- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of Bihar v. Madheshwar Prasad .
Land Acquisition Compensation Appeal
Factual and Procedural Background
A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 16 September 1981 to acquire 3 acres and 17 decimals of land for the Suvarnarekha Project. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs 14,445 per acre on 3 September 1985, which the Subordinate Judge increased to Rs 15,055 per acre upon reference. [1]
Both the State and the claimants appealed. On 1 June 1993, the High Court treated the acquired Don-I land as cultivable land and enhanced compensation to Rs 45,000 per acre, besides granting Rs 20,000 for a well, statutory solatium, and interest. The resulting appeals were brought by special leave, which was granted. [2][1]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court was justified in enhancing compensation for the acquired land to Rs 45,000 per acre. [3]
- Whether the well used to irrigate the acquired land could be valued separately at Rs 20,000. [4]
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| P. Ram Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, (1995) 2 SCC 305 | A sale deed must satisfy relevant comparability requirements before its stated price may be used to determine compensation. | The Court invoked this established principle when assessing whether the sale deeds supported compensation of Rs 45,000 per acre. [3][5] |
| O. Janardhan Reddy v. Spl. Dy. Collector, (1994) 6 SCC 456 | A well used for irrigating acquired land cannot be valued separately from the land. | Because the well was used for irrigation, the Court denied the separate award of Rs 20,000. [4] |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The High Court relied upon a sale deed dated 16 March 1981 concerning 25 decimals of Don-II land and 14 decimals of Don-I land sold for Rs 16,000, as well as another sale deed from 1983. [3]
Although certified copies of sale deeds are admissible under Section 51-A of the Act, admissibility alone does not establish that the transactions provide comparable values for determining compensation. Neither the vendors nor the vendees were examined to prove payment of consideration, and only a Sub-Registrar's clerk testified to establish the certified copies as secondary evidence. [3]
Applying the established principle stated in P. Ram Reddy, the Court found that the additional factors required to demonstrate comparability had not been established. [3][5]
The Court nevertheless considered that the acquired land was very near the national highway and approximately four kilometres from Jamshedpur city. In light of these circumstances, it fixed reasonable compensation at Rs 22,000 per acre. [4]
The Court also rejected separate compensation for the well because it was used to irrigate the land and therefore could not be independently valued. [4]
Holding and Implications
APPEALS PARTLY ALLOWED. The market value was reduced from Rs 45,000 to Rs 22,000 per acre, and the separate award of Rs 20,000 for the well was disallowed. [4][6]
The claimants remained entitled to solatium and statutory benefits, including 30% under Section 23(2), interest under Section 28 at 9% for the first year and 15% thereafter from possession until deposit, and an additional amount at 12% per annum under Section 23(1-A) from the Section 4(1) notification until the award or possession, whichever occurred earlier. No costs were awarded. [6]
The decision directly recalculated the compensation payable to the claimants by applying existing valuation principles; it did not state any broader new precedent. [5][4][6]
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) was published on 16-9-1981 acquiring 3 acres 17 decimals of land for Suvarnarekha Project. The Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 3-9-1985 granted compensation at Rs 14,445 per acre. On reference, the Subordinate Judge enhanced it to Rs 15,055 per acre. Both the State as well as the claimants filed the appeals in the High Court. The High Court in the impugned judgment in FAs Nos. 105 and 93 of 1987 dated 1-6-1993 enhanced the compensation to Rs 45,000 per acre treating the acquired land in Don-I as cultivable land. It also granted Rs 20,000 towards the well and statutory solatium and interest. Thus, these appeals by special leave.
3. The question that arises for consideration is whether the High Court was justified in enhancing the compensation to Rs 45,000 per acre? The High Court has relied upon the sale deed Ext. 3.A dated 16-3-1981 pertaining to lead to an extent of 25 decimals of Don-II lands and 14 decimals of Don-I lands sold for consideration of Rs 16,000. It also relied upon another sale deed of the year 1983 with value of Rs 1,10,000 per decimal; in other words, Rs 45,000 per acre. Unfortunately, neither the vendor nor the vendee has been examined in proof of passing of the consideration under the sale deed etc. Only a clerk of the Sub-Registrar was called as witness to prove the sale deeds which are the certified copies of the sale deeds. No doubt, under Section 51-A of the Act, the certified copy of the sale deed is admissible as evidence to get over the difficulties of the owner of the document would not produce the original title deeds. The clerk of the Sub-Registrar has proved that material as secondary evidence but other factors aliunde have to be established that the sale deed offers comparable value for determining the compensation at Rs 45,000 per acre.
4. This Court had elaborately considered and laid this principle of law in a catena of decisions, the latest being P. Ram Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (1995) 2 SCC 305. Therefore, it needs no reiteration.
5. But, the fact is that the lands are situated very near to the national highway but 4 km away from Jamshedpur city. Under these circumstances, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the reasonable compensation would be Rs 22,000 per acre. The claimants are not entitled to the value of the well i.e, Rs 20,000 since the well was being used for irrigation of the land. For this reason, it cannot be separately valued as held by this Court in O. Janardhan Reddy v. Spl. Dy. Collector (1994) 6 SCC 456.
6. The appeals are accordingly partly allowed. The market value of the lands is determined at Rs 22,000 per acre with solatium and interest and also additional amount as per Section 23(2) @ 30 per cent on the enhanced compensation, interest under Section 28 for the first year at 9 per cent and thereafter at 15 per cent on the enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession till the date of deposit. They are also entitled to the additional amount at 12 per cent p.a under Section 23(1-A) of the Act from the date of notification under Section 4(1) till the date of award or taking possession whichever is earlier. No costs.
Alert