Case: Krishan Kumar Vs. Union of India &amp; Another

. The LAC, vide his award passed in the year 2000, discussed the potentiality and fertility of the land to ascertain the quality thereof. He also took note of itsto the nearby habitation on the basis of aforesaid parameters. The LAC classified the land in three categories as underagricultural landg land ofer tod land. While fixing the compensation for the subject land the Land Acquisition Collector considered 4 sale instances out of which 2 instances were of the same village and as per which land admeasuring 500 sq. yds.was sold foron 07.08.1997, whereas the other 2 sale instances were of village Wazirabad, a village in the nearby vicinity. The first sale deed dated 27.01.1998 was in respect of the land admeasuring 1028 sq. yds. and the sale price wasnd the second sale deed dated 26.05.1977 was in respect of land admeasuring 1600 sq. yds. whichwas sold for. The Land Acquisition Collector thus noted in the award that the indicative price as per the four sale deeds would come toer sq. yd. However, he did not rest his award on these sale deeds inasmuch as the said price resulted in the land value being less than the minimum price notified by the Government as per Office Order dated 24.9.1998 under which the minimum indicative price fixed by the Government forin Delhi waser acre i.e. 4 bigha and 16 biswa as of 1.4.1998.Taking into consideration these factors, the LAC determined the compensation payable for three acres of land in the followingper acrefrom theprice of categoryper acrefrom theprice of categorySome compensation was also awarded for the trees existing on the land. Needless to mention, other statutory benefits admissible as per the Act were also granted.ts herein were not satisfied with the award of the LAC and, therefore, sought referenceSection 18 of the Act. The Reference Court also took into consideration the minimum rate notified by the Government which waser acrefor category A. However, since these rates were fixed as on 31st March, 1998, the Reference Court gave an increase @ 11.5% for the period from 1.4.1998 till the date of Notification, i.e. till 24.7.1998. On that basis, compensation for category A was enhanced to11,60,580.82 paisa. The landprice of categoryB and categorywas depressed by 10% each over the value fixed in respect of category A land and, accordingly, compensation figure arrived at by the Reference Court in respect of these three categories of lands was as. Still not satisfied, thefiled appeals in the High Court. The High Court, after looking into the entire material, accepted that the basis to determine the fair market value has to be Government Office Orders fixing minimum price ater acreas on 1.4.1998. Thereupon, he gave 11.5% per annum increase treating it as progressive price rise, as a thumb rule. On that basis, the High Court found complete justification in the reasoning of the Reference Court and dismissed the appeals of the. As mentioned above, 301.66 acre of lands situate in revenue estate of Village Burari was acquired by issuing Notification dated 18.07.2003Section 4 of the Act. In this case, LAC gave his award bearing No.According to him, the land in question is on the Eastern side of the Forward Bund and this land was not prone to Burdhi and/or Baramadi, i.e. it was not prone to alluvium or diluvial effects of the river currents. Land was also Do Fasli, which means two crops were grown on the, each year. Here also, the land was categorized in three categories. The LAC made Office Order dated 09.08.2001 passed by the Government fixing circular rate at, as the basis. He held this to be fair market value for category A land and assessed the remaining lands at. We would like to mention here itself that High Court has remarked that no reasons are given for fixing the value ate for the. On reference being madeSection 18 of the Act, the Reference Court also adopted the Government Order dated 09.08.2001 as the basis of fixing the market value. Since vide the said Notification the circular rate was fixed at, the Reference Court gave increase @ 11.5%om till the date of Notification which was issued on 18.07.2003 and, thus, arrived at the figure of. It would also be worthwhile to note here that the Reference Court specifically held that there was no reason to demarcate the land in different categories and, thus, fixed unique rate of compensation for the entire land acquired by the said Notification.The High Court, here as well, has accepted the Government Order dated 09.08.2001 as the basis for fixing the market value. Thus, it agreed with the approach of the Reference Court by giving an enhancement of 11.5% per annum thereby granting compensation of. However, the High Court has categorized the lands into category A and category B. The aforesaid compensation is maintained for category A; insofar as category B lands are concerned, the said figure is reduced by 10% thereby arriving at the market value ofin respect of category B lands. In this manner, all the appeals of thewere dismissed and the appeals of the Union of India as well as itsare allowed by reducing the compensation in respect of category B lands.

Court's reasoning:
It is clearve that the submissions of learnedcounsel for thehave two limbs,For ascertaining the market value of the, the sale deed pertaining to the land in that very area was the best exemplar. There was no reason to discard Exhibitwhich was produced to reflect the market value of the land in the year 1993, which was much before the two acquisition Notifications of the year 1998 and 2003. This was, according to them, the bestThe Government Orders which are made the basis for fixing the market value of the land by the courts below could not have been relied upon for such a purpose as they are not the true indicia of the market price.From the aforesaid twin prepositions, reliance was placed on the following judgments of thisIn Cement Corporation of India Ltd. v. Purya and(2004) 8 SCC 270 , this CourtA registered document in terms of Sectionof the Act may carry therewith a presumption of genuineness. Such a presumption, therefore, is rebuttable. Raising a presumption, therefore, does not amount to proof; it only shifts the burden of proof against whom the presumption operates for disproving it. Only if the presumption is not rebutted by discharging the burden, the court may act on the basis of such presumption. Even when in terms of the Evidence Act, a provision has been made that the court shall presume a fact, the same by itself would not be irrebuttable or conclusive. The genuineness of a transaction can always fall for adjudication, if any question is raised in this behalf.While it is clear thatof the LA Act a presumption as to the genuineness of the contents of the document is permitted to be raised, the same can be relied upon only if the said presumption is not rebutted by other evidence. In the said view of the matter we are of the opinion that the decision of this Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer v. V.(2001) 3 SCC 530 lays down the correct law.In National Fertilizers Limited v. Jagga Singh (Deceased) Through(2012) 1 SCC 74 , this CourtThe Division Bench of the High Court has thus relied upon its order in Karam Singh (RFA No. 906 of 1988) passed onwhich was marked in the reference proceedings as Ext.The land in the case of Karam Singh was acquired for a municipal park by a notification issuedSection 4 of the Land Acquisition Act onand is located within the municipal limits. In Karam Singh case there was evidence of three transactions of sale of the same date i.e.showing that some land in the area had been sold at the rate of Rs. 100 per square yard, some land in the area had been sold at Rs. 70.30 paise per square yard and some land in the area had been sold at the rate of Rs. 62.50 per square yard and the Court took the average rate of the three sale transactions which worked out to Rs. 80 per square yard. The Court then added an increase of 12% per annum for ten years to arrive at the value of the land in the year 1983 when the land was acquired and the figure worked out at Rs. 176 per square yard.Regarding quality of the land acquired in the present case, the learnedcounsel for thesubmitted that the land in Karam Singh case was developed urban land meant for residential and commercial purpose, whereas the land acquired in the present case was low, waterlogged. We, however, findce of Basant Singh Patwari, Land Acquisition, Industries Department, Government of Punjab, Chandigarh, examined as RW 1, that the level of the land, which was acquired in the present case, was that of thehe township of NFL. The learned Additional District Judge in his order datedhas in fact held, after considering all the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, that the market value of the land acquired in the present case has to be determined on the basis of its potentiality for urban development and not on the basis of the revenue or agricultural classification of the land as done by the Collector because the land acquired in the present case had great potential value for urban purposes i.e. commercial, industrial and residential.In Chindha Fakira Patil (Dead) Throughv. Special Land Acquisition Officer,(2011) 10 SCC 787 , this CourtIn our view, the approach adopted by the High Court was clearly erroneous. There is no basis for the assumption that the purchaser of the land must have offered higher price for special reasons. Exhibit 28 was proved by Shri Arjun Sukdeo Patil, who had appeared as witness on behalf of theIt was open to thecounsel for thene the witness and elicit the special reasons, if any, for sale of land allegedly at a higher price. However, the fact of the matter is that no such question was put to the witness.As a matter of fact, it is neither the pleaded case of thenor has it been argued before us that the sale deed Exhibit 28 had not been proved or that the price mentioned therein was not the highest price paid for jirayat land in the area. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the High Court was not right in interfering with the fixation of market value by the Reference Court for jirayat land at the rate of Rs. 3 lakhs and for bagayat land at the rate of Rs. 6 lakhs per hectare. The mere fact that average sale price of the transactions relied upon by thewas substantially less could not be made a ground for discarding Exhibit 28.In Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered), Faridkot andv. State of Punjab and(2012) 5 SCC 432 , this Court observedIn State of Punjab v. Hans Raj(1994) 5 SCCthis Court has held that method of working out the "average price" paid under different sale transactions is not proper and that one should not have, ordinarily recourse to such method. This Court further held that the bona fide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighbourhood of thes are the real basis to determine the market value.It is clearthat when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied that it is a bona fide transaction, has to be considered and accepted. When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. In our view, it seems to be only fair that where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, the transaction representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. It is not desirable to take an average of various sale deeds placed before the authority/court for fixing fair compensation.We would first deal with the submissions predicated on ExhibitThe reason given by the Reference Court in discarding this piece of evidence does not appear to be correct. The Reference Court has noted that since this sale deed is of the year 1993 and the acquisitions took place 5 and 10 years thereafter, respectively, the sale deed of 1993 would not reflect the market price that was prevailing in the years of acquisition. If the sale price stated in the said sale deed is of the year 1993, the value of the land would even be higher in the year 1998 and 2003. Therefore, this reason is not convincing at all. However, at the same time, we find that very justifiable grounds are given by the High Court in discarding ExhibitA perusal of the impugned judgment, touching upon this aspect, would reflect that the High Court has gone through the relevant evidence. This piece of land was purchased by one company known as Motor General and Finance Limited (MGF). Its Director, Shri Arun Mitter, had appeared asin LAC No. 140/1/206. He admitted that he was not familiar with the topology of the area and had no proof of any earningsnd during the period it remained with the company and virtually admitted not having put the land to any use. The High Court, thus, observed that Director of the Company who purchased the land did not give convincing reasons of having put the land to any use. It was only stated that flowers were grown therein by a Mali, though the witness could not even depose as to who employed him and in what manner salary was paid to him. Leaving this ignorance of the Directors aside, even otherwise, his claim that flowers were grown and were consumed in the house was found by the High Court to be the most uninspiring. From the aforesaid and other related/attendant facts, the Court came to the conclusion that the speculative nature of the transaction wasIt was more so as nearly six years after the purchase of the, MGF sold the same at a meager price rise of, which gave not even 1% increase in the value of the landnearly six years. All these aspects clearly demonstrated that MGF was not an informed buyer. Referring to the decision of this Court in Mohammad Raofuddin v. Land Acquisition(2009) 14 SCC 367 , the High Court opined that such a speculative transaction could not be taken as reflective of the real market value inasmuch as in respect of sale of land it is settled law that the test is the price which an informed buyer would pay to the willing seller and to be an informed buyer there must be evidence that the buyer has knowledge of the topology of the area, the land available for sale and such other factors showing that the buyer was an informed buyer.We also findrd thatcounsel for thehad pointed out to Exhibita sale deed dated 22.11.2003 executed in favour of one Nisha Tyagi, which showed that she had purchased agriculture land in Village Burari on 22.11.2003 forin respect of land admeasuring 5 bigha and 19 biswa. There was also a sale deed Exhibitdated 02.01.2004 which reflected that Raj Bal, his wife, Usha Tyagi and his sisterShobha Tyagi had purchased 02 bigha and 10 biswa land in the same village for. These sale deeds were clear indicators, reflecting that MGF sale deed (Exhibitshowed inflated figure therein.We find that the aforesaid finding of the High Court, on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, is absolutely valid thereby rejecting the credit worthiness of Exhibitfor the purposes of ascertaining the market value of the land. In view thereof, judgments relied upon by thecounsel on this aspect have no application in the instant cases.It has come onfrom theaforesaid sale deed, thecounsel for theparties had not produced any other sale deeds either of the year 1998 or of the year 2003. Some sale deeds post 2003 were produced in evidence but the parties rightly chose not tom, a fact specifically noted by the High Court. This would show that there is no sale deed of the area in question which could provide an exemplar for fixing the market value of the land. We are, thus, left with the Government Notifications issuing circular rate of the lands in question. There is a Notification dated 1st April, 1998 as per which the value of the land is fixed ater acrefor category A. Then, there is Notification dated 09.08.2001 fixing circular rate at. This Court can indulge in the same reasonable guesswork to balance the equity for fixing just and fair market value. In the absence of any other exemplar in the form of sale deed, though it is difficult to say as to what extent the actual market value was higher in contradistinction to the value of land fixed by the Government in the aforesaid Notifications, we are of the opinion that as a thumb rule an increase ofer acrebe granted, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.Accordingly, we fix the market value of the land situate in Village Jharoda Mazra Burari, which was acquired vide Notification dated 24.07.1998, atnd in Village Burari, which was acquired vide Notification dated 18.07.2003, at. This brings us to the land aspect of the matter which was argued by thosewhose lands are classified in inferior category, namely, whether it wasze the land and after fixing the market value for category A land, depress the same by 10% each for category B and C respectively.Insofar as land situate in Village Burari is concerned, as already noted above, though the LAC had given the categorisation, the Reference Court had refused to accept the same finding that the entire land was to be treated uniformly as category A land. Aparthy of the land, which was almost identical, the Reference Court also pointed out that the distinction had no relevance because the acquisition was for the same purpose, namely,Park, and, therefore, potentiality of the land would be theaforesaid purpose and it did not matter as to whether a particular parcel of the land was differenter (though it was not even factually correct). We find this reason to be quite convincing. There appears to be no manifest justification in the judgment of the High Court inthe said categorization. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the compensation should be awarded to all theFor the same reasons, similar treatment is to be accorded to thewhose lands in Jharoda Mazra Burari are acquired by granting compensation at uniform rate of