(1) The State of Bihar being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 14.06.2004 passed by Land Acquisition Judge, Banka in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.21 of 1988 filed this First Appeal. By the impugned judgment and award, the learned Land Acquisition Judge has fixed the market value of the land acquired at Rs.250 per decimal and thereby enhanced the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The learned Court below also awarded Rs.10,000 for damages of standing crops besides the Statutory benefits.
(2) The claimant-respondent's land measuring 3 acre 54 decimal was acquired by the State of Bihar for the purpose of "Orni Reservoir" in Land Acquisition Case No.76 of 1981-82. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 16.09.1983. The Collector made the award on 16.10.1984 for Rs.6513.60. The claimant- respondent filed application under Section 18 claiming enhanced rate of compensation which was referred by the Collector to the Special Land Acquisition Judge.
(3) According to the claimant's case, the land of the claimant was three-Fasla i.e. three crops were grown in each year. At the time of acquisition of the land, the market value of the land was Rs.50,000-60,000 per acre. Because of acquisition, the standing crops were damaged causing loss to the extent of Rs.10,000 but no compensation was given for the said crops. The wheat, sugarcane and potato crops were being cultivated in each year and the earning of the claimant per year was about Rs.10,000-12,000 from the lands acquired. The Collector arbitrarily fixed the compensation at Rs.6513.60. The land was being irrigated throughout the year from the water of Orni River. On these allegations, the claimant-respondent claimed for enhancement of the compensation.
(4) The State of Bihar no doubt has not filed any reply to the said application but has adduced evidences and also produced documents.
(5) After considering the evidences available on record, the learned Court below relying upon Exhibit 1 and 1/b, the two sale deeds and the oral evidences of the claimant-respondent regarding damage of crops to the extent of Rs.10,000, fixed the market value of the land at Rs.250 per decimal and also awarded Rs.10,000 as the value of the crops damaged.
(6) Mr. Arora, the learned S.C. VI appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment and award are unsustainable in the eye of law. The learned counsel submitted that all the witnesses examined on behalf of the claimant-respondent have only stated two things in their evidence to the effect that firstly, at the time of acquisition of the land, the market value was Rs.50,000-60,000 per acre and secondly, because of acquisition, the crops standing were damaged causing loss of Rs.10,000-12,000. From bare reading of the evidences of the witnesses, it appears that they are tutored witnesses and moreover, in the matter of determining the market value of the land, oral evidences do not play much importance. The learned counsel further submitted that it is well known that for getting enhancement, the witnesses deposed and make exaggerated statements but their deposition should not be accepted blindly without considering the circumstances and other materials available on record. The learned counsel further submitted that merely because the land of the claimant has been acquired, the Court should not give any sympathy to him. According to the learned counsel, it is the duty of the Court to closely scrutinize the evidence, apply the test of a prudent and willing purchaser i.e. whether he would be willing to purchase in open and normal market conditions of the acquired land and then to determine the just and adequate compensation. The learned counsel further submitted that in the present case, the learned Court below has wrongly determined the market value of the lands acquired on the basis of Exhibit-1 and 1/b by which smaller pieces of land were sold whereas a large chunk of land i.e. more than 3 1/2 acres has been acquired and the purpose for acquisition is to construct a Water Reservoir. The learned counsel further submitted that the nature of the lands acquired were never similar to that of the land covered by Exhibit-1 and 1/b. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no reliable evidence regarding damage of crops and therefore, the learned Court below could not have enhanced the compensation. On these grounds, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award are liable to be set aside.
(7) On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the learned Court below has rightly relied upon Exhibit-1 and 1/b which are sale deeds of the year 1980 and therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and award. Moreover, the lands of the same village were sold by the above two sale deeds. The witnesses examined on behalf of the claimant have all stated that the market value of the land was about Rs.50,000-60,000 per acre and the value of the crops damaged was Rs.10,000-12,000. On these grounds, the learned counsel submitted that the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
(8) In view of the above rival contentions of the parties, the only point arises for consideration in this appeal is as to "whether the learned Land Acquisition Judge has properly following the settled principles of law determined the market value of the lands acquired and enhanced the compensation" or "whether the compensation awarded by the Collector is just and adequate" and "whether the impugned judgment and award are sustainable in the eye of law?"
(9) In this case, both the parties have adduced evidences. The claimant has examined witnesses. Out of them, A.W.6 is the claimant himself. He has stated that his 3.54 acres lands have been acquired. The land was three-Fasla and it was irrigated from the water of Orni River. In the year of acquisition, potato, wheat and sugarcane crops were standing which were damaged causing loss to the extent of Rs.10,000-20,000. At the time of acquisition of the land, the market value was Rs.50,000-60,000 per acre.
(10) A.W.7 is a formal witness. He has proved the three sale deeds which have been marked Exhibit-1, 1/a and 1/b. The other witnesses examined on behalf of the claimant i.e. A.W.1 to A.W.5 have stated that the land of the claimant was three-Fasla and each year from the land, the income of the claimant was Rs.10,000-12,000 from the crops and at the time of acquisition of the land, the value was about Rs.50,000-60,000 per acre. Because of acquisition, the standing crops were damaged causing loss to the extent of Rs.10,000-12,000.
(11) So far the oral evidences are concerned, as discussed above, the case of the claimant is that his land was three-Fasla which means that three crops are being grown one after the other. The witnesses have stated that potato, wheat and sugarcane crops were being cultivated in the acquired land. According to the witnesses, per year the claimant was earning Rs.10,000-12,000 from these three crops. Now, if this is believed, then the claimant's case that because of acquisition, the standing crops were damaged causing loss to the extent of Rs.10,000-12,000 is belied because the claimant himself and the other witnesses have stated that when the acquisition was made wheat, potato and sugarcane crops were standing. If land was three- Fasla, how the three crops were cultivated together. It is well known that on the land where sugarcane is grown, no other crops will be cultivated in that land in that year. There is no evidence as to when the possession of the land was taken by the State of Bihar. There is no evidence as to what was the extent of cultivation of which crop. The witnesses including the claimant have made a general statement that wheat, potato and sugarcane crops were damaged.
(12) On the other hand, the State has examined O.P.W.1, Ratneshwar Prasad Singh who has clearly stated that at the time of acquisition of the land on the land neither there was any crop nor any tree nor therefore, when it was measured, it was not mentioned.
(13) From the above discussion of the evidences, it appears that the statements of the witnesses regarding the value of the damaged crops are concerned, it is not reliable. The witnesses have made exaggerated general statements. While assessing compensation, this type of exaggerated statements cannot be relied upon.
(14) So far the market value of the lands acquired is concerned, as stated above; the witnesses have made the same type of exaggerated statements. No sale instances have been produced either by the claimant himself or by the other witnesses by which it can be said that the value of the land was about Rs.50,000-60,000 per acre at the time of acquisition. The market value has a definite concept and it cannot be evaluated without any foundation and basis. No doubt, in assessing market value, some guess work is to be done but mere exaggerated statements cannot be relied upon. It appears that the learned Court below has also rightly not relied upon the oral evidences.
(15) The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that even if the oral evidence is not relied upon, then also, the sale deeds, Exhibit 1 and 1/b which are most important documents indicate clearly the prevalent market rate of the land at the time of acquisition and therefore, the learned Court below has rightly relied upon these two sale deeds and fixed the market value. Now let us consider these two sale deeds. It may be mentioned here that the claimant produced three sale deeds. Out of the three sale deeds, Exhibit-1/a has been discarded because of the fact that the lands involved in the sale deed are far away from acquired land and of different village. So far Exhibit-1 is concerned, it is a sale deed dated 25.11.1980 whereby 25 decimals of land was sold for Rs.7,000. On calculation, the value of 1 decimal land comes to Rs.280. So far Exhibit-1/b is concerned, it is dated 16.10.1975 whereby 6 1/2 decimal land was sold for Rs.1500. On calculation, it comes to Rs.244 per decimal. From perusal of these sale deeds, it appears that those lands are not agricultural land because in the boundary either road or Masjid is situated, therefore, it appears that those lands are homestead land. In such circumstances, the lands acquired could not have been compared with the sale deeds whereby the homestead lands were sold. Moreover, the sale deeds show different rates of the land which were homestead lands and therefore, it cannot be said that these sale deeds indicate the true picture of the prevalent market value of the land. It is not believable that a person who purchased the smaller piece of homestead land will purchase at that rate the large chunk of lands i.e. in this case, 3.54 acres. In other words, no prudent purchaser would offer the same price while purchasing large area of land and moreover, no prudent man would have credulity to purchase the land on decimal basis. Further, the purpose for which it was acquired was Water Reservoir. The purpose itself shows that the land was low land and therefore, in no stretch of imagination, the nature or value of this land can be compared with the nature and value of the land covered under Exhibit-1 and 1/b. In the present case, admittedly, therefore, there is no instance of sale of comparable land. Therefore, these sale deeds in respect of smaller extent of land could be taken note of for determining the market value by making appropriate deductions on two accounts i.e. firstly, on account of the fact that the lands in sale deeds are smaller pieces and secondly, the lands appear to be homestead lands. I, therefore, considering these two sale deeds which are in respect of smaller extent of homestead land find that these two sale deeds indicate the price that the lands acquired might have fetched Rs.10,000 per acre.
(16) In view of my above discussion, I find that the compensation paid by the Land Acquisition Officer is very low. While determining the market value of the lands acquired, the learned Land Acquisition Judge has not taken into account the nature of the land involved in the two sale deeds and also has not taken into account that by these sale deeds small piece of lands were sold and also did not consider that for the purpose of the Water Reservoir, lands have been acquired and as stated above, determined the market value purely basing the two sale deeds. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award are unsustainable in the eye of law. It is held that the prevalent market value of the lands acquired was only Rs.10,000 per acre at the time of acquisition of the land and therefore, I find that the applicant-respondent was entitled for the compensation at this rate. The claimant-respondent is also entitled for the other statutory benefits on this amount. So far the award of compensation regarding damage of crops is concerned, it is hereby set aside.
(17) In the result, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned judgment and award are modified to the extent indicated above.