mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BltASPUIi DB HON'BLE I.M. QUDDUSI & HON'BLEW.K. AGRAWAL, JJ FIRST APPEAL 9 No. 06 OF 200S Vs. APPEAL UNDER SECTION54 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT APPBARANCE: Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Pragya. Siagh with Mr. Aaand Gupta, counsel for the appellant. Mr. G. D. Waswaai, Govt. Advocate for the State/ Respondents. Per I.M. OUDDUSI, J OKDER (ORAL) (30.08.2010) 1. This appeal has been fUed agauist fhe impugned award 07.10.2004 passed by the leamed Addl. District Judge, Sakti (Reference Court) in M.J.C. No.32/2004 for further euhanceinent ofthe award offhe Court. 2-. The brieffacts offhe case are as foUows: (i) "{hat laad of fhe appeUant bearing Kh.No. 183/ 1 area 0.45 acres (0.182 hectares) dut oftotal 0.55 acres has been acquired ia land acquisition proceediog No. 102- A/82/2001-2002 for a consideration of Rs.88,851/-. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded fhe conipensation at fhe rate of Rs.3,43,800/- per hectare APPELLANT Lakhan Lal, aged about 68 years, s/o Kanhaiya Lal, R/o Budhawari Bazar, Sakti, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa (C.G). RESPONDENTS 1 Tbe State of Chhattisgarh fhrough the CoUector, Jaajgir, District Jaiygir-chaxapa (C.G). 2 Land Acquisition Officer, Hasdeo Pariyojna, Jaajgir, Branch Sakti, Distt. Jaajgir Chanipa (C.G). Ef;|[i Silll'[l'!i| •~^ treatmg it as fhe non-agricultl.iral land with 30% solatiuin aruouiit aad 13%interest per anniiTn which was approved by fhe Distnct CoUector, Jaujgir, Champa. (ii) Beuig dissatisfied wifh fhe said award of the Land Acquisition Of&cer, fhe appeUaat sought refereace u/ s 18 of fhe Laad Acquisition Act by makiag an application before respondent no.2. Hawing registered the said Reference as M.J.C. No.32/2004, the Reference Court proceeded to record evidence of fhe parties aiid after heariag fhe parties held fhat fhe acquired land of fhe appeUartt is fit for residential use aad it is situated within Ward No.l of Municipal Couucil Sakti and the saine is also adjacent to fhe National Highway. However, the leamed District Judge relyiug upon sale deed dt.26.03.1998 (Ex.P/12) which was a sale iastance of the year 1998 showing fhe sale of 18 deciinal of land for an actual consideration ofRs.50,000/-, assessed fhe value ofthe land acquired ia March 2002 to be Rs.2,70,000/- per acre only. In addition to it, 30% of fhe said amount was awarded towards solatium with interest at 12% per aniiuin on the over aU amount froni fhe date of notification tiU actual realization. (iu) During fbe pendency of reference proceeding, the appeUant has inade an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. to plead that iu ftie guideline issued by the Siub-Registrar of the area for fhe year 2002-2003, the valuation of the land was shown to be Rs. 1219.00 per square ineter. This fact came to the knowledge of the appeUant later ou afiter filing of the reference a&d accordiagly the appeUant clauued coinpensation at the enhanced late of Rs. 1219.00 per square ineter. The said appUcation was, bowevei, rejected by fhe leamed reference Court vide its order dated 20.09.2004 holdiag that the docuinent in respect of which the 11BIWII".,. """4 *u.. ^.--^' ^,. ;>%&. amendment was sought have already been adduced in evidence aad fhere is alrcady pleadiog ia that regard. 3. The Land Acquisition OfEcer has assessed fhe non- agricultiiral ]and @ Rs.3,43,8000/- per hectare whereas fhe Reference Court has assessed @ Rs.2,70,000/- per acre fhat is Rs.2700/ - per decimal. The Reference Court has beld fhat the Land Acquisition OfEcer has not fixed fhe proper rate according to noti&cation dated 29.3.2002 issued u/s 4(1) of the Act aud fherefore fhe appeUaiit is entiUed to Rs.1,21,500/- for 45 decimals of land. Besides this, the leamed Reference Court bas awarded 30% solatium fhereon which coines to Rs.36,450/-. Thus the total coiupensation was worked out to Rs.1,57,950/- whicli shall also cany iaterest @ 12%from the date of noti&cation i.e., 29.03.2002 tiU its realization. 4. However,.Shri H.B. Agrawal, leamed senior counsel for fhe appeUaut has pleaded fhat the land acquired is s'ditable for i-f:sidenti,nl iisc> < o. ipensatron was liable to be given at the ratc of per square feet or square ineter iastead of acre/hectare. He further submits that 0.45 acres has been acquired out of 0.55 acres ia Kh.No. 183/1 for fhe purpose of coastructmg a canal aad reinaining piece of laad i.e. 0.10 acres iri fhe said Khasra nuinber would becoine useless aud ' soaie additional ainount should have been awarded on. fhat count. On fhe other haad, Mr. G. D. Waswani, leamed Govt. Advocate has opposed Uris subinission. 5. We have heard learaied counsel for fhe parties at length aad have also perused the record. m Bia iTrm^iFF'^'^T 6. The appellaut has filed the sale deed dated 26,03.1998 as exeinplar in which the market rate was Rs.2,82,600/- per acre add Rs.50,000/- was the sale consideratiou for 18 decimals. It is to be noticed that notification u/s 4 of fhe Laad Acquisitioa Act was issued on 29.03.2002; therefore, the market value of fhe acquired laud on fhe date of notification was to be detennined by the Court on prevalent rates. Siace fhe sale deed was of fhe yearl998 and fhe notificatiou was of fhe year 2002, it was worth aatural that ia the past 4 years, fhe cost of land would have gone up higher in coinparison to that of 1998. jHowever, the Reference Court had assessed fhe value @ Rs.2,70,000/- per acre iiieaaing fhereby fhat the rate on which fhe sale deed was filed as exemplar that is Rs.2,82,600/- was furfher reduced to Rs.2,70,000/-. The area of fhe land acquired in the iastant case is 0.45 acres (45 decimals). Leanied counsel for the appeUant has subiuitted that fhe reference Court has not taken iuto consideration fhe relevant factors ia detenniniag the proper comLpensation to fhe appeUaut. 7. Hon'ble the Apex Court ia its recent decision ia Mohamniad Raofuddia -vs- Land AcquisiUoa Ofllcer (2009) 14 SCC 367 bas held vide Para 10 fhat one of the principles for determiaation of the xnarket value of the acquired land ~ wffuld be the price aa niterested buyer would be wiUing to pay if it is sold iu the open inarket at the tune of issue of notification uader Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. But finding direct evidence ia this behalf is not an easy exercise aad fherefore, fhe Court has to take recourse to other known mefhods for arriving at fhe inarket value of fhe land w acquired. In Mohd. Rewfudd.in case (suprd) while referriiig to a decision in PUubcn Jhdlejar Contractor V. Stecte of Qujeurfit (2005) 4 SCC 789 the Supreme Court observed as foUows : "18. One of fhe pruiciples for determiuation of the amount of conipensation for acquisition of laiid would be the wiUu^ness of an iaformed buyer to ofFer the price therefor. It is beyond aay cavU fhat the price of the land wtuch a wiUiag and informed buyer would offer would be different ia the cases where fhe owner is in possession and enjoyiuent ofthe property and in the cases where he is not." 4 8. The Reference Court has recorded fhe findiug tbat fhe laad was valuable land because it is adjacent to national highway and is also situated withui the murucipal area and it is suitable for residential use. Therefore, in our opinion, fhe value of fhe land assessed on fhe basis of the sale dced of 1998 @ Rs.2,70,000/- per acre is without considering fhe increase in market value froin the date of sale deed i.e., 26.03.1998 tiU the date of notification u/s 4 that is 29.03.2002. Hence, the value of the land would have been iacreased which could be assessed @ Rs.3 lakhs per acre. 9. Considering the above facts aad circuiiistances and also considering that fhe appellant bas failed to file any sale deed - as exexuplar in which the laad was sold at fhe rate of square feet or square yard, we are of the opioion fhat the conipensation of Rs.3 lakhs per acre would be adequate. Therefore, we aUow this appeal ia part. The appeUauts shaU be entiUed to get coinpensation at the rate of Rs.3 ]akhs per il^lJ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^K^^^Sl^^^^^^B^^^^^^^^^^^^^^M^^^^^^^^^^^A^ ^-^ acre aad win get proportioaate amount in respect of the land acquired fhat is 0.45 acres. In addition to fhis, fhe appeUant is entitled to get 30% solatiiun wifh iuterest @ 9% per aTinnm on the overaU ataouat fix>iu fhe date of taMag over fhe possession of the land. The award shall stand inodi&ed to the extent iadicated above. _ - : Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawai Judge Ks ia3t ^l, fc: :'l. !i :^»ll r'