Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi, II J
1. This is a First Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the judgment and order dated 10.11.2008, passed by the Addl. District Judge/ Prescribed Authority, Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal, Lucknow in Land Acquisition Misc. Case No.30 of 2004. By the impugned award, learned tribunal has enhanced the compensation from Rs.5.70 per sq. ft. to Rs.23.75 per sq.ft. Feeling aggrieved with the enhancement of compensation, the appellant State has preferred the present appeal.
2. A land measuring 0.446 hectare of Khasra No.954, situate at Aurangabad, Pergana, Bijnore, District Lucknow was acquired by the State Government for expantion of Lucknow Airport at Amausi. The Land Acquisition Officer in pursuance to the power conferred by Section 18 of the Act awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.5.70 per sq. ft which was enhanced to Rs.23.75/- per sq. ft by the tribunal is the subject matter of dispute before this Court in the present appeal.
3. Mr. D.K. Pathak, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel while assailing the impugned award submits that in the nearby place where a land was purchased for literacy house, the sale deed was executed at the rate of Rs.5.70 per sq.ft, hence the Land Acquisition Officer has rightly awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.5.70 per sq.ft.
4. On the other hand, attention of this Court has been invited by the Learned counsel for the respondent to the finding recorded by the tribunal which reveals that there were three sale-deeds executed in the same vicinity at the rate of Rs.23.75 per sq.fit. One other sale deed was executed at the rate of Rs.20 per sq.ft. Further submission is that Literary House is far away than the acquired land. The learned counsel for the respondents states that the circle rate is Rs.80 per sq.ft and accordingly, the compensation should have been enhanced to Rs.80 per sq.ft and also keeping in view the recent trend with regard to payment of compensation to the farmers. It is further submitted that the respondent land holder shall be deprived of the the source of livelihood in case he is not given the reasonable compensation to meet out his requirement, the family members will not be able to generate alternative source of livelihood. Even the rate of Rs.23.75 per sq. ft is on lower side since the circle rate of the area is Rs.80 per sq.ft.
5. After considering the argument of the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the tribunal has rightly awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.23.75 per sq.ft. The respondent farmer has been deprived of the source of livelihood due to acquisitioning of his land for the construction of airport at the outskirt of Lucknow on Lucknow-Kanpur Road. Lucknow-Kanpur Road is hardly less than one kilometre from the land in question. It further borns out from the finding recorded by the tribunal that at a short distance of the land in question on other side, Bangla Bazar is situated and to nearby land in question, the facility of telephone, primary school and all other infrastructure are available. In Aurangabad, there is electricity connection also and there are government handpumps for drinking water. Keeping in view the infrastructure available in the vicinity of the land in question and immediate or immediate future prospect, the rate of land should be much higher than what has been awarded by the tribunal. Once the circle rate of the land is Rs.80 per sq.ft notified by the District Magistrate, then the payment of compensation at the rate of Rs.23.75 per sq.ft seems to be not on higher side but it is on lower side.
6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in 2010(10)SCC 492 Hirabai and others versus Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Assistant Commissioner held that while determining the market value of cultivated land, the value of irrigated lands would be taken as about one and half times the value of dry lands and their Lordships upheld the finding recorded by the High Court.
7. In 2010(10) SCC 464 Iyasamy and another versus Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, their Lordships held that recent awards are important piece of evidence to arrive at market value of acquired land.
8. In 2010 AIR SCW 6774 Radha Mudaliyar versus Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), T.N.H. Board, their Lordships held that where exemplar is filed of the land sold in the same vicinity and transaction is of quite similar nature to the acquired land, then such transaction may be taken as basis for determination of compensation. Where there is difference of 10 months between the sale disclosed through exemplar and the notification, then the claimant would be entitled for the benefit of increase of said period.
9. In case the principle in Radha Mudaliyar (supra) is applied to the present controversy, then keeping in view the gap between the sale disclosed through exemplar and notification in question, the respondents may be entitled for higher rate than what has been paid by the tribunal.
10. In 2009(3) UPLBEC 2319 Chandrashekhar and others versus Addl. Special Land Acquisition Officer, it has been held that the market value would be determined on the basis of transaction taken place in the same vicinity.
11. In 2010 AIR SCW 6331 Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation versus Pran Sukh and others, , their Lordships held that where land is acquired for setting up industrial model township, the land sold adjacent to acquired land to determine market value may be relevant consideration. There shall be no justification to discard or ignore comparative sale deed.
12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in recent judgments reported in (2011)7 SCC 714 Special Land Acquisition Officer and another versus M.K. Rafiq Saheb and (2009)14 SCC 367 Mohammad Raofuddin versus Land Acquisition Officer have deprecated the payment of compensation to the farmers at the rate lesser than what has been fixed in the nearby land of the same nature. The compensation must be paid to the farmers at market rate and it must be just and proper to meet out their requirement. For convenience, relevant portion from the judgment of M.K. Rafiz Saheb(supra) is reproduced as under :
"23. Further, it has also been held in the case of Smt. Basavva and Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition, reported in AIR 1996 SC 3168, that the court has to consider whether sales relating to smaller pieces of land are genuine and reliable and whether they are in respect of comparable lands. In case the said requirements are met, sufficient deduction should be made to arrive at a just and fair market value of large tracks of land. Further, the court stated that the time lag for real development and the waiting period for development were also relevant factors to be considered in determining compensation. The court added that each case depended upon its own facts. In the said case, based on the particular facts and circumstances, this Court made a total deduction of 65% in determination of compensation.
24.It may also be noticed that in the normal course of events, it is hardly possible for a claimant to produce sale instances of large tracks of land. The sale of land containing large tracks are generally very far and few. Normally, the sale instances would relate to small pieces of land. This limitation of sale transaction cannot operate to the disadvantage of the claimants. Thus, the Court should look into sale instances of smaller pieces of land while applying reasonable element of deduction."
13. In view of above, it should not be lost sight of the fact that the source of livelihood for urban people is service in private or public sector or business or in any other form but in case of peoples residing in rural area, ordinarily, the sole source of livelihood to majority of population is their farming. On account of ceiling, the area of farm land has been reduced in the State of U.P. The majority of peoples use to fulfill their requirement from the land measuring less than a hectare or few hectares or acres. In case these lands are acquired by the State Govt. for any purpose whatever, they are deprived of their source of livelihood. In case the farmers are deprived of their cultivatory land which fulfills their requirement from generation to generation, then the vacuum created because of acquisition of such land cannot be compensated in terms of money for the family concerned. Ordinarily, the farmers who are innocent people do not possess skill or knowledge to use the compensation received as source of livelihood by investing it into business or other commercial activities. Money is spent after sometime and keeping in view the spate of unemployment and failure on the part of the government to provide source of livelihood, the children may involve in such activities which may not be good for a civilized society.
14. In rural India, the cultivatory land is not ordinary materialistic thing but right from Vedic period, farmers worship and presume that there is Lord of the Field, namely, Kshetrapati. It shall be appropriate to quote two hymns of Rigveda whereby Lord of the Field has been worshiped; to quote :
"1. We through the Master of the Field, even as through a friend, obtain what nourisheth our kine and steeds. In such may he be good to us.
2. As the cow yieldeth milk, pour for us freely, Lord of the Field, the wave that beareth sweetness, Distilling meath, well-purified like butter, and let the Lords of holy Law be gracious."
15. The government must pay attention to pay maximum compensation and also create forum or provide advisory mechanism so that the farmers may be guided to invest the fund received in such commercial venture which may be substitute of land acquired as source of livelihood. Inaction on the part of the government or payment of meagre amount for the land acquired, in due course of time, shall be counter productive and it shall neither be feasible nor possible for the government to regulate, organise or provide livelihood to millions of unemployed youth of rural sector whose land has been acquired ordinarily for the benefit of urban peoples. Instead of expanding the urban area, it shall be appropriate for the government to establish independent satellite township with the aid of rural peoples with all necessary civil amenities instead of occupying for horizontal infrastructure.
16. Now, it is well known fact that gradually the land is decreasing in India because of acquisition of rural land mechanically for urban development. The country may face with disastrous consequences with the decrease of cultivatory land resulting in scarcity of food stuff. For socio-economic development of the country, it is necessary to check the growing population as well as save the cultivatory land to ensure the availability of food grain for generation to come.
17. The tribunal has rightly taken note of the exemplar provided by the respondent where sale deed has been executed at the rate of Rs.23.75 per sq.ft. In case number of exemplar is more than one and there is variation in cost of land sold, then the exemplar showing higher rate (cost of land) should be followed while assessing the compensation.
18. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. In case the appellant pays the entire compensation in terms of entire award within one year, the interest shall be at the rate of 9%, otherwise, it shall be at the rate of 15% in terms of the award. State shall deposit entire remaining compensation/damages, if any, within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the present order. The amount deposited in this Court shall be remitted to the tribunal within one week and the tribunal shall release the same in terms of the award within three months.
Subject to above, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.