FIRST APPEAL No.351 OF 1994 MAHARANI DURGESHWARI SAHI------------------------------------(Appellant) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------------------------------- ------(Respondents) With FIRST APPEAL No.358 oF 1994 THE STATE OF BIHAR-------------------------------------------(Appellant) Versus MAHARANI DURGESHWARI SAHI----------------------------------(Respondents) Against the judgment and award dated 25th January 1994 (Award singed on 9.2.1994) passed by Land Acquisition Judge, Gopalganj in Land Acquisition Case No. 52 of 1981 --------- For the appellant (In F.A.No.358/94) : Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, Adv, AAG XIV : Mr. Ritesh Kumar No. 1, Adv. For the respondent (In F. A. No.358/94) : Mr. Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha, Adv. : Mr. Rajendra Prasad,Adv. For the appellant (In F.A.No.351/94) : Mr. Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha, Adv. : Mr. Rajendra Prasad,Adv. For the respondent (In F. A. No.351/94) : : Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, Adv, AAG XIV : Mr. Ritesh Kumar No. 1, Adv. Dated- 9th March 2011 ----------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA Mihir Kumar Jha, J. Both these appeals arise out of the same judgment and 2 award in Land Acquisition Case No. 52 of 1981 and have been accordingly heard together for its being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. At the outset, it has to be noted that while First Appeal No. 351 of 1994 has been filed by the landlady seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the court below, First Appeal No. 358 of 1994 has been filed by the State of Bihar assailing the amount of compensation awarded under the impugned judgment and award. 3. The facts giving to both the appeals lie in a narrow compass. The State of Bihar, for setting up its establishment of an office of Anchal-cum- Block Development Headquarter at Bhore, on a requisition made by the Executive Engineer, PWD on 23.1.1956 had initiated a land acquisition proceeding by publishing a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) on 14.3.1956. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 26.2.1958 and after an order approving the acquisition by the State Government was issued under Section 7 of the Act, the notices were issued under Section 9 of the Act on 12.5.1960 before the possession of the land was taken on 17.5.1960. These facts are admitted and in fact also 3 borne out from the Rate Report which is Ext. A. produced by the State which however goes to show that the Rate Report prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer was approved by the Collector of District on 19.6.1960 which would mean that the award was made somehow in the month of June 1960. The total area of land acquired for such establishment of Block-cum-Anchal Office was 12.15 acres out of which the classification as per valuation report was shown to be 9.20 acres of land to be Bhit and Sahan, 2.22 acres of land being parti, 0.49 acres of land being Rasta and Nala as a part of non-agricultural land and 0.24 acres as orchard. On the basis of the rate for the aforesaid different types of land, Rs.1127 per acre for Bhit and Saham land, Rs.376 per acre for parati land and Rs.282 per acre for non-agricultural land, the total amount awarded after also taking into account the compensation for the house was quantified at Rs.10376.12 paise whereas the compensation for Orchard was assessed at Rs.740 and separate compensation for one well of Rs.400 and valuation of trees of Rs.3976.50 was fixed and thus the total compensation amount of of Rs.37487.14 paise was reached by also taking into account the statutory additional compensation solatium and interest for the period of six months. 4. It appears that amount of award as offered by the 4 Collector was also accepted by the landholders including the appellant herein whose interest is confined to 5.57 acres out of total 12.15 acres and thereafter she is said to have sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act claiming the amount of compensation to be absolutely low. Though there is no explanation as to the delay in initiation of the Reference Case under Section 18 of the Act but then fact remains that the land acquisition reference case was initiated only in the year 1981 giving rise to the L. A. Case No. 52 of 1981. In course of the said proceeding the appellant land lady had basically come out with a case of valuation of land @ Rs.3000/- per katha and had further demanded compensation for the house, and orchard at Rs.75000/-, Rs.10,000/- respectively apart from Rs.150/- for each tree. In the reference case oral and documentary evidence were led on behalf of land lady wherein three witnesses were examined and three documents were also exhibited. Ex. 1 in fact happens to be the objection as with regard to raising such a claim by the landlady before the Land Acquisition Officer, Chapara way back on 8.4.1961, Ext. 2 is a copy of registered sale deed dated 1.9.1956 for 1 khata and 3 dhur purchased at the consideration of Rs.800/- whereas Ext.3 is a copy of Registered sale deed dated 5 8.2.1957 for an area of 6 dhurs showing its purchased price to be Rs.265. The State of Bihar through Collector had contested the claim of the landlady in the said proceeding and had adduced oral evidence of one witness and had also exhibited as many as 7 documents in which Ext. A is a rate report, Ext. B is a sale statement, Ext. C is an estimate, Ext. D is a copy of valuation of Khatiyan, Ext. E is schedule of well, Ext. E/1 is the main schedule and Ext. E/2 is tree schedule. 5. The Court below upon appreciation of the evidence led by the parties as also hearing them had in fact partly allowed the claim of the appellant-landlady by revising the amount of compensation for the land to Rs.2000/- per acre. It had, however, confirmed all other amount of compensation fixed in respect of orchard or well or trees or the building. 6. Mr. Kaushalendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant- landlady has basically urged that the valuation of land of Rs.2000/- per acre is much less and should have been on the parameter of Exhibit 2 and 3, the two sale deeds produced by the appellant-landlady. He has further canvassed that if the price of Ext. 2 and 3 are taken into account the market valuation of land would be in the vicinity of Rs.21227/- per acre 6 and therefore the award of Rs.2000/- per acre is a mere pittance. 7. In the opinion of this court, such claim of the appellant-landlady has to be only noted for its being rejected inasmuch as; the copy of the sale deeds dated 1.9.1956 and 8.2.1957 Ext. 2 and 3 respectively are definitely of the date after notification under section 4 of the Act in question was issued. As noted above, the notification under Section 4 of the Act of the present case was issued on 14.3.1956 and that too for more than 12 acres of land and market price of such land could be only compared if there was already a sale effected prior to such Section 4 notification inasmuch as under section 23 of the Act there is a clear mandate of law the cut off date for fixing the market value of acquired land would be date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Thus, there would be little relevance of two sale deeds inasmuch as they had been executed much after section 4 notification. Thus this may by itself be good enough to reject them and in fact the court below also had not rightly paid any heed to them. In fact, the appellant landlady also has not found them to be of much assistance inasmuch as if the valuation of Ext. 2 for one khata and three dhurs on a consideration amount of Rs.800/- is taken into account the same would lead to a valuation of Rs.21760/- 7 per acre whereas Ext. 3 being a sale deed dated 8.2.1957 for 6 dhurs of land for a purchase amount of Rs.265 which would lead to market price of Rs.27160/- per acre whereas the appellant land lady herself had claimed Rs.3000/- per acre in the claim statement filed before the Court below. Thus it is clear that the two documents Ext. 2 and 3 could hardly be of any assistance for the Court below or for this Court in arriving the market price of land with reference to notification under Section 4 of the Act. The Court below in fact has adopted a safer approach by going into the valuation of sale deeds produced by State in the sale statement and had only taken into account the mean value of same type of land. Thus, the Court below has rightly proceeded to fix the amount of compensation @ Rs.2000/- per acre after slashing one-third amount of the sale deed being in respect of a much smaller area. 8. At this stage, it would be relevant to take into account that the counsel for the State while pressing his appeal has tried to assail even the rate of Rs.2000/- per acre. He has submitted that the court below has failed to differentiate the parati land and has proceeded to classify them as Bhit-cum-Sahan land. In the considered opinion of this Court when 12.15 acres of land was acquired for construction of Anchal Office it would be difficult for 8 this Court to treat such land as basically parati land incapable of yielding produce and distinguishable with Bhit-cum-sahan land. The moment, this Court would find that the classification of land made by the State mostly was of Bhit-cum-Sahan i.e. fit for residential purpose, it would not flaw any error in the approach of the court below to slash/scale down the price of land by 1/3rd inasmuch as the same was much for a few katha and could not have been made basis for fixing market value of a much larger area of more than acres of land. Thus the process of arriving at average rate adopted by the Court below for the entire land @ Rs.2000/-per acre does not suffer from any error so as to be interfered by this Court in this appeal. 9. At the same time, in absence of any other evidence adduced by the appellant land lady and the two sale deeds being definitely of the dates after Section 4 notification and that too for a very small piece of land at an astronomical rate would leave nothing for this Court to accept that these two sale deeds were only created for junking up the price of the land inasmuch as in the month of January 1956 one decimal of land i.e. 6-7 dhur of land had been soled for Rs.100/- i.e. Rs. 15 to 16 per dhur whereas in February 1956, 6 dhur was claimed to have been purchased by the 9 landlady at Rs.265 i.e. Rs.41 per dhur. It is thus clear that after the section 4 notification was issued, the subsequent sale deeds and that too in an area where appellant- landlady was her Maharani Hathua were created only to justify her claim of the higher amount of compensation. Thus for the reasons indicated above this Court would not find any justification in disturbing the market price of the land as fixed by the court below in the impugned order. 10. The issue as with regard to valuation of house, trees, orchard or well, in the opinion of this Court, has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant landlady only by way of an ornamental submission. There is no documentary evidence in the form of either a valuation report of the house or any evidence of the agricultural expert on the basis of which this Court could have re- appreciated the whole issue for enhancing the amount of compensation fixed by the court below. As a matter of fact, the Court below has rightly relied on the documentary evidence led by the State showing the calculation of compensation of house, orchard, trees etc. on the basis of expert report as contained in Ext. E and E/1. This Court therefore does not find any error in such fixation of amount of compensation for the house, trees, orchard or well. 10 11. The last submission of Mr. Kumar is with regard to amount of payment of interest in terms of Section 28 of the Act. He has contended that though the possession of land was taken on 17.5.1960 but the amount of compensation in terms of the award made by the Collector was paid only on 16.5.1961 and therefore, the rate of interest ought to have been 15% per annum as is the mandate of Section 28 of the Act. In the opinion of this Court, such submission also has to be also noted for its being rejected inasmuch as Section 28 of the Act envisages a situation of making payment of interest over the amount of compensation in an altogether difficult situation. Section 28 in this regard lays down that if any amount which ought to have been awarded by the Collector by way of compensation but was not done so and eventually he is held liable to pay such amount along with interest @ 9%. The proviso to Section 28 in fact envisages a situation of payment of interest after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of taking of possession. In the present case, this Court would fail to understand as to how the appellant-landlady could be entitled to claim interest @ 15 % in terms of Section 28 when admittedly her possession from the land was taken on 17.5.1960 and she was also paid amount of compensation on 16.5.1961 i.e. exactly in a 11 year. 12. Apart from that, what would really clinch the issue of payment in this regard is that it is not the delay in payment of compensation which would be computable from the date of payment of award but in terms of Section 12 it is only the delay which has to be reckoned from the date of service of notice under Section 12 of the Act. As per Section 11 of the Act when award is made, notices have to be given to persons interested in the land for tendering payment of such amount of compensation and in this regard when admittedly the award was made in the month of June 1960 and was within the knowledge of appellant-landlady as would appear in the objection filed on her behalf on 8.4.1961, it cannot be said that there was any delay in tendering payment muchless exceeding a period of one year so as to make the State liable to make payment @ 15 % per annum. Once this aspect becomes clear, this Court would not find any error in the computation made by the Court below in its award either in respect of principal amount or in respect of interest and therefore this Court has no hesitation in confirming the award passed by the Court below as a whole. 13. As noted above, the appeal of the State was confined only on the price of land and the counsel for the State 12 could not bring to the notice of this Court any material on the basis of which it could be held that the price of the land could be even less than Rs.2000/- per acre. 14. That being so, both the appeals fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. There would be, however, no order as to costs. Patna High Court Dated, 9th of March, 2011 NAFR/(kanchan) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)