STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS. versus KANSHI RAM & ORS. on 14 August 2019

608

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2019] 10 S.C.R.

A

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.

v.

KANSHI RAM & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 6308 of 2019)

B

AUGUST 14, 2019

[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND R. SUBHASH REDDY]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894: ss.4, 6 – Gram panchayat madea request to State for construction of road from Namhol toBahadurpur – For the purpose of construction of road, possessionCof land was taken in the year 1988 – Some of the owners of theland whose land was utilized for construction of road approachedHigh Court complaining that their land was utilized withoutacquisition of land in accordance with law – Pursuant thereto, State-appellant initiated land acquisition proceedings to acquire 18-15Dbighas of land situated in Tepra village – Land Acquisition Officercategorized the land into 5 categories and fixed Rs.61,666 per bigha– Reference Court fixed the compensation by awarding uniformrate at Rs.7 lakhs per bigha based on the sale deed dated24.11.2004 – Aggrieved, State filed appeals before High Court –Respondents preferred cross objections claiming interest from theEdate of taking possession to the date of publication of s.4(1)Notification – By the impugned judgment, High Court dismissed theappeals filed by the State and allowed the cross objections byawarding interest @ 15% p.a. on the market value of the land fixedby the Reference Court, from 1.1.1989 till the date of NotificationFissued under s.4(1) of the Act – State and claimants filed appealsrespectively – Held: Under the sale deed relied on, Ex.PW-1/A,only one biswa of land was sold by PW-2 to PW-3, for aconsideration of Rs.50,000/- – PW-2 is also a claimant in theseproceedings – When the total land admeasuring 18-15 bighas ofland was acquired, the Reference Court and the High CourtGcommitted error in accepting document in Ex.PW-1/A, as acomparable sale for the purpose of fixing market value of theacquired land at the rate of Rs.7 lakhs per bigha – As no otherdocumentary evidence is available on record and further in view of H

the allegation of the appellants that the sale deed in Ex.’RA’ dated04.05.2001 under which 4-51 bighas of land in adjoining villagewas sold in the year 2001, is not considered without assigning validreasons, State’s appeals remitted to reference court for considerationafresh – The additional interest awarded @ 15% P.A. from the dateof Notification is also set aside.

Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Compensation, determination of– Comparable sale – Large extent of land – Sale deed of smallchunk of land relied on – If no other comparable sales are availablein the same village, it is always open to the Reference Court toconsider sales in the adjoining villages during the relevant period– In the instant case, vendor in the sale deed relied on was theclaimant in the instant land acquisition proceedings also – Suchsale could not be considered as a comparable sale for the purposeof fixing the market value of large extent of land i.e. 18-15 bighas.

Allowing the State’s appeals and remitting the matter toReference Court, the Court

Conclusion

HELD : Under the sale deed relied on, Ex.PW-1/A, onlyone biswa of land was sold by PW-2 to PW-3, for a considerationof Rs.50,000/-. PW-2 is also a claimant in the land acquisitionproceedings in the impugned judgment. When the total landadmeasuring 18-15 bighas of land was acquired, the ReferenceCourt and the High Court committed error in accepting documentin Ex.PW-1/A, as a comparable sale for the purpose of fixing themarket value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.7.00 lakhs perbigha. As no other documentary evidence is available on recordand further in view of the allegation of the appellants that thesale deed in Ex.’RA’ dated 04.05.2001 under which 4-51 bighasof land in adjoining village was sold in the year 2001, is notconsidered without assigning valid reasons, these appeals filedby the State are to be allowed by remitting the matter for freshconsideration by the Reference/District Court. As much as PW-2is the vendor under Ex.PW-1/A, who is no other than one of theclaimants in the land acquisition proceedings, such sale couldnot have been considered as a comparable sale for the purposeof fixing the market value of large extent of land i.e. 18-15 bighas.If no other comparable sales are available in the same village, it A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ais always open to the Reference Court to consider sales in theadjoining villages during the relevant period. Even otherwise,there are other methods for fixing the compensation. Sucherroneous fixation of market value at the rate of Rs.7.00 lakhsper bigha as fixed by the Reference Court, ought not to havebeen approved by the High Court. As the appeals filed by theBState are allowed by this Court, the additional interest awardedat the rate of 15% per annum from the date of Notification is alsoset aside. It is open to the Reference Court to consider theclaim of the claimants for award of the additional interest fromthe date of taking possession to the date of issuance of SectionC4(1) Notification in accordance with law. [Paras 14, 15] [614-B-G;615-C-D]CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6308of 2019.

From the impugned Judgment and Order dated 31.07.2017 of theDHigh Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in RFA No.202 of 2011.

With

Civil Appeal Nos. 6309, 6310, 6311, 6312, 6313, 6314, 6315, 6316,6317, 6326, 6318, 6319, 6320, 6321, 6322, 6323, 6324, 6325, 6327-6328,6331, 6332, 6330, 6329, 6333, 6334 of 2019.EAbhinav Mukerji, AAG, Siddharth Garg, Mrs. Bihu Sharma, Ms.Purnima Krishna, B.S. Banthia, J.L. Bhardwaj, Rajesh Kandari, Advs.for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.F1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. All these Civil Appeals are filed, aggrieved by the judgmentdated 31.07.2017 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh atShimla in R.F.A.No.202 of 2011 and batch, as such they are heardGtogether and are disposed of by this common judgment.

4. There are two sets of appeals in this batch of civil appeals.One set of civil appeals is filed by the State and the other set of civilappeals is filed by the respondents-claimants of the land, for grant of H

additional interest of 15% per annum on the compensation awarded tothem. For the purpose of disposal we treat the Civil Appeal arising outof S.L.P.(Civil) No.29319 of 2018 as the lead matter.

5. The Gram Panchayat, Namhol made a request to the appellantsfor construction of the road from Namhol to Bahadurpur. In view of therequest made by the Gram Panchayat, the appellants have constructedthe road from the village Tepra, Sub Tehsil Namhol, District Bilaspur. Itis stated that for the above said purpose of construction of road, possessionof the land was taken in the year 1988.

6. When the possession of the land was taken for construction ofthe road, some of the owners of the land whose land was utilized forconstruction of road approached the High Court and filed writ petition inC.W.P.No.735 of 2004 complaining that their land was utilized for publicpurpose, without acquisition of land in accordance with law. Pursuant todirections issued by the High Court in the aforesaid writ petition, theappellants have initiated land acquisition proceedings, to acquire 18-15bighas of land situated at Tepra village. Notification under Section 4(1)of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) was published inthe Official Gazette on 30.7.2005. After completing the necessaryformalities the Land Acquisition Officer has passed a common Awarddated 08.05.2007 by assessing the market value of the acquired land onthe basis of classification of land as under:- Classification of landRate per Bigha1. Andrali AvalRs.61,666.002. Andrali DoemRs.51,666.003. Baharli AvalRs.41,666.004. Baharli DoemRs.20,000.005. Khariyater & BanjerRs.5,000.00

7. Not satisfied with the market rate fixed by the Land AcquisitionOfficer, respondents-claimants have sought reference under Section 18of the Act and their claims were referred to the District Court. TheReference Court on the basis of the material placed before it, enhancedthe compensation by fixing uniform rate of Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha, for A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aall categories of land, irrespective of classification, along with otherconsequential benefits as per the provisions of the Act.

8. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Reference Court fixingcompensation of Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha, the appellants have preferredR.F.A.No.202 of 2011 and batch questioning the fixing of the marketBvalue of the acquired land by uniform rate of Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha. Inthe appeals preferred by the State, the respondents have preferred crossobjections claiming interest from the date of taking possession to thedate of publication of Section 4(1) Notification. By the impugnedjudgment the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla by a commonjudgment dismissed the appeals filed by the State and allowed the crossCobjections by awarding interest @ 15% per annum on the market valueof the land fixed by the Reference Court, from 1.1.1989 till the date ofNotification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act i.e. 30.7.2005. Aggrievedby the judgment of the High Court, appellants have filed these appeals.The respondents-claimants also preferred appeals claiming interest byDway of damages @ 15% per annum on the total compensation payableto the respondents, not merely on the market value as awarded by theHigh Court.

9. We have heard Sri Abhinav Mukerji learned counselappearing for the appellants and Sri B.S. Banthia learned counselEappearing for the respondents.

10. In this batch of appeals, it is mainly contended by Sri AbhinavMukerji learned counsel appearing for the State of Himachal Pradesh,that though a large extent of 18-15 bighas of land was acquired for thepurpose of constructing the road, the Reference Court has fixedFcompensation @ Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha basing on the sale deed Ex.PW-1/A of small chunk i.e. 1 biswa of land and granted abnormal hike in themarket value of the acquired land. It is also brought to our notice thatthe Ex.PW-1/A dated 24.11.2004 is the land sold by PW-2 Garja Ram toPW-3 Kuldip for a consideration of Rs.50,000/- for one biswa of land.It is submitted that PW-2 Garja Ram is also one of the claimants in theGacquisition proceedings. It is submitted by the learned counsel that havingregard to total extent of 18-15 bighas of land which was under acquisition,the Reference Court should not have relied on Ex.PW-1/A for fixing thecompensation @ Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha. It is also submitted that though the appellants have produced a comparable sale under sale deed Ex.’RA’dated 04.05.2001 under which 4-51 bighas of land situated in villageDabar Paragana Bahadurpur Tehsil Sadar District Bilaspur was soldbut the same was not considered without assigning any valid reasons. Itis also submitted by the learned counsel that the High Court committedan error in awarding damages @ 15% per annum on the market valueof land, from the date of taking possession to the date of notification.

11. On the other hand it is submitted by Sri B.S. Banthia, learnedcounsel for the respondents that the lands of the respondents-claimantswho were all small farmers were taken possession in the year 1988 andthey are not paid the market value of their lands by the appellants. It issubmitted that in absence of any other comparable sale in the village, theReference Court and the High Court rightly considered the documentEx.PW-1/A and fixed the compensation for the acquired land @ Rs.7.00lakhs per bigha. It is further submitted that though the land under saledeed Ex.PW-1/A was sold at the rate of Rs.10.00 lakhs per bigha, butthe Reference Court after deducting 30% has fixed the market value ofthe acquired land at Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha. It is submitted that there isno merit in the appeals preferred by the State. Further it is also contendedby the learned counsel for the respondents that the possession of theland in question was taken as early as in the year 1988 and only afterdirections were issued in the writ petition in C.W.P.No.735 of 2004,Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 30.07.2005. Itis submitted that the High Court while awarding additional interest @15% per annum has committed error in awarding such interest only onthe market value of the land fixed by the Reference Court, instead oftotal compensation payable to the respondents-claimants.

12. At the outset it is to be noted that even according to the caseof the respondents-claimants possession of the land in question was takenin the year 1988 for constructing the road and only after directions wereissued in C.W.P.No.735 of 2004 Notification under Section 4(1) of theAct came to be issued on 30.07.2005. The Land Acquisition Officerafter collecting necessary material, has passed a common Award on thebasis of the classification of the land. The Land Acquisition Officer hascategorized the land into 5 categories of the land and fixed Rs.61,666.00for Andrali Aval, Rs.51,666.00 for Andrali Doem, Rs. 41,666.00 forBaharli Aval, Rs. 20,000.00 for Baharli Doem and Rs.5,000.00 forKhariyater & Banjer.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A13. Not satisfied by the Award passed by the Land AcquisitionOfficer, the respondents sought reference under Section 18 of the Actwhich was referred to the District Court. The Reference Court hasfixed the compensation by awarding uniform rate at Rs.7.00 lakhs perbigha based on the Ex.PW-1/A dated 24.11.2004.B14. At this stage it is to be seen that C.W.P.No.735 of 2004 musthave been filed in the first quarter of the year 2004 and Ex.PW-1/A isdated 24.11.2004. Under the sale deed Ex.PW-1/A only one biswa ofland was sold by PW-2 Garja Ram to PW-3 Kuldip, for a considerationof Rs.50,000/-. It is not in dispute that PW-2 Garja Ram is also aclaimant in the land acquisition proceedings in the impugned judgment.CWhen the total land admeasuring 18-15 bighas of land was acquired, theReference Court and the High Court committed error in acceptingdocument in Ex.PW-1/A, as a comparable sale for the purpose of fixingthe market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.7.00 lakhs perbigha. As no other documentary evidence is available on record andDfurther in view of the allegation of the appellants that the sale deed inEx.’RA’ dated 04.05.2001 under which 4-51 bighas of land in adjoiningvillage was sold in the year 2001, is not considered without assigningvalid reasons, we are of the view that these appeals filed by the Stateare to be allowed by remitting the matter for fresh consideration by theReference/District Court. As much as PW-2 is the vendor under Ex.PW-E1/A, who is no other than one of the claimants in the land acquisitionproceedings, such sale could not have been considered as a comparablesale for the purpose of fixing the market value of large extent of land i.e.18-15 bighas. We are of the view that the Reference Court has committederror in relying on such document for fixing the compensation at the rateFof Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha. If no other comparable sales are available inthe same village it is always open to the Reference Court to considersales in the adjoining villages during the relevant period. Even otherwisethere are other methods for fixing the compensation. Such erroneousfixation of market value at the rate of Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha as fixedby the Reference Court, ought not to have been approved by the HighGCourt. As such we are of the view that the appeals filed by the Statedeserve to be allowed, by remitting the cases to the Reference Court forfresh adjudication.

15. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons all the appeals filed bythe State are allowed by setting aside the common judgment dated31.07.2017 in R.F.A. No. 202 of 2011 and batch. Consequently theAward of the Reference Court fixing the compensation for the acquiredland at the rate of Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha, also stands set aside andmatters are remitted back for fresh consideration by the District Courtfor considering the references in accordance with law and to pass freshAward. As much as the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act wasissued on 30.7.2005, we direct the Reference Court to dispose ofreferences within a period of six months from date of this judgment. Wepermit both the sides to adduce further documentary and oral evidence,in support of their case. As the appeals filed by the State are allowed bythis Court, the additional interest awarded at the rate of 15% per annumfrom the date of Notification is also set aside. It is open to the ReferenceCourt to consider the claim of the claimants for award of the additionalinterest from the date of taking possession to the date of issuance ofSection 4(1) Notification in accordance with law. We do not wish toexpress any opinion on such claim, such claim is to be consideredindependently in accordance with law.

16. As much as the appeals filed by the State are allowed, thebatch of civil appeals filed by the respondents-claimants are dismissedwith no order as to costs. It is made clear that the compensation whichis already paid to the claimants, will be subject to further orders to bepassed by the Reference Court.

Devika Gujral