(Delivered on 01/03/2018) Appellant (since dead, now represented through legal heirs Kamlesh) have filed this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the award dated 10.08.2002 passed by the 7th Additional District Judge, Indore against Reference Case No.25/2000 ( Madanlal Vs. State of M.P. ).

Facts of the case in brief are as under:

The aforesaid order of this court became subject matter of Civil Appeal No.9915/2010 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No.4785/2009) State of MP and another Vs. Kashiram (Dead) by L.R. Gopilal and other connected Civil Appeals. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by the order dated 23/11/2010 has set aside the judgment of this court dated 26th February, 2008 since several infirmities were found in the judgment and remanded all appeals to High Court to decide afresh. The Apex Court has held that in absence of any classification with reference to villages, nature of land and consideration of evidence with reference to the land in each village, the common judgment of this court awarding a uniform high rate was found to be unsustainable, therefore, while setting aside the judgment and remanding the matter back to this court, with the direction for assessment of the market value in accordance with the law keeping in view the observations made in the order. However, it has been clarified in the operative part that nothing stated in the order will be construed as expression of any final opinion in regard to the actual market value and this court is required to assess the market value with reference to the land.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed following the infirmities in the judgment of this court :-

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 other village at other end, were far away from each other and could not be considered as contiguous lands with the same value. This is evident from the judgment 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.

(ii) Most of the acquired lands were agricultural lands. Some lands were small plots with structures. The High Court has treated both agricultural lands and the nonagricultural plots with structure on the same footing and awarded the same compensation to all the acquired lands which is obviously erroneous.

(iii) The High Court has awarded compensation at a uniform rate of Rupees six lakhs per hectare based on a single sale transaction dated 9.3.1989 relating to a residential plot of 1506 sq.feet which was sold for Rs.10,000/- (which works out to Rs.7,14,285/- per hectare). It is now well settled that if the sale deed relating to a small developed plot of land is to be the basis for determining the market value or large undeveloped areas, appropriate deductions will have to be made towards development cost which may vary from 20% to 75% of the price of the developed plot (that is upto 40% of the land area for roads, drains, parks, civic amenities etc., and upto 35% towards the actual cost of development). The percentage of deduction will depend upon the situation of the lands, the nature of development, etc. (See Lal Chand Vs. Union of India - 2009(15) SCC 769 at paras 13 to 22). The Court cannot arbitrarily deduct a small lump sum from the value of a small developed plot, to arrive at the value of an undeveloped rural lands. The deduction that is made by the High Court is hardly 15% to 16% of the value of the small developed plot. Having regard to the situation of the lands in question and other circumstances, it would appear that the deduction should be in the range of about 40% to 50% from the value of the small and developed plot. Of course, the above percentage and the percentage of deduction require to be determined after consideration of the relevant evidence. The High court has not even referred to this aspect nor has it made an appropriate deduction towards the development.

(iv) Most of the land owners had claimed only about Rupees Four Lakhs per hectare (except some land owners in Peer Karadia and Rau Khedi who appear too have claimed Rupees Five Lakhs per hectare). They were permitted to amend the claim to Rs.6,17,000/- without proper consideration of the question as to such amendment was warranted.

(v) The parties had exhibited sale deeds relating to Peer Karadia and Dkachya. The appellants had also relied upon two sale deeds relating to sale of one acre of land each in Budhi Barlai (Ex D4 and D5 dated 14.12.1989) showing that the market value was only around Rs.38000/- to Rs.42000/- per acre. These were not considered though referred by the High Court".

9. In view of the aforesaid order of the Supreme Court, now the appeals in respect of each village are being decided separately in the light of the evidence which has come on record keeping in view the nature of land, the evidence about the market value and other relevant factors.

10. The present appeal is arising out of the acquisition of land of Village Rahukhedi in which the notification under Section 4 was issued on 26.05.1989.

11. That the appellant has placed reliance over the four sale deeds in respect of the sale of land of the nearby villages executed after the date of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.

12. In order to determine the adequate the market value of larger area, the sale deed of smaller area can also be considered in absence of other cogent material , but while relying on the sale deed for a smaller area, a suitable percentage is to be deducted for determining the market value of the larger area.

13. The appellant has filed Exhibit P/1, sale deed dated 21.11.1994 of Village Rahukhedi by which the land having area 0.125 hectare was sold @ Rs.1,50,293/- per acre. The appellant had also filed sale deed dated 31.05.1993 of Gram Dagachy as Exhibit P/2 in which the land @ Rs.1,66,332/- per acre was sold. The Exhibit P/2 to P/4 have rightly been discarded as the land of the petitioner of Village of Rahukhedi was acquired and these four sale deeds are of a different village. That ld. Reference court did not rely Exhibit P/1 in its entirety because it was executed in the year 1994, whereas the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued in the year 1989 . The learned ADJ took some assistance from the said sale deeds and rightly enhanced the compensation in proportionate manner and assessed the market value @ Rs.65,000/- per hectare.

14. Since the appellant has failed to produce any sale deed of the relevant period and of the same village, therefore, no interference is called for so far as the assessment of market value of the land as calculated by reference court.

15. The Division Bench of this Court in case of Madanlal Vs. State of M.P. in F.A.No.523/2000 decided on 01.03.20016 has enhanced the compensation @ Rs.5,50,000/- per hectare for the land of Village of Raukhedi in which the notification under Section 4 was issued on 06.05.1988. In the present appeal the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 26.05.1989 i.e. after 06.05.1988, therefore, the present appellant are also entitled for enhancement of the compensation @ Rs.5,50,000/- per hectare.

16. The operative part of the order of Division Bench is reproduced below:

14. In view of the above, we dismissed these appeals. Ordered accordingly.

6. In view of the aforesaid, we allow the appeal in part by enhancing the compensation at the rate of Rs.5,50,000/- per hectare as affirmed by the Apex Court on 20.2.2014.

7. For these reasons, the impugned judgment dated 2.2.2000 is set aside. F.A.No.523/2000 is allowed in part, but without any orders as to costs."

17. Therefore, this appeal is partly allowed. Since, the appellant has claimed the amount of Rs.31,952/-by way of enhancement and paid court fees accordingly, therefore, the amount of compensation after enhancement is restricted to Rs.31,952/-.

No order as to costs.

SINGLE BENCH:HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA FIRST APPEAL No.234/2003 JUDGMENT POST FOR / /2018 (VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE FIRST APPEAL No.234/2003 15.02.2018 Shri Lokesh Arya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Sisodiya, learned counsel for the respondents.

Heard finally, reserved for judgment.

Judgement delivered separately, signed and dated.