Case: Collector, Raigarh Vs. Dr. Harisingh Thakur and Another and Vice Versa

The facts giving rise to these appeals are: on an undertaking given by him to pay full compensation with interest from the date of possession to the date of payment of compensation as provided inthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the District Engineer, South Eastern Railway, Raigarh, took advance possession on January 17, 1957 of five plots of agricultural land admeasuring 3.38 acres and another plot of agricultural land admeasuring 0.14 acres adjoining the railway track situate in village Darogamuda, Tehsil and District Raigarh, a suburb of Raigarh belonging to respondents I and 2 respectively for doubling the railway line between Rourkela and Durg in the South Eastern Railway. Subsequently Notification dated February 8, 1957 under section 4(1) of the Act for acquisition of the aforesaid plots of land was issued and published in the Government Gazette dated February 15, 1957. This was followed on March 21, 1957 by a notification under section 6 of the, Act. Although in the r statements filed by them under section 9(2) of the Act the respondents claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 32, 670/- per acre i.e. at the rate of -/12/- per square foot on the ground that the plots of land in question had a great potential value as a building site and Rs. 500/- for improvements and Rs. 100/- as the value of one tree, the Special Land Acuisition officer, Raigarh by his award dated August 23, 1957 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 3, 327/14/- per acre which roughly worked out at -/1/6 per square foot on the basis of the statement of sales furnished by A.S.L.R. (L.A.) prepared by Jujhar Singh N.A.W.I. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the respondents made an application to the Special Land Acquisition officer requesting him to refer the matter to the court u nder section 18 of the ;1 Act. According to the request of the respondents, the Special Land . Acquisition officer made the aforesaid references to the II Additional District Judge, Raigarh, who by his award dated December 20, 1958 enhanced the rat e of compensation to -/4/- per square foot and awarded Rs. 36, 808/4/- and Rs. 1, 524/8/- to respondents l and 2 respectively as compensation. The Additional District Judge also allowed the solatium at the rate of 15% amounting to Rs. 5.521/4/- a nd Rs. 228/12/- to respondents 1 and 2 respectively. Aggrieved by the said , Award of the II Additional District Judge, the appellant preferred an appeal to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur which was registered as Miscellaneous (First) Appeal No. 43 of 1959. In the said appeal, the respondents filed cross objections claiming enhancement of compensation by Rs. 84, 518.39 P. The High Court by its judgment dated December 1, 1961 dismissed the aforesaid appeal preferred by the appellant but allowed the cross objections filed by the respondents holding the reasonable rate of compensation to be -/8/per square foot. Consequently respondent No. 1 was held entitled to Rs. 73, 616-8-O as compensation and Rs. 11, 042-8-0 as solatium and respondent No. 2 was held entitled to Rs. 3, 049-0-0 as compensation and Rs. 457-8-O as solatium. It is against this judgment of the High Court that the present appeals are directed.

Reasoning:
the instant case, the fact that the land in question has a great potential value as a build ing site is evident not only from the observations made by the Special Land Acquisition officer himself in his aforesaid award to the effect that the land has assumed semi-abadi site hut also from the following observations made in his judgment dated December 20, 1958 by the Additional District Judge who had the advantage of inspecting theland abuts Raigarh town. It is within Municipal limits and the nazul perimeter extends upto it. To the east of the plot there are some kutcha buildings inhabited by respectable persons. To the North is a Municipal road leading to the railway quarters to the west. To the west beyond the railway quarters, there is further habitat ion` and the locality is called "Banglapara" within Municipal limits. The plot did have a potential value as a building site and it is further supported by the fact that the plot has been used by the Railway authorities for construction of staff quarters thereon though the land was acquired for doubling the rail wayis also not disputed that the Special Land Acquisition officer did not lead any evidence worth the name to show the price of the comparable sites in question and remained content with the production only of the sale statement made by Jujhar Singh, N.A.W.I. Now the sale statement consisted mostly of sales relating to the year 1951 which is not relevant for the question in hand. Moreover, the sale statement by it self without examining either the vendors or the vendees or the persons attesting the sale deeds is not admissible in evidence and can not be relied upon. The sale deed dated December 14, 19 56 in favour of Dr. Das for 4, 800 square feet of land out of contigious Khasra No. 256 in lieu of Rs. 2, 000/- i.e., at approximately 6 1/2 annas per square foot (which has been relied upon by the Additional District Judge and the High Court) could be taken as a safe guide for determine nation of the compensation. From the material adduced in the case, it appears that Raigarh is a growing town, that instead of utilising the land for doubling the railway track, the railway has built staff quarters thereon, that on three sides of the acquired land, there already existed pucca buildings and on the fourth side, there is a metalled road. It is also in evidence that some lawyers have put up some constructions near the sites in question. Taking all the facts into consideration. it cannot be said that the basis on which the Additional District Judge and the High Court proceeded is wrong or that the quantum of compensation awarded by the High Court is in any way excessive or exorbitant.As neither the interest nor compensation on account of severance was claimed in the High Court either by Dr. Harisingh Thakur or by Tikam Singh Thakur, we do not think they can justifiably put up claim s in that behalf.