ON Civil Appeal Nos
543 to 570 of 1974
From the Judgment and Order dated 2211973 of the Kerala High Court in AS Nos 487 488 489 490 491492493495497 498 499 500 501502 503504 505506 507 509 510 511 512 5 13 5 14 5 15 521 and 523 of 1969
GL Sanghi and Ms Lily Thomas for the Appellant
AS Nambiar KR Nambiar and TT Kunhikannan for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K RAMASWAMY J
1
This batch of 28 Appeals are against the common judgment and decrees of the Kerala High Court in AS No 487 of 1969 etc
dated January 22 1973 and leave under article 136 was granted by this Court on March 14 1974
The High Court reversed the awards and decrees of land acquisition Sub Court Ernakulam and confirmed the separate awards of the Collector dated March 29 1962
The notifica tion under section 41 of the Kerala Land Acquisition 1089 for short the Regulation was published on October 31 1961 and the declarations which are the relevant dates for deter mining the market value by operation of Section 221 was published on October 31 1961 and February 22 1962
The land acquired was 19037 acres 368 and 1548 acres for Periyar Valley Irrigation Project and Phyto Chemicals Project both being public purposes
The Collector determined the market value at ReO04 per cent for certain lands and ReO 12 per cent for certain other lands Rs30 per cent to the wet lands as against the claim of Rs40 and 50 per cent and Compensation to the trees as timber value was given
The total Compensation fixed was Rs484 lakhs
Dissatisfied therewith the appellant sought reference under section 18 thereof
They also claimed sepa rate 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  Rs40 50 as claimed in addition to a sum of Rs30 to 38 per cent
It awarded in all Rs2020 lakhs on all counts including severence and injurious ef fects and 15 per cent solatium and also 6 per cent interest on additional compensation from the date of taking posses sion 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 High Court reversed the award of the Civil Court and confirmed that of the Land Acquisition Collector
Mr Sanghi learned Sr counsel for the appellants with his usual vehemence contended that the High Court committed manifest error of law in reversing the awards and decrees of the Civil Court which had the advantage of seeing the de meanor of the witnesses and extensively considered the evi dence in particular the unimpeachable documents exhibit p7 p9 and p 10
The appellant on account of the acquisition had to incur huge expenditure to construct Kayallas Pathways culverts etc
for protection of the rest of the Estate
The amount expended was to prevent injurious effects to the Estate and is to be recompensated
It is further contended that the potential value of the trees have to be taken into account in determining the market value
The appellant also is entitled to compensation for severence due to submersion of the lands when the Periyar Canal passes through the rubber estate of the appellant
Therefore the appellant is entitled to the compensation in full measure with interest on solatium
The High Court was unjustified in reversing the awards and the decrees of the Civil Court
The first question therefore is whether the High Court is justified in reversing the awards and decrees of the Civil Court
Admittedly 19037 and 1548 cents of land is part of the extensive Periyar Estate of 87937 acres stretching over seven miles long on the banks of the Periyar River
It had a road of 14 feet width by name 369 Alwaye Munnar Highway running through middle of the Estate
The lands were acquired for submersion due to Periyar River Valley Irrigation Project and to establish Phyto Chemical Project
Shri Sanghi repeatedly reiterated that in deter mining the market value an element of some guesswork is involved
But in determining the market value the Court has to eschew arbitrary fixation keeping in view the settled principles of law in evaluating market value in compulsory acquisition on the hypothesis of a willing vendor and a willing vendee
Therefore let us glance through the settled principles of law in this regard
In Galapati Raju vs Revenue Divisional Officer popularly known as Vijji s case the judicial committee of the Privy Council held that compensa tion for compulsory acquisition governed by Section 231 of the 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 com pensation under the Act is to ascertain the market value of the land at the date of notification under section 41 of the Act in this case under section 61 of the Regulation and the evaluation may be as pointed out by this Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Adinarayana Setty 1959 Suppl
1 SCR 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 advan tages 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 Rs 1380
This Court calculating the average of six sale transactions fixed the market rate at Rs 11
In Tribeni Devi  Ors
vs Collector of Ranchi  at 2 12 this Court held that for determining compensation payable to the owner of the land the market value is to be determined by reference to the price which may reasonably to obtain from willing purchasers but since it may not be possible to ascertain this with any amount of precision the authority charged with the duty to award compensation is bound to make an estimate judged by an objective standard
While reiterating the three tests laid down in SLA Officer s case it was further emphasised that these methods however do not preclude the Court from taking any other special circumstances into consideration the requirement being always to arrive at as nearly 370 as possible at an estimate of the market value
In arriving at a reasonable correct market value it may be necessary to take even two or all these methods into account inasmuch as the exact evaluation is not always possible as no two lands may be the same either in respect of the situation or the extent or potentiality nor is it possible in all cases to have reliable material from which the valuation can be accurately determined
This Court rejected the sale deeds of the lands situated farther away from the lands acquired and also disallowed 10 per cent additional compensation over market rate fixed
In Dollor Co Madras vs Collector of Madras this Court held that we may even say that the best evidence of the value of the property is the value of the sale in the very property to which the claimants are the party
If the sale is of recent date and all that need normally be proved is that the sale was between a willing purchaser and willing seller that there has not been any appreciable rise or falls since and that nothing has been done on the land during the interval to raise the value
But if the sale was long ago may be the court would examine more recent sales of comparable lands as throwing better light on current land value
This Court further emphasised the fact that because the appellant therein himself pur chased the land which is 10 months prior to the date of notification under section 4 at a price of Rs410 per ground that would be the measure of prevailing market value
The High Court enhanced the market value to Rs 1800 per ground and on appeal was filed by the State
Though the appellant still claimed higher value this Court negatived further enhancement
In Smt
Kaushalya Devi Bogra  Ors
vs The Land Acquisition Officer Aurangabad  Anr  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 vs State of Madhya Pradesh  and Padrna Uppal Etc
vs State of Punjab  Ors
  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
vs State of Bihar  Ors etc
  notification under section 41 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
371 5
In Tahsildar Land Acquisition Visakhapatnam vs P Narasingh Rao and Ors a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court to which one of us K Ramaswamy J was a member while reiterating the princi ples referred to above held that the object of determining the compensation with reference to comparable sales of the land adjacent to the land acquired is to find the fertility quality the probable price of the land under acquisition is  likely to fetch and the actual price paid by the vendee to the vendor under those transactions as a prudent vendee and is not actuated with any other speculative features
It is to ascertain these facts the sale deeds are insisted to be produced
The market value fixed must be reasonable and fair to the owner as well as to avoid undue burden to the exchequer
Therefore the transaction relating to the ac quired land of recent dates or in the neighbour hood lands that possessed of similar potentiality or fertility or other advantageous features are relevant pieces of evidence
When the Courts are called upon to fix the market value of the land in compulsory acquisition
the best evidence of the value of property is the sale of the acquired land to which the claimant himself is a party in its absence the sales of the neighbouring lands
In proof of the sale transaction the relationship of the parties to the transaction the market conditions the terms of the sale and the date of the sale are to be looked into
These features would be estab lished by examining either the vendor or vendee and if they are not available the attesting witnesses who have personal knowledge of the transaction etc
The original sale deed or certified copy thereof should be tendered as evidence
The underlying principles to fix a fair market value with refer ence to comparable sales is to reduce the element of specu lation
In a comparable sales the features are 1 it must be within a reasonable time of the date of the notification 2 it should be a bona fide transaction 3 it should be a sale of the land acquired or land adjacent to the land acquired and 4 it should possess similar advantages
These should be established by adduction of material evidence by examining as stated above the parties to the sale or persons having personal knowledge of the sale transactions
The proof also would focus on the fact whether the transactions are genuine and bona fide transactions
As held by this Court in Collector Raigarh vs Hari Singh Thakur  Anr  that fictitious and unreal transactions of speculative nature brought into existence in quick succes sion should be rejected
In that case it was found by major ity that these sale deeds are brought up sales
In Adminis trator General of West Bengal vs Collector Varanasi  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 372 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
In Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs Special Land Acquisition Officer Poona  Anr  this Court held that the land situated on the frontage have special advantage and the land situated in the interior undeveloped area will not have the value at par since the latter will have lower value than land situated near developed area
Some guesswork is permissible in determining the value and on this basis this Court did not interfere with fixation of market value by the High Court
In Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai vs State of Gujarat  this Court reiterated the ratio in West Bengal Administrator General s case that the persons to prove the fair transaction are either the vendor and the vendee or the person conversant with the sale and they are to be examined
The original sale deed or the certified copy of the sale deed are to be produced
The same is the view in Dr Hari Singh Thakur s case
This was also the view of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Narasingh Rao s case
In Mantaben Manibhai vs Special Land Acquisition Officer Baroda AIR 1990 SC 103 to which one of us LM Sharma J was a member this Court held that when the quality of the lands are different bagayat land and jiryat land
Bagayat land is superior in quality and to what percentage of superiority was not established by the claim ants
This Court held that addition of 25 per cent of the value of the Jiryat land was held to be proper valuation
In Hindustan Oil Co Ltd vs Special Duty Collector Land Acquisition this Court held that cumulative effect of all the facts and circumstances should be taken into consideration in arriving at a reasonable and fair market value
8  In the light of these principles the further con tention that having rejected the documents produced by the State the High Court 373 ought to have relied upon the documents produced by the appellant as comparable sale and would have confirmed the compensation awarded  by the Civil Court does not impress us as well founded
It is well settled law that the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector form an offer and that it is for the claimants to adduce relevant and material evidence to establish that the acquired land are capable of fetching higher market value and the amount offered by the and AcqUisition Collector was inadequate and he proceeded on a wrong premise or principle
In Ezra vs Secretary of State for India ILR it was held that the amount awarded by the Collector forms an offer
It was reiterated by this Court in Raja Harish Chandra vs Dy
Land Acquisition Officer  Khorshed Shapoor Chenai etc
vs Assistant Controller of Estate Duty 15 and Dr GH Grant vs State of Bihar  In Hari Singh s case AP Sen J held and major ity did not disagree at p 191 C to E that In a reference under section 18 of the Act the burden of prov ing 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 compen sation
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 vs Tavaballi at 361 DB and of AP High Court in Narsing Rao s case and TW Higgins claimant vs Secretary of State AIR 19  Naresh Chandra Bose vs State of West Bengal  Ors
AIR 1955 Cal
398 at 399 Smt
Kusumgauri Ramray Munshi  Ors
vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer Ahmedabad at 94 95 and Maharao Shri Madansinhji vs State of Gujarat AIR 1969 Gujarat 270
It is also the duty of the State to adduce evidence in rebuttal
This Court in Chaturbhuj Panda  Ors
vs Collector Raigarh 1969 1 SCR412 at 414 has rightly pointed out that 374 It is true that the witnesses examined on behalf of the appellants have not been effectively cross examined
It is also true that the Collector had not adduced any evidence in rebuttal but that does not mean that the court is bound to accept their evidence
The Judges are not computers
In assessing the value to be attached to oral evidence they are bound to call into aid their experience of life
As Judges of fact it was open to the appellate Judges to test the evidence placed before them on the basis of probabili ties
 In Narasingh Rao s case 1 have dealt with in paragraph 8 thus The object of the inquiry is to bring on record the price fetched or capable of fetching the relative situation of the land acquired and the subject of the sale transac tion their fertility suitability nature of the use to which they are put to
income derive or other special dis tinctive features possessed of by the respective lands either single of some or all relevant to the facts in issue
In this process the courts are not mere umpires but to take intelligent participation and to see whether the counsel on either side are directing towards this goal or the court itself to intervene in this regard Therefore it is the paramount duty of the courts of facts to subject the evi dence to close scrutiny objectively assess the evidence tendered by the parties on proper consideration thereof in correct perspective to arrive at reasonable market value
The attending facts and circumstances in each case would furnish guidance to arrive at the market value of the ac quired lands
The neighbour hood lands possessed of similar potentialities or same advantageous features or any advanta geous special circumstances available in each case also are to be taken into account
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 VR Katarki vs State of Karnataka  Ors
 CA No 439286 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 miscon duct of fixing in his capacity as Civil Judge at Bagalkot higher valuation than was legitimate of the 375 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 question while confirming the dismissal laid the rule thus We would like to make a special mention of the position that even if the assessment of valuation is modified or affirmed in an appeal as a part of the judicial process the conduct of the judicial officer drawable from an overall picture of the matter would yet be available to be looked into
In appropriate cases it may be opened to draw inferences even from judicial acts of the misconduct
The rule of conduct spurned by this Court squarely put the nail on the official act as a refuge to fix arbitrary and unreasonable market value and the person concerned shall not camaflouge the official act to a hidden conduct in the function of fixing arbitrary or unreasonable compensation to the acquired land
Equally it is salutory to note that the claimant has legal and legitimate right to a fair and reasonable compensation to the land he is deprived of by legal process
The claimant has to be recompensated for rehabilitation or to purchase similar lands elsewhere
In some cases for lack of comparable sales it may not be possible to adduce evidence of sale transactions of the neighbouring lands possessed of same or similar quality
So insistence of adduction of precise or scientific evidence would cause disadvantage to the claimants in not getting the reasonable and proper market value prevailing on the date of notification under section 4 1 
Therefore it is the paramount duty of the Land Acquisition Judge authority to keep before him always the even scales to adopt pragmatic approach without indulging in facts of imagination and assess the market value which is reasonably capable to fetch reasonable market value
What is fair and reasonable market value is always a question of fact depending on the nature of the evidence circumstances and probabilities in each case
The guiding star would be the conduct of a hypotheti cal willing vendor would offer the lands and a willing purchaser in normal human conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market condition as on the date of the notification under section 41 but not an anxious buyer dealing at arm s length nor facade of sale or fictitious sales brought about in quick succession of otherwise to inflate the market value
Let us consider the evidence on record from the above perspective and evaluate the circumstances on record
Shri Sanghi repeatedly stressed that an element of guesswork is inescapable and exhibit P 7 8 9  10 furnish the best materi al
Though he relied on exhibit P 1 to P 3 in fairness he did not press for consideration in our view quite 376 rightly as they are very small extents of 2 12 4 and 3 cents respectively
They are situated in residential and commercial areas
So they cannot be relied on
But he strongly relied on exhibit P 7 dated March 9 195 1
The extent is Ac
3 4 cents for Rs 19000
It worked out at Rs5250 per cent
The High Court held that the lands covered by exhibit P 7 are situated by the side of irrigation channel and paddy cultivation was carried on
Under those circumstances the evidence of PW 6 the vendor was not accepted and in our opinion quite rightly and exhibit P 7 was rightly not relied as lands in question are not irrigated lands whereas the lands under exhibit P 7 are paddy lands cultivated by irrigation sources and is situated four miles away from the acquired lands
Similarly exhibit P 9 is dated April 4 1957
The extent is Ac
138 cents for Rs6000
PW 5 is the vendor
It worked out at Rs4350 per cent
It is also four miles away from the acquired lands
It is also not of any assistance to the appellant as this land also is a paddy land irrigated by irrigation sources
It is undoubted that in exhibit P Ii
the judgment of the Sub Court
Ernakulam in Land Acquisition Case No 298 of 1963 etc
relate to the land in the vicinity of Phyto Chemical Project and the Land Acquisition Court awarded C Rs80 per cent for the paddy lands and Rs43 per cent for dry land
The  High Court has pointed out that on the basis of the evidence adduced in that case
namely comparable sales the determination of the market value is correct
It was held that it cannot form the basis for determining the market value of the lands in this case
We have been taken through the entire judgment under exhibit P 10 and after carefully scanning the evidence we are not persuaded to take a different view from that of the High Court
Which has correctly appreciated the evi dence
Accordingly exhibit P 10 also would not form a base to fix the market value
It is undoubtedly true that the High Court did not accept the evidence adduced by the State
It was rejected both by the Civil Court as well as by the High Court
The Sub Judge appears to be too anxious to award whatever is asked for on mechanical appreciation without subjecting the evidence to legal and critical scrutiny and analysis
The appellate Court after rejecting the evidence may have to find whether there are any circumstantial or other material evidence on record to fix reasonable market value
We are relieved to undertake that exercise in view of fair stand taken by the Learned Advocate General
Kerala who appeared in the High Court
It is clear from the judg ment that the Learned Advocate General while arguing the case had stated across the bar
obviously on instructions or in fairness from record that the market value can be fixed at Rs 18 per cent
This is
therefore
a concession made by the Learned Advocate General on behalf of the State
The High Court therefore was not justified in not 377 taking into account this submission of the Advocate General
It is undoubted that the High Court having rejected the evidence of the claimants has to confirm the offer made by the Collector in the award provided if there is no other evidence on record
But in view of the concession made by the Learned Advocate General we are of the definite view that the claimants are entitled to the market value Rs 18 per cent to the lands other than those to which the Collec tor awarded  Rs30 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 exhibit P 9 would form the basis for determination of the market value which worked out  Rs4350 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 responsi bility
In those circumstances we have no hesitation to accept the statement of Learned Advocate General and hold that the market value of the lands would be fixed at Rs 18 per cent
From the very nature of compulsory acquisition 15 per cent solatium as additional compensation was statutorily fixed
Therefore determination of additional market value is unwarranted
It is next contended that the claimants are entitled to the severence charges and injurious effects on the re maining lands of the claimant
From the evidence it is clear that the Commissioner who collected the evidence in this regard has admitted in the crossexamination that the appel lant did not expend any money in erecting boundary walls bridges projects etc
It is an admitted fact that though from the date of the acquisition till date of evidence more than six years have passed by the appellant has not pro duced any material or account books of the Estate to estab lish that they have expended any money in this regard
It is also admitted by both the engineers examined on behalf of the State and also appellant s witnesses that the road passing through the lands is being used by the appellant to carry his goods ie his forest produce etc
Though during rainy season that too for a short period at some places the water get stagnated on the 378 roads at lower levels but that stand no impediment for the carriage of the goods as admitted by the witnesses
This phenomena was prevalent even before acquisition
In these circumstances we entirely agree with the High Court in its finding that the appellant has not established that they have expended any money for erection of retaining walls
culverts
bridges etc
There is no damage
due to acquisi tion of the land of the appellant and
therefore
the award of severence charges is unwarranted
Both the counsel have taken us through the material evidence of PW 7 8  9
CPW 1 and CPW 2 examined on behalf of the State
We have once again carefully scanned the evidence and we are satisfied that the High Court has thoroughly considered the evidence of all the witnesses and reports of the Commission ers
The High Court is well justified in arriving at the finding that the appellant has not expended any money for either constructing any boundary walls
culverts
bridges or roads etc
The value of the land of the appellant has not been injuriously effected due to acquisition
No damage due to severence was caused
Under 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
The only question then remains is whether the appel lant is entitled to payment of interest on solatium
The High Court relied on Union of India vs Shri Ram Mehar  Anr  and rejected the claim for interest
Section 253 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  Rs6 per centum per annum from the date on which the Division Peish kar 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
then the court may direct that the government shall pay interest  6 per centum per annum on the excess amount so found as compensation
The payment should be from the date the land was taken possession by the Division Peishkar till the date of the payment of the excess amount into court
379 The question therefore is whether interest is an inte gral part of the word compensation under sub section 3 of Section 25 of the Regulation
In Shri Ram Mehar s case the question came up for consideration was whether the words interest on market value in Section 43 of the Land Acquisition Amendment and Validation Act 1967 would include payment of interest on solatium
Additional 15 per cent solatium undersection 2 of Section 23 certainly forms part of compensation as under section 23 the market value of the land would include solatium
But market value and compensation are distinct expressions and have been used as such in the Land Acquisi tion Act
The key to the meaning of the word compensation is to be found in Section 231 which consists of market value and solatium on the market value which is stated to be compensation
Therefore this Court held that the term market value has acquired a definite connotation in judicial decision
If the word market value and compensation were intended by the legislature to have the same meaning it is difficult to comprehend why the word compensation in sections 28a and 34 and nor market value was used
So market value cannot be equated to compensation
The market value is therefore only one of the components in the determination of the amount of compensation if the legislature has used the word market value in Section 43 of the Amending Act it must be held that it was done deliberately and what was intended was that interest should be payable on the market value of the land and not on the amount of compensation
Otherwise there is no reason why the Parliament should not have employed the word compensation in the aforesaid provi sion of the amended Act
Webster Comparative Dictionary at p 267 the word compensation defined I the act of compen sating or 2 that which compensates payment
In Stroud s Judicial Dictionary Fourth Edition Volume I at p 523 compensation defined Defence Act 1842 c 94 section 19 includes not only the value of the land taken but also damage for severence or 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 253 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 appel 380 lant is entitled to interest on solatium
We allow the appeals to the extent indicated above
The market value is fixed at Rs 18 per cent and confirm the market value at Rs30 per cent for wet lands awarded by the Collector
Solatium at Rs 15 per cent and interest at 6 per cent on the excess market value determined under the judg ment 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
PSS Appeals allowed


Summary:
The appellant was accused of burning his sister in law to death
Accordingly he was prosecuted for the offence of murder
The Trial Judge acquitted him by holding i that there was no motive for him to cause the murder ii that there were vital contradictions between the statement of the doctors who examined the deceased and that the conviction could not be based on the testimony of doctor before whom the dying declaration was made by the deceased and iii that the investigation was defective because a no one from the locality was produced b the nurse and the compounder who took down the injury report on the dictation of the doctor was not examined and c no incriminating material was found at the site
The State preferred an appeal before the High Court against the acquittal order which allowed the appeal set aside the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court and convicted the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment
Hence this appeal by the accused
Dismissing the appeal this Court HELD 1
While caution is the watchword in appeal against 402 acquittal as the Trial Judge has occasion to watch the demeanour of witnesses and interference should not be made merely because a different conclusion could have been ar rived the provisions contained in Sections 378 and 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 do not Inhibit any restriction or limitation
Prudence demands restraint on mere probability or possibility but in perversity or mis reading interference is imperative otherwise existence of power shall be rendered meaningless
213H 214A 2
In the instant case the approach of the Trial Judge apart from being faulty was contrary to the rule and appre ciation of evidence
Appreciation apart the order of the Trial Judge is vitiated as apart from deciding the case on irrelevant considerations criticising the doctors without any basis drawing an inference against the doctor only because she was a lady the most serious error of which he was guilty and which rendered the order infirm which was rightly set aside by the High Court was that he mis read the evidence and indulged in conjectural inference and surmises
Therefore the High Court did not exceed its powers in setting aside the order of acquittal
It did not commit any error in allowing the appeal and recording the conviction under Section 378 read with Section 386a of the Code of Criminal Procedure
216F 217E 220A 3
Motive for a murder may or may not be
But in dowry deaths it is inherent
In dowry deaths what is required of courts to examine is as to who translated it into action as motive for it is not individual but of family
214H 215A 4
Argument as a matter of law that defective investiga tion should go to discredit prosecution cannot be disputed but on facts of the instant case it is not available
The High Court was right in not discarding the prosecution evidence due to remissness of investigating officers
The finding of the High Court that the investigating officer due to remissness failed to preserve the site is correct but it does not in any manner weaken the prosecution case
Nor any adverse inference could be drawn due to non production of nurse or compounder when the investigating report was writ ten on dictation of the doctor
218F H Chander Kant vs State of Maharashtra AIR 1974 SC 220 referred to
Bride burning is a shame of our society
Poor never resort to it Rich do not need it
Obviously because it is basically an economic problem of a class which suffers both from ego and complex
Unfortu 403 nately the high price rise and ever increasing cost of living coupled with enormous growth of consumer goods effac ing difference between luxury and essential goods appear to be luring even the new generation of youth of the best service to be as much part of the dowry menace as their parents and the resultant evils flowing out of it
How to curb and control this evil Dowry killing is a crime of its own kind where elimination of daughter in law becomes imme diate necessity if she or her parents are no more able to satiate the greed and avarice of her husband and their family members to make the boy available once again in the marriage market
Eliminate it and much may stand resolved automatically
Social reformist and legal jurists may evolve a machinery for debarring such a boy from remarriage irre spective of the member of family who committed the crime and in violation penalise the whole family including those who participate in it
That is social ostracisation is needed to curtail increasing malady of bride burning
214E G