Case: Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Indian Standard Metal Co. Ltd

collected necessary information regarding sale transactions and valuation of land by studying the sale transactions from 1967 to 1972. 11. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that he did not know that the acquired land was purchased by the claimant in 1967. He also admitted that he did not feel to see sale transactions in respect of the land in question. He denied that he ignored those transactions because otherwise valuation could not be enhanced. He had to admit that there was no industry in Wadghar village and no commercial zone was formed in Wadghar village before 1970. There was no residential colony except college campus quarters. So far as acquired land is concerned, he admitted that in 1970, it was partly agricultural land and partly uncultivable. All the sale instances except the award of NIDC were on the eastern side of the Bombay Highway and the acquired land was about 2 kilometers away from Bombay-Pune Highway and by road it was 2.5 kilometers. All the sale instances were between 500 meters and 1 kilometer from Bombay-Pune Highway. The sale deeds were in respect of minimum area of 500 sq. mtrs. and maximum of 1500 sq.mtrs.12. It is clear from the record and also from the cross-examination of Claimant-Witness No.1 that the Government had acquired some land (12 acres) for the respondent-Company. The Government gave possession of the land to the Company in April, 1967. The witness then stated that he was not aware what was the price paid to the Government for acquisition of the land. He also stated that he could not trace the record in the office. He could not say as to whether the Company had papers when the representation was made to the Government. He could not give the name of the officer who dealt with the purchase of the land. He stated that he had no personal knowledge in the matter. He admitted that though some land was purchased by the Company thereafter, he was unable to produce sale deeds in respect of the said land. He also stated that he had not procured sale transactions of the land nearby. He had not made any enquiry about those transactions. He had flatly stated that he was not going to produce any sale deed. In further cross-examination he admitted that all the industries mentioned by him were towards the north of Panvel. There was no industry near about the acquired land. He admitted that he did not know whether prior to 1970 there was any commercial or industrial area and residential activities within the vicinity of the acquired land. He also did not know the situation of the acquired land in or before 1970. 13. From the evidences of the two witnesses of the claimant as also from other evidence, the Reference Court observed that admittedly some land was purchased in the year 1964 by the Company itself and yet witness No.1 stated that he was not knowing anything about the purchase price. The Court noted that the transactions were of 1964-1965 and thus "not so much immemorial so as to treat the record evidence lost". In the circumstances, those documents ought to have been produced by the company. 14. In our opinion, by making the above observations, the Reference Court has not committed any illegality. The High Court, unfortunately, has not considered this aspect in its proper perspective. Again, the Reference Court was right in stating that when the claimant itself has purchased some land, purchase price of the land was an important factor in determining the value of the acquired land. The Reference Court also observed that according to the Government, some land was subject matter of purchase by the Company in 1964-65 and price paid by the Company was much lower ranging from 0.45 paise to 0.75 paise per sq.mtr. The State also relied upon Index Extracts (Ex.37) showing the price paid by the Company in 1964-65. In view of non-production of documentary evidence of the land purchased by the Company, the Reference Court observed:-- "It cannot be ignored that the price that was actually paid for a particular piece of land by the claimants in the year 1964-65 is within their knowledge and obviously it is a company viz. Indian Standard Metal Company Ltd. that has kept accounts and has furnished extensive list of machinery that was required to be purchased at the time of starting factory on the acquired land and must be presumed to be in possession of the record and the 11 sale deeds that were executed. The year 1964-65 is not so much immemorial so as to treat the record as lost and therefore, obviously it looks that the claimants are not willing to put forth the relevant record and for one reason or the other they want to suppress the fact viz. the price that was paid for the acquired pieces in the year 1964-65." 15. It is thus clear that a relevant and germane consideration has not been taken into account by the High Court in deciding the appeal and enhancing the amount of compensation. To us, the submission on behalf of the appellant is also well-founded that in the instant case, the acquisition of land is on a large scale of more than 2 kilometers, and as such, the instances of small pieces of land would not be of much assistance to the claimant. In our opinion, therefore, the High Court ought not to have given undue importance to sale instances. Since the High Court failed to consider documentary evidence as also the fact of non-production of sale deeds by the Company and also the evidence of two witnesses for the claimants in its proper perspective, it would be appropriate if we set aside the decision of the High Court and remit the matter to the High Court so that the Court may consider the matter afresh in the light of the evidences before it and in the light of observations made by us hereinabove.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]10. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties, in our opinion, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed. The High Court allowed the appeal of the Company and granted enhancement in the amount of compensation by deducting development charges @ 20 per cent. To us, however, it appears that the learned counsel for the appellant is right in submitting that the High Court had not appreciated the evidence of witnesses for the claimants properly. From the evidence of Balchandra S/o Shantaram Sule,No.1 it appears that the entire developments was not prior to or in or about 1970 and such development was after the said period. Moreover, the evidence ofs No.2 also relates to the period of August, 1986 and thereafter. In hisitself, he had stated that in August, 1986, he was entrusted with the work of valuation of acquired land by the Company. He thereafter visited the acquired land. He also admitted that he visited the place four times. Afterwards, he studied the development in neighbouring area and its effect on the acquired land. He visited the office of Talathi and collected necessary information regarding sale transactions and valuation of land by studying the sale transactions from 1967 tofar as acquired land is concerned, he admitted that in 1970, it was partly agricultural land and partly uncultivable. All the sale instances except the award of NIDC were on the eastern side of the Bombay Highway and the acquired land was about 2 kilometers away fromHighway and by road it was 2.5 kilometers. All the sale instances were between 500 meters and 1 kilometer fromHighway. The sale deeds were in respect of minimum area of 500 sq. mtrs. and maximum of 1500 sq.mtrs.12. It is clear from the record and also from thess No.1 that the Government had acquired some land (12 acres) for theThe Government gave possession of the land to the Company in April, 1967. The witness then stated that he was not aware what was the price paid to the Government for acquisition of the land. He also stated that he could not trace the record in the office. He could not say as to whether the Company had papers when the representation was made to the Government. He could not give the name of the officer who dealt with the purchase of the land. He stated that he had no personal knowledge in the matter. He admitted that though some land was purchased by the Company thereafter, he was unable to produce sale deeds in respect of the said land. He also stated that he had not procured sale transactions of the land nearby. He had not made any enquiry about those transactions. He had flatly stated that he was not going to produce any sale deed. In furtherhe admitted that all the industries mentioned by him were towards the north of Panvel. There was no industry near about the acquired land. He admitted that he did not know whether prior to 1970 there was any commercial or industrial area and residential activities within the vicinity of the acquired land. He also did not know the situation of the acquired land in or before 1970.In our opinion, by making the above observations, the Reference Court has not committed any illegality. The High Court, unfortunately, has not considered this aspect in its proper perspective. Again, the Reference Court was right in stating that when the claimant itself has purchased some land, purchase price of the land was an important factor in determining the value of the acquired land. The Reference Court also observed that according to the Government, some land was subject matter of purchase by the Company inIt is thus clear that a relevant and germane consideration has not been taken into account by the High Court in deciding the appeal and enhancing the amount of compensation. To us, the submission on behalf of the appellant is alsothat in the instant case, the acquisition of land is on a large scale of more than 2 kilometers, and as such, the instances of small pieces of land would not be of much assistance to the claimant. In our opinion, therefore, the High Court ought not to have given undue importance to sale instances. Since the High Court failed to consider documentary evidence as also the fact ofof sale deeds by the Company and also the evidence of two witnesses for the claimants in its proper perspective, it would be appropriate if we set aside the decision of the High Court and remit the matter to the High Court so that the Court may consider the matter afresh in the light of the evidences before it and in the light of observations made by us hereinabove.