JUDGMENT
1. For industrial development, Slate of Uttar Pradesh proposed to acquire 171 acres 56 decimals of land in village Tigaria Bhoor within Tahsil and Pargana Hasanpur of Moradabad District. Acquired land was classified to be agricultural land. Land Acquisition Collector categorised the land into six classes and offered compensation to the land owners on various rates for each class of land. Land owners were claiming before the land Acquisition Col-lector market value at the rate of Rs. one lac per acre. Being dissatisfied with the compensation offered each of the land owners requested for reference to be made to court for determination of market value to get enhanced compensation. One of the land owner made an application that acquired land contained bore well and trees for which he is entitled to compensation, on basis of these requests Land Acquisition Collector made 15 references to the Civil Court. Learned District Judge hearing one reference of Abdul Qayum, gave the award on 20th of April, 1989 determining the market value at the rate or Rs. 40,000/- per acre. Subsequent reference proceedings, were heard and a common award was made on 29-5-1989 determining market value at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per acre. U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. for which the land was acquired, being dissatisfied preferred appeals against the awards. Land owners have also preferred appeals for enhancement of the market value.
2. All the reference being based on Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act publish-.ed on 28-9-1981 and claim having been made on basis that the entire area acquired consist of land having similar advantages, the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
3. Acquired land is situated near Gajraula town and the urban area is extended up to village Tigaria Bhoor. The exact situation of the land was not made clear before vhe learned District Judge excepting by oral evidence. In this Court both the parties have filed applications to accept the sketch map as produced by either party as additional evidence to know the location of the land. Four sale-deeds have been filed on behalf of land holders to be exemplers for determination of market value. Added to it witnesses have been examined to give an idea of the land and the area in which it is situated as well as market value. On basis of these materials the appeals are to be decided.
4. Mr. Tewari, Senior Advocate for the appellant assisted by Mr. Pradeep Kumar Gupta and Mr. Rakesh Tewari, Advocates submitted that in view of series of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court notice ought to have been given to the Development Corporation for participating in the enquiry. Absence of notice is to be taken seriously and the awards on this short ground should be set aside.
5. It is true that Supreme Court has stated that notice should be given to the statutory body or company for which land is acquired. However, under S. 20 of the Land Acquisition Act, clear provision has been made for notice which does not include the company or statutory body or local authority for whom land is acquired. Under S. 50 it is provided that company can adduce evidence before the Land Acquisition Collector or in a reference but they have no right to seek for a reference. Therefore, the company or local authority given opportunity to adduce evidence are to watch the proceedings and adduce evidence. Public policy requires early disposal of land acquisition proceedings so that land owners whose land has been compulsorily acquired can get benefit of compensation at an early date. A proceeding should not be remanded normally unless it comes within the scope of O. 41, R. 23, 23-A or 25, C.P.C. which are attracted to proceedings under the Act in reference and appeal. Keeping this in view provision has been made in Civil Procedure Code under O. 41, R. 27, C.P.C. that additional evidence can be entertained by the court where a person aggrieved had no opportunity to adduce evidence or the evidence was not available when the case was decided. It is also provided that Court can entertain additional evidence where the same would be required for proper adjudication of the dispute. Therefore, absence of notice to a statutory authority for which land is acquired shall not vitiate proceeding. Such authority and land owners are, therefore, given opportunity to file additional evidence, so that grievance of absence of notice is mitigated. However, excepting the maps, no other additional evidence has been adduced despite opportunity being given. After receiving opportunity Industrial Development Corporation cannot object any further that it had no notice of the reference as full opportunity was given by us to adduce evidence.
6. In First Appeal No. 861 of 1992, State Government and the Industrial Development Corporation filed the appeal jointly. Learned Standing Counsel has no authority to file appeal for Industrial Development Corporation. Learned counsel for Industrial Deve-lopment Corporation has no authority to file appeal for State Government. Thus, a joint appeal by State Government and Industrial Development Corporation is not maintainable. The appeal should have been dismissed in absence of one of the appellants praying for transposing the other as respondent. To avoid this defect Mr. Pradeep Kumar Gupta submitted that State Government be transposed as respondent and leave be granted to the Industrial Development Corporation to continue the appeal. Although this step could have been taken much earlier, in the context of this case, we allow oral prayer of Mr. Pradeep Kumar Gupta. Learned Standing Counsel has no objection for the State Government being transposed as respondent.
7. Coming to the question of market value, as stated earlier, Land Acquisition Collector classified the entire areas to six categories of agricultural land and determined the market value on that basis. From the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, it is seen that the owners were making an application treating the entire area to be of same category. In reference, land owners were also claiming the entire area to be of the same category. No serious objection has been raised in this Court by appellant that the land of the different land owners acquired should be treated differently although Mr. Tewari submitted that the area acquired being used for the purpose of agriculture, should be treated as agricultural land.
8. Witnesses for the land owners have clearly stated that near village Tigaria Bhoor railway station, railway colony, national highway and other important roads connecting important places are in existence. There are factories, residential buildings in the area, which is developing. In short, in oral evidence, they claim that though the acquired land is used for agriculture, the same has high potentiality of commercial use and also can be used as residential Sand in urban area.
9. Mr. Tewari, learned counsel for the appellant has tried to impress us from the map filed that the land acquired is far away from the railway station, national highway, railway colony and other residential area. However, map and the distance to be found as per scale indicated in the map would not lead to conclusion that the area has no potentiality of the urban land or for being used for commercial purpose. We are satisfied on the materials on record when the cross-examination has not been made by the learned counsel for the State Government to the witnesses that the acquired land has high potentialities for use for residence and commerce and, therefore, request for market value at one rate by the land owners is justified. We would have rejected the prayer to accept map as additional evidence as the same does not reflect the situation in the area at the time of notification under S. 4(1) of the Act. However, the same having been produced only to indicate the distance of the acquired land from important places to determine its potentiality, we have referred the same as stated earlier.
10. Having claimed market value at rate of one lac rupees per acre before the Land Acquisition Collector, there is no scope for the land owners to claim market value at a higher rate in the reference. In that view of the matter, sale deeds, which have been produced as exemplers indicating market value at a rate higher than rupees one lac per acre deserve no consideration in absence of any explanation by examination of the vendors or vendees explaining why consideration at such a high rate was given. Besides, there is no clear evidence that those sale deeds are in respect of lands having similar advantages as of the acquired land. Thus, sale deed dated 17-9-1981 for 8 decimals, where consideration is reflected to Rs. 22,500/- and sale deed dated 16-6-1980 for 16 decimals, where consideration is reflected as Rs. 30,000/- deserve no consideration and are ignored. They have also not been considered by Land Acquisition Collector or the learned District Judge for determination of the market value.
11. Two other sale deeds remain for consideration. One is sale deed dated 7th July, 1980 for one acre 08 decimals for a consideration of Rs. 44,000/ - bringing the rate to Rs. 40,000/ - per acre. The other sale deed is dated 20th October, 1981 in respect of 16 decimals for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/-bringing the rate to Rs. 62,500/- per acre. Land Acquisition Collector referred to a sale deed where Abdul Qayum, one of the land owners, sold 64 decimals of the land reflecting Rs. 6,500/- to be the consideration. In paragraph !9 of the oral evidence of Azizul Ilahi, who is PW 1 in reference case No. 126 of 1987, it has been clarified in re-examination that the actual consideration is Rs. 50,000/-. Since already Rs. 43,000/- was received, the balance Rs. 6,500/- has been reflected to be the consideration. He has further explained that the amount has been stated to avoid payment of higher stamp duty. This statement has not been further cross-examined. We are inclined to accept the statement that on 20-3-1981, 64 decimals were sold for a consideration of Rs. 49,500/-, thus, bringing the market value to about Rs. 62,000/- per acre. In absence of any better materials, market value is to be determined by appreciating two exemplers and oral evidence. From sale deed dated 7-7-1980, it is seen that the rate was lower when the area is about one acre. Where, however, the area is 16 decimals as reflected in sale deed dated 20th October, 1981 and the oral evidence or PW 1 referred to above, where the same is stated to be Rs.49,500/-
for 64 decimals, market value is at the rate of about Rs. 65,000/- per acre. Taking into consideration the fluctuating rates in the sale deed and in the oral evidence and the vast area acquired, which were used for agriculture at the time of notification under S. 4(1) of the Act and potentialities of being used for residential and commercial purpose, we are inclined to determine the market value at Rs. 50,000/- per acre taking into account the higher rates available for small strips of land. Claimants are entitled to compensation at this rate.
12. Land owners on whose land there are trees and boring well make a grievance that they have not been paid compensation on that basis although there were materials before the land Acquisition Collector in that respect. We find from the award of the Land Acquisition Collector that for all trees, the Tehsildar has reported that the market value is Rs. 17,850/-. In absence of better materials, we direct that the claimants would be entitled to compensation of Rs. 17,850/- being distributed according to the existence of the trees in their respective areas. As regards boring well, Irrigation Division has reported the market value to be Rs. 10,220/-. Land Acquisition Officer does not appear to have awarded the same. We direct that in absence of better evidence, land owners in whose land the boring well is situated, are entitled Rs. 10,220/- for boring well.
13. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that they are entitled to solatium compensation under Section 23(1-A) and interest at higher rate including solatium as well as compensation under Section 23(1-A). Awards in challenge in appeals being of the year 1989, claimants are entitled to benefits under the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984.
14. Thus, land owners are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per acre, Rs. 17,850/- for the trees, Rs. 10,220/-for boring well and on the market value they are entitled to solatium at 30 per cent. Added to it, they are entitled to compensation under Section 23(1-A), On the differential amount, they are entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent for first year and 15 per cent for remaining years as provided in Section 34 of the Act.
15. In result appeals of the land owners are allowed in part and appeals by Industrial Development Corporation are dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs of these appeals.
16. Order accordingly.