1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :JUDGMENT
: (1) S.B.CIVIL MISC.
APPEAL NO.390/2006 The State of Rajasthan & Anr.
versus Bhimraj (2) S.B.CIVIL MISC.
APPEAL NO.1571/2005 The State of Rajasthan versus Smt.
Gyan Devi (3) S.B.CIVIL MISC.
APPEAL NO.1572/2005 The State of Rajasthan & ORS.versus Shri Hukmichand (4) S.B.CIVIL MISC.
APPEAL NO.1574/2005 The State of Rajasthan & ORS.versus Shri Vishalraj (5) S.B.CIVIL MISC.
APPEAL NO.1575/2005 The State of Rajasthan & ORS.versus Shri Khusal Raj (6) S.B.CIVIL MISC.
APPEAL NO.1576/2005 The State of Rajasthan versus Shri Ganpat Singh (7) S.B.CIVIL MISC.
APPEAL NO.80/2006 The State of Rajasthan versus Smt.
Shashi (8) S.B.CIVIL MISC.
APPEAL NO.81/2006 The State of Rajasthan versus Shri Mohan Singh (9) S.B.CIVIL MISC.
APPEAL NO.82/2006 The State of Rajasthan versus Shri Dhanraj (10) S.B.CIVIL MISC.
APPEAL NO.83/2006 The State of Rajasthan versus Shri Padamchand 2 (11) S.B.CIVIL MISC.
APPEAL NO.391/2006 The State of Rajasthan versus Kamlesh Kumar & Anr.
Date of Judgment :: 30th October, 2013 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.Mukul Singhvi, for the appellants.
Mr.N.K.Vyas ) Mr.S.G.Ojha ) Mr.N.A.Rajpurohit ) Mr.Manish Tak for ) Mr.Rakesh Arora ) for the respondents.
---- BY THE COURT: These appeals have been filed by the State of Rajasthan ('the State') under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act') aggrieved by judgments dated 28.05.2005, 18.08.2005 and 20.12.2005 passed by the District Judge, Pali; whereby, the references made to it under Section 18 of the Act were accepted and the compensation for land acquired was enhanced.
The award dated 14.08.1997 was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer ('the LAO') in all the cases for the land acquired for construction of Pali Bypass Road on National Highway No.14 from Sojat Road to Sumerpur Road near Pali.
The LAO by his award determined the market value of the land as on the date of publication of the Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act based on the DLC rates, which were indicated by 3 the Sub Registrar, Pali as under:- कम क गम क नम स च त भसम अस च त आब द प०ब०ग० भसम (दर पतत ब घ ) 1 पल क द तय 12,100/- 6,050/- --- 2 म नप!र 18,150/- 9,675/- 200/-प०व०ग० 3 मण$ल ख!द& 18,150/- 9,650/- 250/- The LAO determined the amount of compensation taking into consideration the various factors as indicated in Section 23 of the Act and interest under Section 34 of the Act.
Aggrieved against the determination of compensation by the LAO, the land owners/claimants filed applications seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act and the LAO referred the matters to the District Judge, Pali.
The land owners/claimants raised claims on various grounds seeking enhancement of compensation determined by the LAO.
It was claimed that the LAO merely relying on the DLC rates determined the compensation without considering the actual market rate of the land in question; measurement of the land acquired was also questioned; non-determination of compensation for certain aspects within Section 23 of the Act like effect of acquisition on the remaining land etc.were also questioned.
It was also submitted that in view of the fact that the land was situated close to the Highway, the fact whether the land was irrigated or non-irrigated looses significance.
On behalf of the land owners/claimants evidence was led and several sale deeds were produced as basis for claiming compensation as on the date of Notification under Section 4(1) 4 of the Act.
On behalf of the State also evidence was led and only the DLC rates for the relevant period were got exhibited.
The District Judge, Pali after hearing the parties and based on the evidence led by the parties including registered sale deeds, came to the conclusion that determination of market value of the land based on DLC rates ignoring the actual market rate was not justified.
The learned Judge also noticed that in the award itself the LAO has noticed that subsequent to the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, in the DLC rates, which were published immediately after publication of Notification, the rates indicated were quite high compared to the DLC rates applicable at the time of publication of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, which shows that DLC rates relied on by the LAO as on the date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act were quite old and stale.
The DLC rates noticed by the LAO immediately after publication of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act were as under:- क- गम क नम स च त भसम अस च त अस च त आब द आब द क ' $क प दर - प.
ब.
ग.
क' प (पतत ब घ दर) 1 पल क द तय 20000/- - 15000/- 2 म नप!र 30000/- 24500/- 21500/- 200/- 23500/- 3 मण$ल ख!द& 70000/- 23000/- 20000/- 250/- 20000/- 5 Consequently, the learned Judge determined the market value of the land acquired as under:- Appeal No.Amount Awarded LAO District Judge 390/2006 15,000/- bigha 70,000/- bigha 1571/2005 12,150/- bigha 30,000/- bigha 1572/2005 12,100/- bigha 20,000/- bigha 1574/2005 12,100/- bigha 20,000/- bigha 1575/2005 12,100/- bigha 20,000/- bigha 1576/2005 18,150/- bigha 70,000/- bigha 80/2006 200/- sq.
yard/Agri 300/-/100/- sq.yard 82/2006 200/- sq.
yard/Agri 300/-/100/- sq.yard 83/2006 200/- sq.
yard/Agri 300/-/100/- sq.yard 81/2006 18,150/- bigha 70,000/- bigha 391/2006 6,050/- bigha 70,000/- bigha The learned Judge also determined the issues relating to the area of the land acquired and several ancillary issues raised by each land owner, relating to factors indicated under Section 23 of the Act and determined them based on the evidence available on record.
It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant – State that determination of market value of the acquired land based on DLC rates was proper and the District Judge was not justified in redetermining the market rate of the land in question beyond the DLC rates.
It was also submitted that the sale deeds, which were produced by the land owners/claimants before the District Judge, Pali were not produced before the LAO and were produced for the fiRs.time before the District Judge, Pali and the land owners/claimants were not entitled to raise issues, which were not raised before the LAO and, consequently, the judgment and award passed by 6 the reference Court deserves to be set aside and the award passed by the LAO deserves to be restored.
No submissions on the factual aspects and/or merits of the award were otherwise advanced by counsel for the appellants.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the land owners/claimants supported the impugned judgments passed by the District Judge, Pali and submitted that the same do not call for any interference as the same are based on relevant and admissible evidence.
I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
The jurisdiction under Section 18 of the reference Court and the parameteRs.within which, it is expected to deal with the reference has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddas v.
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona & Anr.
: AIR1988SC1652 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down as under:- “4.(1) A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the Court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his Award unless the same material is produced and proved before the Court.
(2) So also the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer is not to be treated as a judgment of the trial Court open or exposed to challenge before the court hearing the Reference.
It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the material utilised by him for making his valuation cannot be utilised by the Court unless produced and proved before it.
It is not the function of the court to suit in appeal against the Award, approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reveRs.the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition Officer, as if it were an appellate Court.
(3) The Court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh 7 on the basis of the material produced before it.
(4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the Court.
Of couRs.the materials placed and proved by the other side can also be taken into account for this purpose.”
.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jawajee Nagnatham v.
Revenue Divisional Officer : 1994 (4) SCC595and several cases following it, including Land Acquisition Officer, Eluru v.
Jasti Rohini : 1995 (1) SCC717 U.P.Jal Nigam, Lucknow through its Chairman v.
Kalra Properties (P) LTD.Lucknow : 1996 (3) SCC124and Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan v.
Bipin Kumar : 2004 (2) SCC283held that market value under Section 23 of the LA Act cannot be fixed on the basis of the rates mentioned in the Basic Valuation Registers maintained for the purpose of detection of undervaluation and collection of proper stamp duty.
From the above law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chimanlal Hargovinddas (supra) and Jawajee Nagnatham (supra) and several other judgments, it is well settled that the proceedings before the reference Courts are original proceedings and are not appeal from the award of the LAO, therefore, it cannot be said that only the material placed before the LAO can be taken into consideration by the reference Courts.
Similarly, the DLC rates cannot form the sole basis for determination of the market value and the same is required to be determined by the reference Court based on the evidence available before it.
As such, both the issues raised by learned counsel for the appellants are no more res integra in view of the 8 settled position of law as noticed and, therefore, the same are rejected.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Trishala Jain & Anr.v.State of Uttaranchal & Anr.
: (2011) 6 SCC47held and observed as under:- “63.
Under the Act, as settled by various judgments of this Court, there are different methods of computation of compensation payable to the claimants, for example it can be based upon comparable sale instances, awards and judgments relating to the similar or comparable lands, methods of averages, yearly yields with reference to the revenue earned by the land, etc.Whatever method of determining the compensation is applied by the court, its result should always be reasonable, just and fair as that is the purpose sought to be achieved under the scheme of the Act.
For attaining that purpose, application of some guesswork may be necessary but this principle would have hardly any application in a case of no evidence.
In other words, where the parties have not brought on record any evidence, then the court will not be in a position to award compensation merely on the basis of imagination, conjecture, etc.64.
These precedents clearly demonstrate that the court may apply some guesswork before it could arrive at a final determination, which is in consonance with the statutory law as well as the principles stated in the judicial pronouncements.
As already noticed, the guesswork has to be used for determination of compensation with greater element of caution and the principle of guesstimation will have no application to the case of “no evidence.”
.
This principle is only intended to bridge the gap between the calculated compensation and the actual compensation that the claimants may be entitled to receive as per the facts of a given case to meet the ends of justice.
65.
It will be appropriate for us to state certain principles controlling the application of “guesstimate”.: (a) Wherever the evidence produced by the parties is not sufficient to determine the compensation with exactitude, this principle can be restored to.
(b) Discretion of the court in applying guesswork to the facts of a given case is not unfettered but has to be reasonable and should have a connection to the data on record produced by the parties by way of evidence.
Further, this entire exercise has to be within the limitations specified under Sections 23 and 24 of the Act and cannot be made in detriment thereto.
66.
Applying these principles to the facts of the present case, we have to take recouRs.to the “principle of 9 guesstimation”.
inasmuch as it is essential for fixation of fair market value of the land which shall be the basis for determining the compensation payable to the claimants.”
.
From the above record and the evidence led by the parties, it is apparent that the reference Court has determined the market value of the acquired land based on contemporary documents (sale deeds) and the same appears to be fair and reasonable estimation on the basis of material available on record and the same does not require any interference by this Court.
Accordingly, the judgments impugned passed by the District Judge, Pali enhancing the amount of compensation deserve to be upheld, there is no substance in the appeals and the same are, therefore, dismissed.
No costs.
(ARUN BHANSALI).J.
A.K.Chouhan/-