TMI Blog1990 (9) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or Periyar Valley Irrigation Project and Phyto Chemicals Project both being public purposes. The Collector determined the market value at Re.O.04 per cent for certain lands and Re.O. 12 per cent for certain other lands, ₹ 30 per cent to the wet lands as against the claim of ₹ 40 and 50 per cent and Compensation to the trees as timber value was given. The total Compensation fixed was ₹ 4.84 lakhs. Dissatisfied therewith the appellant sought reference under section 18 thereof. They also claimed separate value as fruit bearing trees on potential value. They also claimed charges for severence and injurious effects on the remaining land. The Civil Court after adduction of evidence and on consideration thereof enhanced the market value to the lands @ ₹ 40-50 as claimed in addition to a sum of ₹ 30 to 38 per cent. It awarded in all ₹ 20.20 lakhs on all counts including severence and injurious effects and 15 per cent solatium and also 6 per cent interest on additional compensation from the date of taking possession till date of payment vide page 3 of short notes of the appellant. On appeals by the State, by common judgment dated January 22, 1973, the Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under sub-sec. (1) of the Section 4 of the Act what a willing vendor might reasonably except to obtain from will- ing purchaser . The function of the Court in awarding compensation under the Act is to ascertain the market value of the land at the date of notification under section 4(1) of the Act (in this case under section 6(1) of the Regulation) and the evaluation may be as pointed out by this Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Adinarayana Setty, [1959] Suppl. 1 S.C.R. 404 at 412 (1) Opinion of experts; (2) The price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of the land acquired or the land adjacent to the acquired land and possessing similar advantages; (3) Number of years of purchase of the actual or immediately perspective profits of the land acquired. In that case while adopting the second method the High Court arrived at average price of four transactions excluding two sales and separate average was arrived fixed the market value of ₹ 13.80. This Court calculating the average of six sale transactions fixed the market rate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the State. Though the appellant still claimed higher value, this Court negatived further enhancement. 4. In Smt. Kaushalya Devi Bogra Ors. etc. v. The Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad Anr., [1984] 2 SCR. 900 the transaction in respect of small properties do not offer proper guidelines and, therefore, the price fetched therein cannot be taken as real basis for determining compensation for large tracts of property. This was also the view in Pridviraj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1977] 2 SCR 633 and Padrna Uppal Etc. v. State of Punjab Ors., [1977] 1 SCR 329. If they are relied upon reasonable reduction should be given. Accordingly, this Court has fixed the market value in the light of the development of the land in the neighbour- hood of the township etc. In Chandra Bansi singh Ors. etc. v. State of Bihar Ors. etc., [1985] 1 SCR 579 notification under section 4(1) was issued for acquiring 1034 acres of land for housing construction by the Housing Board. This Court held that compensation should be paid as per the value of the land prevailing as on the date of the notification but not on the date of taking over possession. 5. In Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Visakha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide transactions. As held by this Court in Collector, Raigarh v. Hari Singh Thakur Anr., [1979] 2 SCR 183 that fictitious and unreal transactions of speculative nature brought into existence in quick succession should be rejected. In that case it was found by majority that these sale deeds are brought up sales. In Administrator General of West-Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi, [1988] 2 SCR 1025 that the price at which the property fetches would be by a willing seller to a willing purchaser but not too anxious a buyer, dealing at aim's length. The prices fetched for similar lands with similar advantages and potentialities and the bona fide transactions of the sale at time of preliminary notification are the usual, and indeed the best, evidence of the market value. Other methods of valuation are resorted to if the evidence of sale of similar land is not available. The prices fetched for smaller plots cannot form basis for valuation of large tracts of land as the two are not comparable properties. Smaller plots always would have special features like the urgent need of the buyer, the advantageous situation, the like of the buyer etc. 6. In Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Secretary of State for India, I.L.R. 32 Cal. 605 (P.C.) it was held that the amount awarded by the Collector forms an offer. It was reiterated by this Court in Raja Harish Chandra v. Dy. Land Acquisition Officer, [1962] 2 SCR 676; Khorshed Shapoor Chenai, etc. v. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, [1980] 2 SCR 3 15 and Dr. G.H. Grant v. State of Bihar, [1965] 3 SCR 576. In Hari Singh's case, A.P. Sen, J. held (and major- ity did not disagree) at p. 191 C to E that: In a reference under s. 18 of the Act, the burden of proving that the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector is in-adequate lies upon the claimant, and he must show affirmatively that the Collector had proceeded upon a wrong basis. The nature and the burden of establishing that he was wrong, depend on the nature of the enquiry held by him ...... It is equally well-settled that where the claimant leads no evidence to show that the conclusions reached in the award were inadequate, or, that it offered unsatisfactory compensation. the award has to be confirmed. In that ease it was held that the evidence produced was untrustworthy. Same is the view of Bombay High Court in Asstt. Development Officer v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... count. Thus, the object of the assessment of the evidence is to arrive at a fair and reasonable market value of the lands and in that process sometimes trench on the border of the guesswork but mechanical assessment has to be eschewed. The Judges are to draw from their experience and the normal human conduct of parties in bonafide and genuine sale transactions is the guiding star in evaluating evidence. Misplaced sympathies or undue emphasises solely on the claimants' right to compensation would place heavy burden on the public exchequer to which everyone contributes by direct or indirect taxes. In V.R. Katarki v. State of Karnataka Ors., C.A. No. 4392/86 dated March 22, 1990 decided by Bench of this Court to which one of us (K. Ramaswamy, J.) is a member, the appellant apart from other charges, was imputed with misconduct of fixing, in his capacity as Civil Judge at Bagalkot, higher valuation than was legitimate of the lands. After conducting enquiry he was dismissed from service and when he challenged it, the High Court upheld it on the judicial side. On further appeal, since the appeals against higher valuation were pending in the High Court, without going into that q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Sanghi repeatedly stressed that an element of guesswork is inescapable and Ex. P. 7, 8, 9 10 furnish the best material. Though he relied on Ex. P. 1 to P. 3, in fairness, he did not press for consideration in our view quite rightly as they are very small extents of 2-1/2; 4 and 3 cents respectively. They are situated in residential and commercial areas. So they cannot be relied on. But he strongly relied on Ex. P. 7 dated March 9, 195 1. The extent is Ac. 3-4 cents for ₹ 19,000. It worked out at ₹ 52.50 per cent. The High Court held that the lands covered by Ex. P. 7 are situated by the side of irrigation channel and paddy cultivation was carried on. Under those circumstances, the evidence of P.W. 6, the vendor was not accepted and in our opinion quite rightly and Ex. P. 7 was rightly not relied as lands in question are not irrigated lands whereas the lands under Ex. P. 7 are paddy lands cultivated by irrigation sources and is situated four miles away from the acquired lands. Similarly Ex. P. 9 is dated April 4. 1957. The extent is Ac. 1.38 cents for ₹ 6,000. PW. 5 is the vendor. It worked out at ₹ 43.50 per cent. It is also four miles away from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mants are entitled to the market value ₹ 18 per cent to the lands other than those to which the Collector awarded @ ₹ 30 per cent as the reference court shall not reduce the market value to less than awarded by the Collector as enjoined under the statute. As a limb of the argument Shri Sanghi has placed reliance on the concession made by the government pleader in the Trial Court that Ex. P. 9 would form the basis for determination of the market value which worked out @ ₹ 43.50 per cent. We are unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel. Any concession made by the government pleader in the Trial Court cannot bind the Government as it is obviously, always, unsafe to rely on the wrong or erroneous or wanton concession made by the counsel appearing for the State unless it is in writing on instructions from the responsible officer. Otherwise it would place tindue and needless heavy burden on the public exchequer. But the same yardstick cannot be applied when the Advocate General has made a statement across the bar since the Advocate General makes the statement with all responsibility. In those circumstances we have no hesitation to accept the statement of L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r these circumstances the appellant is not entitled to compensation in this regard. When we have pointed out that the appellant is not entitled separately to the value of the land and the trees as poten- tial value as fruit bearing one. The counsel agreed. on instructions, that they would confine to fix market value of the lands. 11. The only question then remains is whether the appellant is entitled to payment of interest on solatium. The High Court relied on Union of India v. Shri Ram Mehar Anr., [1973] 2 SCR 720 and rejected the claim for interest. Section 25(3) of the Regulation reads thus: If the sum in the opinion of the court, the Division Peishkar ought to have awarded as compensation is in excess of the sum which the Division Peishkar did not award as compensation, the award of the court may direct that the government shall pay interest on such excess @ ₹ 6 per centum per annum from the date on which the Division Peishkar took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess in Court A reading thereof does postulate that in the opinion of the Court the Land Acquisition Officer ought to have awarded compensation in excess as found by the court. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... injuriously effecting other lands belonging to the owner of the land taken, al- though the Act contained no such clause as Land Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845. The word compensation is used to recompensate or reparation to the loss caused to the owner of the land. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that Section 25(3) contemplates payment of interests on solatium to recompensate the owner of the land for loss of user of the land from the date of taking possession till date of payment into court. The word compensation has been advisedly used by the legislature. Accordingly we hold that the appellant is entitled to interest on solatium. 13. We allow the appeals to the extent indicated above. The market value is fixed at ₹ 18 per cent and confirm the market value at ₹ 30 per cent for wet lands awarded by the Collector. Solatium at ₹ 15 per cent and interest at 6 per cent on the excess market value determined under the judgment including solatium from the date of taking possession till the date of payment. In other respects the judgment of the High Court is confirmed and in the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs throughout. App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
