1 HIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH AT INDORE (Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice P.K. Jaiswal) First Appeal No.16/1998 State of M.P. Through Collector & Land Acquisition Officer, Dewas v/s Salagram S/o Koda & others ***** Shri S.D. Bohra, Government Advocate for the appellant. Shri T.N. Singh, Senior Advocate with Miss Hemlata Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. JUDGMENT ( 24.11.2011) Per P.K. Jaiswal, J. This appeal arises out of Award dated 29.8.1997, passed by First Additional District Judge, Dewas in Reference Case No.10/91, whereby the reference Court partly allowed the application of the respondents and awarded compensation to them @ Rs.92,000/- per hectare with solitium and interest as per paragraph 13 of the Award. 2. An area of 6.070 hectares land of Survey No.2, situated in village Rajoda, tehsil & district Dewas, belonging to the respondents-first party, was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer/Collector, Dewas at the instance of Inspector General of Prison, M.P., Bhopal for the purpose of construction of new jail thereon. The land is unirrigated. The acquisition proceedings were taken up as per the provisions of Land Acquisition Ac, 1894 (herein after referred to as 'the Act'). Requisite notification as per Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the official gazette on 13.12.85. The possession of the land was taken by the Land Acquisition Officer on 19.3.86. The claim of the first party-respondents was adjudicated upon by the Land Acquisition Officer, who for the purpose of awarding compensation assessed the value of the land so acquired @ Rs.13,000/- per hectare. Accordingly, the payment of compensation @ Rs.13,000/- per hectare was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, Dewas. At the instance of the respondents 2 reference was made. The reference was registered at No.10/97 in the Court of First Additional District Judge, Dewas proceeded to adjudicate upon the reference. The reference Court after framing the issues, evidence of the parties were recorded and vide Award dated 29.8.97 the reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation from Rs.13,000/- per hectare to Rs.92,000/- per hectare and enhanced the amount of compensation from Rs.1,08,513/- to Rs.5,58,440/-. The reference Court also awarded interest @ 12% per annum from the date of taking possession of the land i.e., 19.3.86 and publication of the notification dated 13.12.85 solitium @ 30% was also awarded. Thus, the total Rs.6,38,741/- was awarded by the reference Court. 3. This appeal has been filed by the State on the ground that the land in question is beyond the Municipal limits. It is also submitted that the reference Court erred in assessing the compensation on the basis of land acquired by the M.P.E.B. He further submitted that the land acquired by the M.P.E.B. was within the Municipal limits and also that the land so acquired for M.P.E.B. was commercial purpose, whereas the land in question is beyond the Municipal limits and, thus the land acquired earlier for M.P.E.B. could not be a consideration for assessing the value of the land in question. 4. It is further submitted that the reference Court has also committed an error in not giving due importance to the statements of the Sub-Registrar Dashrath Vyas (NAW1), who has been examined on behalf of the appellant before the reference Court. He lastly submitted that the statement of Sub-Registrar (NAW1) is most authentic to ascertain the value of the land. It is also submitted that the land acquired for the M.P.E.B. is on Bhopal road and just near the State Highway, while the land acquired for the Department of Prison is about 1½ Kms away from the land acquired for the M.P.E.B. and is in village Rajoda. 5. During the course of arguments learned Government Advocate has submitted that the M.P.E.B. is an autonomous Body and the cost of land was determined with mutual consent between 3 the M.P.E.B. and the farmers, while the land in question acquired by the Government for erection of jail building is not at all involved in any of the commercial activity. In support of the said contention he drew my attention to the statements of Saligram (AW2) and Dashrath Vyas (NAW1) and submitted that as per statement of Sub- Registrar an area of 0.105 hectares of Survey No.238 of village Rajoda was purchased on 8.4.84 in Rs.1,500/- vide Ex.D/1. The reference Court committed an error in overlooking the evidence of this witness. He also drew my attention to cross examination of AW2 Salagram and submitted that the land in question is behind Bhopal road, whereas the land purchased by the M.P.E.B. vide Ex.P/6 on 4.2.85 is towards Bhopal road and there is no comparison between the land in question and land which was purchased by the M.P.E.B. vide Ex. P/6. 6. On the other side, Shri T.N. Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the landowners, submitted that notification under Section 4 was issued on 13.12.85, whereas the M.P.E.B. by a registered sale deed dated 4.2.85 (Ex.P/6) purchased an area of 3.237 hectares for a consideration of Rs.2.54 lacs. He further submitted that as per statements of the witnesses of the parties it is not in dispute that land in question is just adjoining to the land purchased by the M.P.E.B. on 4.2.85 and, therefore, the reference Court rightly awarded compensation on the basis of sale deed executed by the M.P.E.B. on 4.2.85 and the learned reference Court has not committed any legal error in enhancing compensation for the land acquired and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 8. In assessing value for the purpose of compensation, the essential enquiry must be what is the property worth in the market, viewed not merely with reference to the uses to which it is at the time of application, but also with reference to the uses it may be developed in future. In the case of Administrator General of West 4 Bengal v/s Collector Varanasi , AIR 1988 (2) SC 943 it has been held that even sale deeds subsequent to preliminary notification can be relied on if the prices be found to be stable during the period. 9. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Jawajee Nagnatham v/s Revenue Divisional Officer (1994) 4 SCC 595 that market value under Section 23 of the Act cannot be fixed on the basis of a basic valuation register maintained by the registering authority for collection of stamp duty. 10. It is settled law that one of the methods on which market value can be ascertained, is on the basis of comparable sale- deeds. For the purposes of the Land Acquisition Act the market value must be determined on the basis of sale-deeds of comparable lands. In the case in hand the reference Court had taken note of Ex.P/6, sale deed dated 4.2.85, by which M.P.E.B. had purchased an area of 3.237 hectares of land of village Rajoda and this land is adjoining to the land in question. As per sale deed (Ex. P/6) filed by the landowners the market value of the land on 4.2.85 was Rs.92,000/- per hectare. 11. It is a matter of common experience that the price of the land is soaring high due to development of the country and also due to exploitation of the population. In the case in hand the respondents in order to prove the market value of the acquired land, filed six sale deeds of land situated in village Rajoda. Out of these sale deeds Ex. P/6 is of 4.2.85 i.e., prior to the date of Section 4 notification dated 13.2.85 and, hence, in my opinion the most material sale deed is Ex.P/6. By this sale deed the unirrigated land ad-measuring 3.237 hectares was sold for Rs.2.54 lacs i.e., Rs.92,000/- per hectare. This clearly works out the rate of land situated at village Rajoda to be Rs.92,000/- per hectare. It is being the settled principle of law relating to land acquisition cases that the claimants are entitled to claim the best price available amongst several sale-deeds provided all of the same nature. In the case in hand the land of sale deed of Ex.P/6 is just adjoining to the land in 5 question and this fact has been duly proved by Saligram (AW2) in his cross examination. It is for this reason that in my opinion the value of the land can be safely determined on the basis of the sale deed dated 4.2.85 (Ex.P/6). 12. I do not agree with the submission of the learned Government Advocate for the State when he urged that the sale- deed relied on by the reference Court in relation to the land of village Rajoda cannot be made basis for determining the rate of land. In my opinion the submission has no force. In view of the admissions made by the respondents witnesses and the witnesses of the State the enhancement, which has been made by the reference Court @ Rs.92,000/- per hectare for the land in question is reasonable and it exhibit proper market value of the land at the time of its acquisition. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the view that the reference Court has not committed any legal error in awarding compensation @ Rs.92,000/- per hectare. The amount of compensation awarded by the reference Court is most reasonable amount. The interest and solitium is also awarded as per the principles laid down in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 14. In view of above, no case for setting aside the impugned award passed by the reference Court is made out. Accordingly, F.A. No.16/98 has no merit and is accordingly dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs.5,000/-, if certified. (P.K. Jaiswal) JUDGE rcs*