State Of M.P. & Anr vs Kashiram(Dead) By Lr

4. Feeling aggrieved, the land owners filed appeals before the High Court. It is stated that the land-owners in their appeals, filed applications for amendment of their claims and the High Court allowed the applications and permitting them to increase their claims from around Rs.4 lakhs per hectare to Rs.6.17 lakhs per hectare. The High Court, by the impugned common judgment dated 26.2.2008, allowed the appeals by the land-owners and increased the compensation to Rupees Six Lakhs per hectare uniformly for the acquiring lands in all these villages. The said judgment is under challenge in these appeals by special leave.

5. The High Court held that the acquired lands though situated in six villages, were contiguous to each other and were all in one area of Indore District; that the 4 acquisitions were all for the same public purpose; and that therefore the same rate of compensation ought to be awarded for all the acquired lands. The High Court determined the market value in regard to all acquired lands in six villages with reference to a sale deed dated 9.3.1989 (marked as Ex. P2 = D1) relating to 1506 sq.ft. of land for Rs.10,000/- in the village Budhi Barlai. The High Court worked out the rate per acre from the said sale deed as Rs.7,14,285/- per hectare. The High Court made a deduction of Rs.1,14,285/- per hectare as the plot sold was a small bit and arrived at the lump sum figure of Rupees Six Lakhs per hectare as the market value.

They did not form a contiguous compact block. On the other hand, the acquired lands were situated one after another, as the acquisitions were for laying a road. The lands acquired formed a thin strip spread over several villages. As a result, the lands acquired in the village at one end and the lands acquired in another village at the other end, were far away from each other and could not be considered as contiguous lands with the same value. This is evident from 5 the judgments of the Reference Court which awarded compensation at rates ranging from as little as Rs.75,000/- per hectare to Rs.3,45,800/- per hectare, depending upon their respective market value. There was no evidence that all the acquired lands were similarly situated or of similar value or had similar potential for development. Though the acquisitions related to six villages and though the Reference Court had determined different market values for lands in different villages, the High Court, without any acceptable or valid reason, has determined a uniform high rate of Rupees Six Lakhs per hectare. The market value with reference to Ex.P2 even if acceptable can obviously apply only to the nearby lands in that village and cannot be applied to six villages.

7. We are therefore of the view that the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. In the absence of any classification with reference to villages, nature of lands, and consideration of evidence with reference to the lands in each village, the common judgment of the High Court awarding a uniform high rate cannot be sustained.

8. We, therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the common judgment dated 26.2.2008 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court under challenge in these appeals and remand the matter 8 to the High Court for assessment of the market value in accordance with law keeping in view the above observations. We hereby make it clear that nothing stated above shall be construed as expression of any final opinion in regard to the actual market value and the High Court will have to assess the same with reference to the evidence.