9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 648X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th most of these appeals. 2. In respect of village Mukkarrabpur, the Notifications were dated 18.9.1982, 18.7.1984 and 16.8.1991. Under Awards, Rs.17.05, Rs.117/-, Rs.170/- and Rs.92.59 per square meter were awarded, which were enhanced to Rs.192/-, Rs.350/- and Rs. 350 per square meter by the Reference Court. The High Court set aside the awards of the Reference Court and restored the awards of the Collector. Hence, the appeals relating to the acquisition of land in village Mukkarrabpur by some of the land owners. 3. In respect of village Sonakpur, the Notifications were dated 4.5.1982 and 13.3.1990. In the Award, lands valued at Rs.11.59 and Rs.22 per square meter were respectively awarded. These were enhanced to Rs.290 and to between Rs.350 to Rs.390 per square meter by the Reference Court. On appeal, the decision of the Reference Court was set aside and the awards of the Collector were restored. Hence, those appeals by land owners relating to the lands in village Sonakpur. 4. We shall first deal with the appeals relating to acquisitions of lands in village Harthala. In respect of these lands, as noticed, the award was at the rate of Rs.80 per square meter and the same was enh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the sale was in respect of a piece of land which was near the lands acquired. He did not otherwise undertake a comparison of the lands. He thus based his award on this sale deed and adopted the rate therein even without making any deduction in view of the fact that the sale related only to a small extent of 100 square meters of land. 5. It appears that the acquisition was by invocation of the urgency clause under Section 17(1) of the Act and possession was taken. There was some delay in distributing the compensation. Some of the land owners whose lands had been acquired had agreed to receive Rs. 100 per square meter as compensation for their lands acquired under these notifications. The Awarding Officer took note of that fact also while making the award. He thus awarded for lands in class-I category, compensation at Rs. 80 per square meter and for class-III category at the rate of Rs.8 per square meter. 6. Before the Reference Court, certain sale deeds were produced at the instance of the claimants and one witness P.W. 1 was examined. On behalf of the State, D.W. 1 was examined and a group sketch was produced. From the evidence of P.W. 1, it became clear that the lands acquired ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was held that the argument of learned counsel on behalf of the State in that behalf could not be accepted. It was thus that the High Court set aside the decision of the Reference Court and restored the award made by the Awarding Officer. The question is whether this decision of the High Court calls for any interference. 8. Learned Senior Counsel and other learned counsel appearing in the appeals relating to the lands in Harthala argued that the High Court has misdirected itself into thinking that sale instances of small plots had no evidentiary value or are not relevant in determining the compensation due for larger extents of lands. It was also pointed out that though the extent as a whole may be large, the ownership was several and that fact also could not be forgotten especially when the test is to see what a willing buyer was willing to give and willing purchaser was willing to receive. Various decisions were brought to our notice and particular emphasis was placed on the decision in Ravinder Narain & Anr. Vs. Union of India [(2003) 4 S.C.C. 481], wherein it was held that there was no absolute prohibition in taking note of the rates fixed for sale of smaller plots and maki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls available, even the amount awarded by the Awarding Officer was on the high side since he adopted the sale instance of a small extent of land and applied it to the larger extents that had been acquired under these notifications even without any deduction. 10. The sale instances referred to by the Reference Court are all instances of sale of developed lands and the further discussion is about the use to which the authority intended to put the land that was being acquired, which obviously was an element which had to be discarded while determining the compensation for the lands acquired. It is therefore clear on the facts of this case that the Reference Court was not justified in granting the enhancement of land value to the claimants. 11. Then the question is whether we should still interfere with the decision of the High Court holding that the amount awarded by the Awarding Officer itself is more than adequate compensation. Though not conclusive, the fact remains that some of the similarly situated land owners were content to receive Rs. 100 per square meter towards compensation by filing affidavits in that behalf before the concerned authority. Considerable time was spent by le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts discussed by the High Court. On such appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case as a whole, we are of the view that the sum of Rs. 80 per square meter awarded as compensation in these cases is just compensation paid to the land owners. Once we have thus found the compensation to be just, there arises no occasion for this Court to interfere with the decision of the High Court restoring the award of the Land Acquisition Officer. 13. In view of our conclusion as above, all the appeals relating to Harthala have only to be dismissed. 14. In respect of the lands at Mukkarrabpur, the claim for enhancement was allowed by the Reference Court in spite of the finding that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 adduced on behalf of the claimants was unreliable. It also found that the two sale deeds relied on by the claimant in support of the claim for enhancement were also not comparable or reliable in the light of the evidence of the claimant himself and that it has not been shown that the lands involved therein were comparable to the lands acquired. In spite of it, the Reference Court granted an enhancement only based on its award in L.A.R. No. 134 of 1988 and on that basis the awar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the light of the arguments raised that it cannot be said that the High Court has either made an erroneous approach to the claim for enhancement of compensation or that it has so erred as to warrant our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Normally, in an appeal against the award of compensation by the High Court, this Court interferes only if there has been a misapplication of any principle of assessing compensation. In the case before us regarding the lands in Sonakpur, we are not satisfied that any error in principle has been committed by the High Court justifying our interference.
17. After all, assessment of compensation for lands acquired involves an amount of guess work, no doubt, based on the evidence available regarding comparable sale of lands in the locality and so on. Viewed from that angle, we are in agreement with the finding that the Awarding Officer has been generous in his award of compensation in all these cases.
18. In the light of our above conclusion, no interference is called for with the decisions of the High Court in these cases. We confirm the decisions of the High Court and dismiss these appeals. We make no order as to costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
