Case: Assam Railways and Trading Company Limited Vs. Collector of Lakhimpur and Another

Court and the Additional District Judge have both found in this case that the price of land in the locality did not exceed Rs.1000/- per bigha. This finding was reached mainly on the sale statement, Exhibit, C, filed by the Sub-Deputy Collector, and his report, Exhibit J. Exhibit C is described as a "statement showing result of examination of cases of sales of land in village Khalihamari, Mouza Dibrugarh, Lakhimpur District". This statement notes six transactions of sale between September, 1949 and November 1950, the price varying from Rs.32/- to Rupees 945/- per bigha. The material part of the report, Exhibit J. prepared by the Sub-Deputy Collector reads :"1. The greatest drawback of the land in question is that it has no. approach from any direction. On the north it is bounded by Railway lands and on other sides by private persons lands. Moreover one has got to cross the Railway line to go to the land in question. So nobody would like to purchase the land.2. I have examined as many as six bona fide sales of similar lands in the vicinity from the records of the Registration Department and the sale prices have been recorded in Form No. 6. These sales took place in the year 1949 and 1950 in which years the prices of lands had gone up considerably and the average purchase value of land in the neighbourhood per bigha from the sale cases shown in Form No. 6 is less than Rs.600. I have also visited the locality and those who are willing to purchase the land in question offer Rs.250 to Rs.500 per bigha. There is great demand for paddy land in the locality but no. demand for high land.3. The net annual letting value of the land in question cannot exceed Rs.3 per bigha.Considering all the above facts the rate of the land cannot be more than Rs.1, 000 per bigha. So my estimate is very fair and reasonable".L.A.2 of 1957Ext. JSd.- IllegibleAddl. D. J.7-5-60699122-12-57The Sub-Deputy Collector who was examined by the respondents as their witness admitted on cross-examination that "as regards the sales of plots of land appearing in Exhibit C, I did not visit the sites, but prepared the statement from my office records and from the records of Registration Office. Besides the details given in Exhibit C, I am not aware of any circumstances or conditions under which those sales took place." No. one was examined in support of the statements made in the report and repeated by the Sub-Deputy Collector in his deposition, and there is no. material on record to indicate the comparative advantages and disadvantages of the plots of land figuring in the sale statement. One is not sure if they are at all comparable units. Besides, there is no. explanation accounting for the remarkable disparity in price of the different plots disclosed by the sale statement. The High Court does not appear to have considered these aspects.5. Two sale deeds, Exhibits 13 and 19, were produced on behalf of the company. Exhibit 13 shows that the appellant purchased 2 bighas 1 katha 8 lechas of land in 1950 for Rs.4560/- which works out to Rupees 2000/- per bigha. The High Court rejected this document on the ground that the land of that transaction was situated in the "heart of the Dibrugarh Town and can be no. criterion of the price of land outside the municipal area." From the evidence of the Personal Assistant to the General Manager of the Company witness No. 1 for the claimant, it appears that the land of Exhibit 13 is at a distance of only 1 1/2 or 2 miles from the land acquired. Witness No. 3 for the claimant, a pleaders clerk who lived at Khalihamari, purchased a plot of land measuring 1 bigha 1 khata 1 lecha, covered by Exhibit 19, for Rs.5000/-. The High Court found that "this land is just inside the Municipal area and the acquired land is just outside the same", but rejected this evidence on the ground that the "price paid for this land prima facie was abnormal". No. question was, however, put to this witness to find out what made him pay this "abnormal" price. We have already referred to the wide disparity in price of the different plots of land mentioned inn Exhibit C; if the High Court was not prepared to rely on the side deeds produced by the company, we do not see how it was possible to depend on the transaction noted in Exhibit C. It is not that on the evidence we are taking a different view from the High Court; all we wish to point out is that the High Court treated Exhibit C as conclusive without noticing its infirmities and without considering whether it was adequate to provide a basis for ascertaining the value of the land. The High Court also failed to advert to several relevant and important aspects of the evidence on record which we have discussed above.6. It is difficult for us to say that the High Court should have determined the market value on the basis of any particular piece of evidence adduced in the case. This is a very old matter, and a remand to the court of the District Judge for reconsideration of the case on new and additional material means prolonging its life by several more years. From the judgment of the High Court it appears that the High Court found no. objection to the method of capitalizing the rental value of the land for twenty years to determine its market value. In fact the High Court found that "the Railway took the land on lease at Rs.105/- per bigha per annum" but, as the other terms of the lease were not known, the High Court did not find it possible to hold that the aforesaid sum represented "the actual rental value of the land". It is also not known whether the lease spoken of was a written lease.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]We have already referred to the wide disparity in price of the different plots of land mentioned inn Exhibit C; if the High Court was not prepared to rely on the side deeds produced by the company, we do not see how it was possible to depend on the transaction noted in Exhibit C. It is not that on the evidence we are taking a different view from the High Court; all we wish to point out is that the High Court treated Exhibit C as conclusive without noticing its infirmities and without considering whether it was adequate to provide a basis for ascertaining the value of the land. The High Court also failed to advert to several relevant and important aspects of the evidence on record which we have discussed above.6. It is difficult for us to say that the High Court should have determined the market value on the basis of any particular piece of evidence adduced in the case. This is a very old matter, and a remand to the court of the District Judge for reconsideration of the case on new and additional material means prolonging its life by several more years. From the judgment of the High Court it appears that the High Court found no. objection to the method of capitalizing the rental value of the land for twenty years to determine its market value. In fact the High Court found that "the Railway took the land on lease at Rs.105/per bigha per annum" but, as the other terms of the lease were not known, the High Court did not find it possible to hold that the aforesaid sum represented "the actual rental value of the land". It is also not known whether the lease spoken of was a written lease.It is difficult for us to say that the High Court should have determined the market value on the basis of any particular piece of evidence adduced in the case. This is a very old matter, and a remand to the court of the District Judge for reconsideration of the case on new and additional material means prolonging its life by several more years. From the judgment of the High Court it appears that the High Court found no. objection to the method of capitalizing the rental value of the land for twenty years to determine its market value. In fact the High Court found that "the Railway took the land on lease at Rs.105/per bigha per annum" but, as the other terms of the lease were not known, the High Court did not find it possible to hold that the aforesaid sum represented "the actual rental value of the land". It is also not known whether the lease spoken of was a written lease.In these circumstances, we think that the best course would be to send the case back to the High Court for determination of the market value of the land on the aforesaid method upon affidavits. The High Court will come to its own conclusion as to the market value on a consideration of the mateials disclosed in these affidavits. As the case is an old one, we expect that the High Court will try to dispose of the matter expeditiously, if possible within a period of four months from the date the record of the case is received back in that court.