C.R. Nagaraja Shetty Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Estate Officer - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
(a) land acquisition act, 1894 - sections 4, 6-reference court whether justified in calculating the compensation payable on square feed basis - held - following the apex court's judgment in v.t. velu's case jt 1996(2) sc 37, it is held that the reference court was not justified in determining the compensation on square feet basis. ; (b) land acquisition act, 1894 - sections 4, 6-enhancement of compensation by reference court in absence of documentary evidence - whether justified-fixation of market value- reliance on some judgments by claimant-validity of same/ judgments in land acquisition cases whether can be used as a good piece of evidence for determination of market value of lands acquired. - held - the claimant has not adduced any evidence to show that the acquired land was similar to the land in question covered by the judgment and award relied on by him. if such judgments are accepted as basis for enhancing compensation for acquired land without such evidence on record, it would result in arbitrary fixation of the market value of the acquired land. what should be fair and reasonable market value is always a question of fact depending upon the evidence, circumstantial evidence and probabilities arising in each case. it is now settled law that though determination involved some guess work, it must have a reasonable basis and feats of imagination should be eschewed. it is the duty of the court to award reasonable and adequate compensation. for assessing the market value, the court can rely upon such transaction, which would offer as reasonable basis to fix the price. the price paid for sale or purchase of land proximate to the date of preliminary notification under section 4(1) of the act could be the best piece of evidence. similarly, the judgments of courts in land acquisition cases and awards passed by the land acquisition officer can be relied on as a good piece of evidence for determination of market value of lands acquired. in the absence of any satisfactory, reasonable oral and documents evidence, reference court could not have enhance the compensation that was awarded by the special land acquisition officer. ;appeal rejected. - code of criminal procedure, 1973 [c.a. no. 2/1974]. sections 386 & 378: [v. jagannathan, j] appeal against acquittal - appellate court has got power to re-appreciate and reweigh evidence and come to its own conclusion. indian evidence act,1872[c.a.no.1/1872]-- section 3: [v. jagannathan, j] appreciation of evidence - hostile witness held, his evidence cannot be ignored in totality. where the hostile witness is not supporting prosecution case in certain minor aspects which has no bearing on prosecution case, said portion of evidence can be rejected. part of evidence which supports prosecution case will have to be accepted. - p3 for enhancing the compensation awarded by the special land acquisition officer and further submits that since the claimant had not adduced any reliable evidence for enhancement of the compensation, the reference court ought to have rejected the claim petition filed by the claimant. it is now well settled by series of judgments of this court that determination of the compensation on square feet basis is a wrong principle of law, particularly when large extents of land are sought to be acquired for a public purpose. proceeding further, the court has stated that it is not the function of the court to sit in appeal against the award, approve or disapprove its reasoning or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the land aquisition officer as if it were an appellate court. the price paid for sale or purchase of land proximate to the date of preliminary notification under section 4(1) of the act could be the best piece of evidence. similarly, the judgments of courts in land acquisition cases and awards passed by the land acquisition officer can be relied on as a good piece of evidence for determination of market value of lands acquired. union of india air1997sc3889 was pleased to observe the judgments of courts in land acquisition cases and awards given by the land acquisition officers can be relied upon as a good piece of evidence for determination of market value of land acquired under certain circumstances. 5 and 6. for the reasons best known, the claimant had not produced those sale deeds of sy. for the reasons again best known to the claimant, even that document was not produced before the reference court. in our opinion, the claimant had utterly failed to prove his claim and inspite of the same, the reference court had enhanced the compensation from rs.h.l. dattu, j. 1. by initiating proceedings under the provisions of the karnataka land acquisition act ('act' for short), the acquiring authority has acquired 35 guntas of land in sy. no. 4 situate at beratena agrahara village, begur hobli, for the purpose of widening the national highway-7 ('nh-71 for short). the preliminary notification under section 4(1) of the act in this regard was issued on 29.11.1990 and a final notification under section 6(1) of the act was issued on 27.5.1992 and possession of the notified land had been taken on 13.5.1992.2. the land acquisition officer had awarded a compensation for the acquired lands at rs. 10/- per square feet by his award dated 9.2.1994. on reference, the reference court has enhanced the compensation from rs. 10/- per square feet to rs. 27.50 per square feet, placing reliance on ex. p3- the judgment and award passed in lac no. 18/1991. insofar as the compensation claimed for the coconut trees and barbed wire fencing, the reference court has confirmed the compensation awarded by the special land acquisition officer. the claimant, being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the reference court, is before this court in the present appeal, inter alia, requesting this court to enhance the compensation from rs. 27.50 per square feet to rs. 100/- per square feet for the acquired land, and to award compensation at rs. 4,55,000/- towards to the value of the coconut trees and rs. 12,850/- towards the cost of fencing the area with barbed wire.3. the special land acquisition officer while passing the award had relied on the sales statistics of lands, which he had secured from the sub-registrar's office for a period of three years prior to the date of preliminary notification which could be compared with the lands acquired and had come to the conclusion that the reasonable compensation payable to the acquired land is rs. 10/- per square feet. in his award, he also notices the sales made in sy. nos. 5 and 6, the information, which he had collected, from the sub-registrar's office.4. before the reference court, the claimed-sri nagaraja shetty had examined himself as p. w. 1. it has come in his evidence, that, when he purchased the acquired land in the year 1972, it was already a converted land and the lands are at a distance of 15 kms. from bangalore bus stand and it is abutting the national highway. though in his evidence, he states that in and around the acquired lands, the lands are being used for industrial purpose, he has not produced any evidence in this regard. in his evidence, he had marked ex. p 1 -area sketch, ex. p2-judgment and award passed by the reference court in lac.no. 10/1996 with regard to the lands acquired in yeradanahalli village, anekal taluk, ex. p3-judgment and award passed by the reference court in lac.no. 18/1991 with regard to the lands acquired in giddenahalli village, attibele taluk and ex. p4-certified copy of the sale deed of a site sold on 10.4.1991 in chandapura village, anekal taluk.5. sri. prasanna kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the reference court in lac no. 18/1991-ex. p3, which is a judgment and award passed in the case of an agricultural land, which is situated at a distance of 30 kilometers from bangalore city and 10 to 15 kilometers away from the acquired land, had awarded compensation of rs. 30,000/- per guntas and therefore, for the acquired land, which is nearer to bangalore city, the reference court should have awarded higher compensation and since that is not done, this court should modify the judgment and award passed by the reference court by determining the compensation payable to the acquired land at rs. 100/- per square feet and rs. 4,55,000/- for the trees and rs. 12,850/- towardsthe barbed fencing.6. sri narayanappa, learned additional government advocate appearing for the special land acquisition officer would submit that the reference court was not justified in placing reliance on ex. p3 for enhancing the compensation awarded by the special land acquisition officer and further submits that since the claimant had not adduced any reliable evidence for enhancement of the compensation, the reference court ought to have rejected the claim petition filed by the claimant.7. the issues that would arise for our consideration and decision in this appeal are:i. whether the reference court was justified in enhancing the compensation from rs.10/- per square feet to rs. 27.50 per square feet for the acquired land?ii. whether the reference court, in the absence of any documentary evidence in respect of the claim, could have enhanced the compensation that was awarded by the special land acquisition officer?iii. whether the reference court was justified in calculating the compensation payable on square feet basis?iv. what order?8. we will take up issue no. 3 first. the supreme court, in the case of the special land acquisition officer, bangalore v. v.t. velu and ors. : [1996]1scr566 has observed as under:determination of market value on square feet basis would be arbitrary and is an irrational principle of law. it is now well settled by series of judgments of this court that determination of the compensation on square feet basis is a wrong principle of law, particularly when large extents of land are sought to be acquired for a public purpose. therefore, the high court has proceeded on a wrong premises to determine the compensation on the basis of square feet. 9. this judgment was rendered by the apex court on 16.1.1996. inspite of declaration of law by the apex court in v.t. velu's case : [1996]1scr566 the reference court, in the present case, has awarded compensation on square feet basis. therefore, on issue no. 3, it requires to be observed that the reference court was not justified in determining the compensation payable to 35 guntas of lands acquired under the preliminary notification dated 29.11.1990, on square feet basis.10. regarding issue nos. 1 and 2 : the supreme court in the case of chimanlal v. special land acquisition officer : air1988sc1652 has observed that, determination of the market value of the land acquired must be determined as on crucial date of issuance and publication of the preliminary notification under section 4(1) of the act. the court has further stated that a reference under section 18 of the act is not an appeal against the award and the court cannot take into account the material relied on by the land acquisition officer in his award unless the same material is produced and proved before the court. further, the court has observed that the award passed by the land acquisition officer need not be treated as a judgment of the trial court open or exposed to hear reference. it is merely an offer made by the land acquisition officer and the material utilised by him for making his offer cannot be utilised by the reference court unless produced and proved before it. proceeding further, the court has stated that it is not the function of the court to sit in appeal against the award, approve or disapprove its reasoning or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the land aquisition officer as if it were an appellate court.the observations made by the apex court in the aforesaid decision is, that the reference court has to treat the reference as original proceedings before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it.11. in the present case, before the reference court, the claimant while claiming enhancement of compensation, apart from his oral evidence, had produced exs. p1 to p4. as we have already noticed, ex. p1 is an area sketch prepared by the claimant himself. the said exhibit only indicates the portion of the land acquired in sy. no. 4 of beratena agrahara village, begur hobli. apart from this, it does not indicate that the acquired land is surrounded by the industries and other developed areas. for the purpose of determination of compensation payable for the land/lands acquired, mere production of the map would not by itself be sufficient to evaluate the market value of the lands. that apart, oral evidence adduced by the claimant is the self-serving statement not backed up by any material documentary evidence. therefore, it cannot be said that the claimant has sufficiently proved that the acquired land has high potential for being used as urban land.ex. p2 is the judgment and award passed by the reference court in lac. no. 10/1996. the reference court, while dealing with this document, has observed that the judgment and award passed in ex. p2 has been set aside by a superior forum and the matter has been remanded to the reference court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. therefore, rightly, the reference court has not placed any reliance on ex. p2.ex. p4 is the certified copy of a sale deed. the site that was sold under the aforesaid exhibit measures 30x40 feet. the land is situated at chandapura village, anekal taluk, and in no way it is nearer to the acquired land. therefore, in our opinion, rightly the reference court has not placed any reliance on ex. p4, which is a site situated in altogether a different village and the said site, by no stretch of imagination, could be compared with the acquired land in sy. no. 4 of beratena agrahara village.12. then we come to ex. p3, ex. p3 is the judgment and award passed in lac. no. 18/1991. in the said exhibit, the reference court had awarded the compensation at rs. 30,000/- per guntas for the acquired lands. in the said land acquisition case, the acquired lands are agricultural lands situated at giddenahalli village, attibele taluk and were acquired for the purpose of widening the national highway. the claimant has not adduced any evidence to show that the acquired land was similar to the land in question covered by the judgment and award relied on by him. if such judgments are accepted as basis for enhancing compensation for acquired land without such evidence on record, it would result in arbitrary fixation of the market value of the acquired land. what should be fair and reasonable market value is always a question of fact depending upon the evidence, circumstantial evidence and probabilities arising in each case. it is now settled law that though determination involves some guess work, it must have a reasonable basis and feats of imagination should be eschewed. it is the duty of the court to award reasonable and adequate compensation. for assessing the market value, the court can rely upon such transaction, which would offer as reasonable basis to fix the price. the price paid for sale or purchase of land proximate to the date of preliminary notification under section 4(1) of the act could be the best piece of evidence. similarly, the judgments of courts in land acquisition cases and awards passed by the land acquisition officer can be relied on as a good piece of evidence for determination of market value of lands acquired. the apex court while explaining this concept in the case of karan singh and ors. v. union of india : air1997sc3889 was pleased to observe.the judgments of courts in land acquisition cases and awards given by the land acquisition officers can be relied upon as a good piece of evidence for determination of market value of land acquired under certain circumstances. one of the circumstances being that such an award or judgment of the court of law must be a previous judgment. it is only the previous judgment of a court or an award which can be made the basis for assessment of market value of the acquired land subject to the party relying on such judgment to adduce evidence for showing that due regard being given to all the attendant facts it could form the basis for fixing the market value of the acquired land. 13. the aforesaid view of the apex court is reiterated in the recent decision by the apex court in the case of ranvir singh and anr. v. union of india : air2005sc3467 the court has observed:furthermore, a judgment or award determining the amount of compensation is not conclusive. the same would be merely piece of evidence. there cannot be any fixed criteria for determining the increase in the value of land at a fixed rate. 14. in the present case, the claimant has not adduced any evidence to show that his acquired land was similar to the land covered by the judgment in ex. p3. infact, it was his contention that if the reference court has awarded a higher rate c f compensation to a land which is at a distance of 30 km. from vidhar & soudha of bangalore city, it should have awarded more compensation to a land, which is nearer to bangalore city. in the alternative, it can be said that the claimant was not relying on ex. p3 for awarding compensation for the lands acquired, but was contending that he should get more than what was awarded by the reference court under ex. p3. therefore, in our opinion, the reference court was not justified in relying on the judgment and award passed by the reference court on which the claimant himself did not rely on for awarding an enhanced compensation, but had used it only as a 'document of comparison' for seeking higher rate of compensation for the acquired lands.15. the reference court relying on ex. p3 has awarded the compensation to the claimant before us on square feet basis. in our opinion, firstly, the reference court could not have compared a land, which is situated at a distance of about 30 kilometers from the acquired land. nowhere in its judgment, the reference court has stated how the acquired land and the lands acquired under ex. p3 can be compared. secondly, merely because the land has been acquired for the purpose of widening of the national highway, the reference court could not have placed reliance on ex. p3 and could have awarded compensation to the claimant.16. as we have already stated, it is for the claimant to prove his claim before the reference court with the sufficient oral and documentary evidence. in the present case, except examining himself as pw. 1 and producing ex. p 1 to ex. p4, the claimant has not produced any other material before the reference court while claiming the enhancement of the compensation awarded by the special land acquisition officer. in the award passed, the special land acquisition officer has made a reference with regard to the lands sold in sy. nos. 5 and 6. for the reasons best known, the claimant had not produced those sale deeds of sy. nos. 5 and 6, which are the adjacent lands of the acquired land, for the purpose of determination of the claim made in the reference petition. further, in the evidence, it has come on record that the claimant had purchased the land in the year 1972. on that day, it was a converted land and was having potential. the sale deed that was executed by his vendor could have been one of the documents on which reliance could have been placed by the claimant for claiming the enhanced compensation. for the reasons again best known to the claimant, even that document was not produced before the reference court.17. in our opinion, in the absence of any satisfactory, reasonable oral and documentary evidence, the reference court could not have enhanced the compensation that was awarded by the special land acquisition officer. in our opinion, the claimant had utterly failed to prove his claim and inspite of the same, the reference court had enhanced the compensation from rs. 10/- per square feet to rs. 27.50 per square feet and further, the basis adopted for enhancing the compensation is contrary to the settled legal principles. in that view of the matter, the appeal filed by the claimant for enhancement fails and the same requires to be rejected.18. in the result, the following:orderi. the appeal filed by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation is rejected with no order as to costs.ii. the judgment and award passed by the reference court in lac. no. 43/1995 dated 7.11.2000 is set aside. ordered accordingly.