(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. These appeals arise out of common judgment and award dated 31.7.98 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Vadodara in Land Reference Cases Nos.417 and 421 of 1991. The appeals arise in following factual background.
2. Two parcels of land belonging to the present appellant situated in village Vaghodia were acquired by the State Authorities for the purpose of construction of residential and non-residential building of Narmada Project. Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 ('the Act' for short) was issued on 11.4.86 covering land bearing survey No.554/1A and 554/1B of village Vaghodia admeasuring 15498 sq. meters. Notification under section 6(1) of the Act was issued on 8.1.87. The Land Acquisition Officer, passed his award on 30th July 1988, awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.4.50 per sq. meter.
acquiring land admeasuring 1600 sq. meters out of survey No.554/1 of village Vaghodia. Section 6 notification was issued on 30th March 1988. The Land Acquisition Officer passed award on 10.10.88 awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.4.50 per sq. meter.
4. The claimant sought reference before the District Court with respect to both the acquisitions and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.20 per sq. meter. Reference Court disposed of both the references by its common judgment and award granting additional compensation at the rate of Rs.2.50 per sq. meter. The claimant therefore, approached this Court by filing two separate appeals seeking further enhancement in the compensation.
5. We have perused the judgment and award under challenge and also the oral as well as the documentary evidence produced by both sides. Before the Reference Court, the claimant had examined himself at Ex.13. He had produced three sale deeds at Ex.16, 17 and 18. He had also examined the vendors/vendees of these sale instances. On the basis of such oral as well as documentary evidence, the case of the claimant before the Reference Court was that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was grossly inadequate.
6. On behalf of the acquiring body, the Land Acquisition Officer was examined at Ex.36. He had also produced sale instances at Ex.37 to 40. On the basis of such sale instances, the case of the respondent was that the compensation awarded was just and proper and no further increase was called for.
7. The Reference Court, did not rely on the sale instances produced on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer. He, however, referred to and relied on the sale instances produced by the claimant at Ex.16 to 18. Looking to the potential of the land, amenities and facilities available in the village and sale instances produced on behalf of the claimant, the Reference Court assessed the market value of the land at Rs.7.00 per sq. meter. After deducting Rs.4.50 per sq. meter already awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the Reference Court held that the claimant was entitled to additional compensation at the rate of Rs.2.50 per sq. meter for both the acquisitions.
8. On behalf of the claimant, learned counsel Shri Sheth heavily relied on the sale instances produced at Ex.16, 17 and 18 to contend that the Reference Court committed an error in limiting the additional compensation at the rate of Rs.2.50 per sq. meter. He submitted that comparable sale instances were not taken into consideration. It was pointed out that village Vaghodia was a well- developed village with all amenities and the land in question had non-agricultural potential.
9. In support of this contention, counsel relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chakas v. State of Punjab, 2011(3) GLH 199 to contend that in case of sale instances of 4 to 5 years prior to the date of section 4 notification of the land under acquisition, reasonable increase in the market value as is the trend in the real estate should be granted. Counsel for the appellant has also relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Radha Mudaliyar v. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), AIR 2011 SC 54 to contend that the Reference Court erred in not granting interest on the solatium. He, therefore, prayed that interest may be awarded on the solatium on additional compensation also.
10. On the other hand, learned AGP Shri Dave for the respondent submitted that the Reference Court has granted sufficient additional compensation and no further increase is necessary. He submitted that the sale instances produced at Ex.37 to 40 pertained to agricultural land in the same vicinity sold shortly before the notification under section 4 of the Act. Such instances, therefore, were comparable. Compensation accordingly should be calculated.
10.1 Learned AGP relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of State of Haryana v. Ram Singh, AIR 2001 SC 2532 and Cement Corporation of India v. Purya, 2004(8)SCALE 558, contended that merely because the vendor or vendee of sale transactions were not examined before the Reference court, such sale instances cannot be discarded. He submitted that Reference Court ought to have given due weightage to such sale instances.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the claimant in his deposition at Ex.13 had stated that his land which was under acquisition was at a distance of ¼ k.m. from Vaghodia-Nimeta road and also at a similar distance from Vaghodia-Gorej pucca road. The land is adjacent to Dabhoi-Timba railway line. Railway station is at a distance of 1.5 k.m. from the land. Village Vaghodia is situated at a distance of ½ k.m. from the land in question. Village Vaghodia is a well developed village having all facilities, such as, electricity, telephone, bus service, Panchayat office, banks, high school, hospitals, etc. Village has also a criminal court situated therein. He further stated that to the south of the acquired land, Bharatnagar Society is located at a distance of quarter of a kilometer. One kilometer away from the land, there are 500 to 700 factories of GIDC located. Such factories were established prior to the acquisition of the land. Different lands in the area are being developed for factories and residential societies. If his land was not acquired by the Government, the same could have been used either for industrial or residential purpose. The land was an irrigated land and he used to take two or three crops per year.
12. In addition to the oral evidence, the claimant produced 3 sale deeds at Ex.16, 17 and 18. Ex.16 was a sale deed dated 8th January 1986. It pertained to the land bearing survey 710 of village Vaghodia admeasuring 7418 sq. meters. The entire land was sold for sale consideration of Rs.1,43,353/- i.e. at the rate of Rs.1,96,751 per hectare. We may, however, notice that the land in question was purchased for the purpose of setting up a hospital and the Collector had already granted permission for sale of the land for non-agricultural use.
12.1 Ex.17 was a sale deed dated 14.12.81, in respect of Survey No.569/1 of village Vaghodia admeasuirng 5868 sq. meters. The said land was sold for a consideration of Rs.69,951/- or at the rate of Rs.1,19,200/- per hectare. This land was converted into non-agricultural use prior to the sale and was acquired by a housing society for the purpose of constructing residential houses thereon.
12.2 Ex.18 was a sale deed dated 8.3.84 of survey No.1010 of village Vaghodia admeasuring 48 sq. meters of land which was sold at Rs.17,999/-.
13. As already noted, the claimant had also examined the vendors/vendees of the above-mentioned sale instances.
14. The Land Acquisition Officer, however, had relied on the sale instances Ex.37 to 40. Ex.37 was a sale deed dated 5.4.82 in respect of land admeasuring 9004 sq. meters of survey No.432 which was sold for a sale consideration of Rs.9999/-. Ex.38 was a sale deed dated 11.6.81, pertaining to survey No.344/1 and 344/2 of village Madodhar admeasuring 11028 sq. meters for a total sale price of Rs.27,000/-. Ex.39 also pertained to village Madodhar wherein land admeasuring 4846 sq. meters of survey No.347/1/B was sold for a price of Rs.16,400 by sale deed dated 3.6.85. Ex.40 was a sale deed dated 2.2.82 of survey No.447 and 449 of village Vaghodia admeasuring 12243 sq. meters which was sold for a sale consideration of Rs.11,999/-. We may, however, notice that neither the vendors nor the vendees of these sale deeds were examined on behalf of the respondent.
15. Before trying to assess the market value of the land in question, we may clarify that though there were two separate notifications issued by the Government for acquiring two different parcels of land of the same claimant, majority of the land was covered by the notification dated 11.4.86. Only a small parcel of land was subsequently acquired by issuing notification dated 11.2.88 under section 4(1) and taking subsequent steps therewith. We would, therefore, assess the market value of the land as on 11.4.86 and apply the same price to the lands of the appellant acquired by the respondent.
16. Coming to the question of different sale deeds produced by both sides, as noted, on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, though as many as 4 sale deeds were produced, neither the vendors nor the vendees were examined. However, by virtue of the decisions of the Apex Court particularly those in cases of State of Haryana v. Ram Singh (supra) and Cement Corporation of India v. Purya (supra), in view of section 51A of the Act, it was still open to the court to place reliance on such sale deeds. Merely, on this ground, therefore, we would not be persuaded to keep the sale deeds out of consideration.
17. However, there are other reasons why we do not find that none of these sale deeds provide any comparable sale instances. Ex.38 and 39 were the sale deeds not of village Vaghodia, but of village Madodhar. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, relevant position of the acquired land and those covered under such sale deeds was not produced. Though the learned AGP pointed out that village Vaghodia and village Madodhar are adjoining villages, which also appears from the map Ex.41, the relative position of two sets of land was not brought on record. Even if, therefore, village Madodhar is adjoining to village Vaghodia, it would not be possible for us to compare the two sets of land in absence of any additional material on record. It is possible that the lands covered under the sale deeds of village Madodhar may be at a far away distance from the land under acquisition.
18. With respect to sale deeds representing Ex.37 and 40, we notice that they represented sale instances of the year 1982. Ex.37 pertained to sale deed dated 5.4.82 and Ex.40 related to sale deed of 2.2.82. Both these sale deeds, therefore, were at least four years prior to the first notification under section 4(1) of which was issued on 11.4.86 and six years prior to the second notification dated 11.2.88 with respect to the acquisition of the land in question. Particularly when we have sale deeds which are closer in point of time, we would not base any reliance on such sale instances pertaining to sale deeds entered into more than four years before the date of section 4 notification.
19. Coming to the sale deeds produced by the claimant, we may discard the sale deed Ex.18 summarily since it not only pertained to sale of land more than two years back from the date of section 4 notification, but more significantly, it covered barely an area of 48 sq. meters. When such small piece of land is being compared with the acquisition of any area of more than 15000 sq. meters, it would be highly unsafe to base any reliance on the price indicated therein for the purpose of ascertaining the market value of the land under acquisition.
20. Ex.17, once again, pertained to sale of land on 14.12.81 of 5868 sq. meters of land. This sale deed also was more than 4 years prior to the date of section 4 notification in the present case. Quite apart from the time gap, when we have another sale instance dated 8.1.86 (Ex.16), we would rather rely on such a sale instance. It would not be, in our opinion, justified to go back to a sale deed of more than 4 years back and thereafter give reasonable increase for presumed price escalation and thereby extrapolate the market value of the land as on date of section 4 notification.
pertained the sale deed dated 8.1.86 of an area of 7418 sq. meters of land situated in the same village. The rate at which the land was sold came to Rs.1,96,751/- per hectare or in other words, approximately Rs.19.60 per sq. meters. While applying this standard for the land under acquisition, certain adjustments shall have to be made. This is necessary on account of two facts. Firstly, the land sold under Ex.16 was being acquired for the purpose of setting up of a hospital and as is apparent from the sale deed itself, the Collector and the Revenue Authorities had granted necessary permission for sale of the land for non- agricultural use. Secondly, map Ex.41 clearly shows that the said land was adjoining to village site or the Gamtel as is called in vernacular language. In comparison, the land under acquisition was situated at a considerable distance, nonetheless in the same village. On one hand, bearing in mind the above two factors and on the other, also keeping in mind that the land under acquisition was an irrigated land, that the area surrounding the land was already being developed for residential and industrial purposes and that therefore, the acquired land had non- agricultural potential, we would have to make necessary adjustment and to arrive at a just figure which would represent the correct market value of the land on the date of section 4 notification. As is stated time and again by different courts, in addition to applying such principles, a degree of guess work is bound to creep in.
22. The Apex Court has on number of occasions examined the appropriate reduction for development of the land being acquired. Under different situations, different percentage of deduction is applied. In the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer & anr. v. Amaji Mohanji Thakore, 2010 (3) GLH 447, a Division Bench of this Court provided that when comparing the sale instances of non-agricultural land with agricultural land acquired, reduction of minimum 30% would be called for.
23. In the present case, Ex.16 represented the sale instance where the land was comparatively smaller to the acquired land. Sale was in favour of a Trust for building of a hospital. The Revenue Authorities had already granted permission for sale for non-agricultural use. The land was also adjoining to the Gamtel.
24. In the case of State of Punjab v. Harchal Singh (D) by L.Rs. AIR 2006 SC 2122, the Apex Court upheld the decision of the High Court applying 50% cut in the land price in a sale instance of a small piece of land situated in an area surrounded by development for awarding compensation for the irrigated land acquired by the Government.
25. Bearing in mind the above factors, in our opinion, deduction of 50% would be justified. In other words, market value of the land under acquisition as on date of section 4 notification could be assessed at Rs.9.80 per sq. meter. The Reference Court having granted compensation totaling to Rs.7 per sq. meter, the claimant would, thus, be entitled to additional compensation at the rate of Rs.2.80 per sq. meter. The same standard will be uniformly applied for both the acquisitions since the area of land covered by the second notification is very small.
26. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Radha Mudaliyar (supra), the Reference Court, in our view, erred in not granting interest on the solatium payable to the claimants.
27. In the result, both the appeals are allowed in part. In both the cases, claimant shall receive additional compensation of Rs.2.80 per sq. meter over and above what was already granted by the Reference Court. On such additional compensation, claimant shall receive solatium at the rate of 30% and also interest on the additional amount of compensation and on solatium at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year from the date of the award and at the rate of 15% thereafter till actual payment. It is clarified that interest shall be payable on the solatium not only payable under this judgment but also under the judgment of the Reference Court.
28. Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly with proportionate costs. R & P may be transmitted to the Reference Court.
(Akil Kureshi J.) (C.L.Soni, J.) (vjn)