FIRST APPEAL No. 762 OF 1978 Against the judgment and decree dated 07.09.1977 passed by Sri Raja Ram Singh, Additional Subordinate Judge-Ist Court cum Land Acquisition Judge, Begusarai in Land Acquisition Misc. Case No.106/131/122 of 1967-75. GOPAL NARAIN AGARWAL & OTHERS …… Plaintiffs/Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …… Defendant/Respondent ******** For the appellants : Mr. Rejendra Kishore Prasad, Advocate Mr. Rohit Kishore Prasad, Advocate For the respondent : Mr. Jashawir Singh Arora, SC - VI. Mr. Ajay Kumar, AC to SC - VI. =============================================== Dated : 6th day of September, 2011 P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO J U D G M E N T 1. The original claimant Smt. Basmati Devi had filed this first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 7.9.1977 passed by Sri Raja Ram Singh, Land Acquisition Judge, Begusarai in Land Acquisition Case No. 106/133/122 of 1967-75 dismissing the reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. It appears that 8 decimal land of the applicant Smt. Basmati Devi alias Basnti Devi of village Singhaul was acquired by the State of Bihar and the notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act was issued Mungeshwar Sahoo, J. -2- on 29.1.1960 which was published in Bihar Gazette dated 30th January 1960. The collector awarded Rs.460/- for the land. 3. The claimant filed objection under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act claiming compensation of Rs.5000/- for the lands acquired on the ground that the area of the land was measured wrongly showing less area and the Collector has awarded a megre amount for the compensation because at the time of acquisition of the land the prevalent market value was Rs.40,000/- per bigha. The claimant also claimed that for severance of the land from the other land of the claimant Rs.5000/- also be paid. The said application of the claimant was referred to the Land Acquisition Judge. 4. The State of Bihar filed objection contending that just, fair and reasonable compensation for the acquired land has been paid by the Collector considering all aspects of the matter and, therefore, the claimant is not entitled for higher compensation. 5. After trial the learned court below found that the claimant has failed to prove that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate and no evidence was produced to show that the acquired land was severed from the other land of the claimant. The learned court below also found that the claimant had not adduced any evidence in support of the fact that less area of the land has been mentioned by wrong measurement. The learned court below also found that the compensation awarded by the Collector is just and proper, therefore, dismissed the reference case. 6. The learned counsel Mr. Rejendra Kishore Prasad appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the learned court below has misconstrued the documentary evidences produced by the applicant and failed to take into consideration the potential value of the land. According to the learned counsel the appellants produced oral as well as -3- documentary evidences to show that the prevalent market value of the land was not less than Rs.5000/- on the date of acquisition of the land but the learned court below without any reason rejected the said evidences. The learned counsel further submitted that the original applicant Basmati Devi has purchased the land in 1964 for Rs.4500/- but the learned Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation of Rs.460/- only and the Land Acquisition Judge dismissed the reference. case. On these grounds, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be set aside and the appellants claimed for compensation be enhanced. 7. On the other hand, the learned SC-VI Mr. J.S. Arora submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and award. The learned court below has considered all the evidences adduced by the appellants meticulously. According to the learned counsel merely on the basis of the oral evidences the prevalent market value of the land cannot be fixed and so far documentary evidences produced by the appellants are concerned those are much after the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, considering all these aspects of the matter the learned court below has rightly dismissed the reference case. On these grounds the learned SC-VI submitted that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. In view of the above contentions of the parties, the points arises for consideration in this appeal is, as to whether the award of compensation made by the Collector is just and proper and whether the impugned judgment and decree is sustainable in the eye of law or not ? 9. It may be mentioned here that the original claimant appellant Smt. Basmati Devi has died during the pendency of the appeal. Her legal representatives have already been substituted. From perusal of the record it appears that to prove the market value of the land the claimants have adduced oral as well as documentary evidences. So far -4- oral evidences are concerned AW 1 has proved the sale deed which is Ext.1. AW 2 has also proved another sale deed which is Ext. 1/A. AW 3 is the husband of original claimant. He has stated that his wife Basmati Devi has purchased the land in the year 1964 for a consideration of Rs.4500/- from Bindiya Devi. In the land two crops were grown per year. Ext.1/A is the said sale deed which is dated 1.4.1964. By the same sale deed 8 decimal of land which has been acquired was purchased by the claimant Basmati Devi from Bindiya Devi for Rs.4500/-. It may be mentioned here that the notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act is dated 29.1.1960. In the cross-examination this witness that is the husband of the claimant has stated that he knew the fact that the land had been acquired and a notification had been issued and thereafter he had purchased the land. AW 4 is son of the applicant Basnti Devi. He has also stated that his mother has purchased the land which has been acquired for Rs.4500/-. According to him also knowingful fact that the land has been acquired his mother purchased the same from Bindiya Devi. In view of the above discussions of the evidences, it is clear that the transaction appears to be not bona fide. 10. The another sale deed Ext.1 is also dated 1.4.1964 with respect to 6 ¾ decimal of land for consideration of Rs.3752/-. Therefore, this sale deed is also much after the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Ext. A land acquisition khatiyan has been filed by the State of Bihar from which it appears that the rate was fixed at Rs.5000/- per acre. 11. Ext.2 is judgment passed by Land Acquisition Judge in Land Acquisition Misc. Case No. 99/39 of 1967 and Ext. 3 is the decree. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that by Ext.2 the compensation was enhanced by the Land Acquisition Judge. In that case also 8 decimal land was acquired and the Land Acquisition Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs.4500/-. From perusal of the said Ext.2 -5- i.e. the judgment it appears that in that case house was standing on the acquired land and originally the compensation was fixed in the name of a tenant who was residing in the said house. Therefore, admittedly, the nature of the land in that case was homestead land and tenant was residing there on monthly rent of Rs.25. Considering these aspects of the matter in that case compensation was enhanced. So far the present case is concerned according to the claimants themselves it is agricultural land and two crops are grown per year. Therefore, the nature of the land is not similar. It further appears that in that case the notification was not issued in the year 1960. The witness have deposed that notification was issued in 1963, here the notification has been on 29.1.1960. 13. In the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Ram Kumari Devi (Smt.) and others 1996 (8) SCC 577 the Hon’ble Supreme court has held at paragraph 4 as follows : “4. It is seen that small pieces of land of an extent of 60’ x 20’, 40’ x 40’ and 1600 sq. ft. were sold by the claimants, obviously on coming to know of the proposed acquisition. It is common knowledge that acquisition proposal would be made at an earlier point of time and finalisation of acquisition would take a long time. In the process, on becoming aware of the acquisition, obviously, these sale deeds have been brought into existence to inflate the market value. It is laid down by this Court which is a well-settled principle that it is the duty of the court to assess reasonable compensation. Burden is on the owner to prove the prevailing market value. On adduction of evidence by the parties, the acid test which the court has to adopt is that the court has to sit in the armchair of a prudent purchaser, eschew feats of imagination and consider whether a reasonable prudent purchaser in the open market would offer the same price which the court is intending to fix the market value in respect of the -6- acquired land. Since it is a compulsory acquisition, it is but the solemn duty of the court to assess reasonable compensation so as to allow the same to the owner of the land whose property has been acquired by compulsory acquisition and also to avoid needless burden on public exchequer. No feats of imagination would require to bog the mind that when 13.75 acres of land was offered for sale in an open market, no prudent man would have credulity to purchase that land on square foot basis. The High Court as well as the District Judge have committed a grave error in not applying the above acid test while considering the case. They merely proceeded by accepting the sale deeds which were obviously brought into existence to inflate the market value and determined the compensation on the price settled by them. Thus, we hold that both the courts have applied a wrong principle of law in determining the compensation.” 14. In view of the above facts and circumstances as stated above the claimants purchased the land knowingfully that the said land had already been acquired by notification in the year 1960 and they purchased the land in the year 1964. In my opinion, therefore, only to inflate the market value this transaction was made. Therefore, this transaction itself is not bona fide as such it cannot be relied upon and the learned court below has rightly not relied upon. 15. Admittedly, there is no evidence adduced by the appellants to show that the area of the lands acquired has been shown less area by wrong measurement. No evidence has also been adduced to show that from which land this land has been severed. 16. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and the evidences available on record, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. It was the duty of the appellant to have -7- adduced satisfactory and reliable evidences to show that the lands acquired could have fetched more price than the award of the Collector but they failed to adduce such reliable evidence. The sale deed of the claimant themselves is of the year 1964 which has been held to be not bona fide transaction. I therefore, find that the appellants have failed to prove that the learned land acquisition officer has awarded inadequate compensation. I therefore, hereby confirmed the findings of the learned court below. 17. In view of my above considered view the compensation awarded by the Collector is just and proper and the learned court below has rightly not interfered with the same. 18. In the result, I find no merit in this first appeal and accordingly, it is dismissed. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.) Patna High Court, Patna The 6th September, 2011 S.S./A.F.R.