly noted that the land in question is 540 feet to the east of the Nainital Road, while plot No. 64 is about 20.5 feet to the west of the Nainital Road. This way, these two lands stand at two different footings and the assessment of compensation of these lands cannot be on a equal footing. It has to vary. In real estate the actual situation of land is very material even otherwise. Its continuity to the main road is a vital question, which cannot be wished away. The nearer the land to the road, the higher will be its commercial potential and the learned lower court has taken this fact into consideration that this is a vital premise and no legal objection can be taken against that,
15. The learned lower court has summed up his conclusions in these words:--
"As against it the land in question is situated at a very disadvantageous position. There is no regular pathway to this land. To the south there is a power house and to its west there is the railway house and to its west there is the railway siding. There is no doubt a road connecting the railway siding with the main Nainital Road but one would have to cross the railway siding and some other obstacles before coming to the disputed land. There is no bridge over the railway siding. Thus except from the west and that too not to the full, there is no passage from the main road to the disputed land. It is thus an intertwined locked area."
The learned counsel for the claimants could not point out any mistake in these observations made by the learned lower court and the conclusions drawn accordingly by him.
16. The learned tower court further observed that this land is such that it is not fit for residential purposes. Looking to situation the power house, railway line, railway siding etc. I find that there are the things which every person would like to avoid, if he wants to raise his construction for residential purposes. There is a constant nuisance on account of these things. Therefore, the learned lower court was right in taking note of the inhospitable situation of the land and that way, the value of the land was considerably diminished.
17. The learned Judge also took into consideration total lack of public amenities as observed by this court in AIR 1964 All 281 (sic). This land still required intensive development as regards its accessibility. Roads has to be made and water and electricity lines have to be laid. So all these amenities if actually brought, would considerably reduce the actual area required for construction. Hence its residential potential was virtually nil.
18. The learned tower court has rightly relied upon the observations of the apex court in AIR 1967 SC page 467 (sic). In that case the apex court has given some guidelines in the context of building potentiality i.e. whether there was pressure on the land for building activity, whether the acquired land was suitable for building purposes whether the extension of the said activity was towards the land acquired, what was the pace of progress and how far such activity had extended and within what time and so on. In this context, the learned lower court has rightly observed that there is no evidence at all showing that there was any pressure of building activities upon this disputed site. Relying upon the evidence of DW 1 examined from the side of the State, the learned lower court has clearly drawn a* conclusion that there had been no new construction in this area for a long time. No doubt Dalmia Hospital existed there but very long time in between, nothing new has been raised on the spot. There was absolutely no evidence of any recent construction and this way the learned lower court has rightly agreed with the assessment of compensation made by the learned SLAO. No fault could be shown in the assessment of compensation thus made by the learned District Judge. Accordingly, this appeal has no force.
19. Learned counsel did not press about the valuation of the trees made by the learned Judge as well as SLAO. Hence, I do not touch this point.
20. One thing salient which has missed the attention of the learned Judge was that the amount of solatium should be assessed @ 30%. So also the amount of interest rate should be enhanced @ 9% as the possession was taken more than 3 years after the date of notification under S. 4 aforesaid. Thus in the judgment of the learned District Judge as well as SLAO, this improvement is made i.e. the solatium should be calculated @ 30% and the interest @ 9% instead of 6% as done by the learned lower court.
21. Subject to these modifications, the appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, parties will bear their own cost.
22. Appeal dismissed.