Mr. Inderraj and Others Vs. Union of India and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
property - land acquisition compensation - court will not interfere for reducing compensation amount where higher amount already received by claimant. - orderkhan, (j)1. appellants land measuring 10 bighas and odd was acquired in village shakarpur pursuant to section 4 notification dated 24.10.61. collector categorised the land of this village in different categories and placed the appellant's land in category 'b' and awarded a compensation of rs. 3,500/- per bigha to them. appellants sought reference and adj enhanced the compensation to rs.12,000/- per bigha by relying upon a judgment of other adj in ram mehr v. u.o.i. (lac no. 267/68) decided on 18.12.1970 dealing with section 4 notification dated 9.3.1960 and fixing the compensation of the land in this village at rs. 8,000/- per bigha. while doing so learned adj found that the land in the present case was more advantageously situated than in ram mehr's case and that there was a time gap of two years between that acquisition and the present subsequent one.2. this award was challenged by respondent in rfa no.144/76 which was disposed by first appellate court in terms of another connected rfa no. 187/72 (bhagmal v. uoi) decided on 15.10.1979 wherein compensation was fixed at rs. 8,000/- per bigha in this village. the court had, however, intern decided bhagmal's case in terms of rfa no. 409/71 (ram mehr v. uoi) arising out of lac 267/68, referred to herein above which was relied upon by the reference court also for raising compensation from rs. 8,000/- to rs. 12,000/- per bigha. thereforee, as it is, the leading judgment of first appellate court was passed in ram mehr's case in rfa no. 409/71 and other appells including that of appellants herein (rfa no. 144/76) were disposed off in terms of that judgment.3. a perusal of this judgment shows that first appellate court found itself caught in a difficult situation confronted by conflicting evaluations made of the acquired land under different notification s ranging form rs.3,500/- per bigha to rs. 14,000/- per bigha. the court in this process of balancing the scales fell back upon a award passed in an identical acquisition in kripa ram v. uoi (rfa no. 135/62) decided on 17.9.1970 to conclude that market value of the land per bigha was rs. 8,000/- which the court had determined for the acquisition in reference to section 4 notification dated 5.3.1960 and which it maintained inspire of the time gap because of the advantageous position of the land in the previous acquisition. it, thereforee, proceeded to deal with different appeals separately and while disposing off ram mehr's leading appeal (rfa 409/71), it enhanced compensation from rs.1,500/- to rs. 2,500/- per bigha in case of some specific khasra numbers. 4. appellants feel aggrieved of this reduction of the compensation from rs. 12,000/- to rs. 8,000/- per bigha by the first appellate court and assail it on a variety of grounds. their case is that first appellate court had not assigned any reason for reduction of compensation amount and had disposed off bunch of appeals before it without any application of mind. it is pointed out by l/c for appellants, ms. ruchi sindhwani that first appellate court had disposed off respondent's rfa 144/76 in terms of bhagmal's case which in turn was disposed off in reference to ram mehr's case which arose out of lac no.627/68 and which was relied upon by the reference court to enhance the compensation to rs. 12,000/- per bigha. the court had compounded the confusion by fixing the general compensation at rs. 8,000/- per bigha for the acquired land in village shakurpur and had then proceeded to enhance it in some cases, which was a contradiction in terms. it is also submitted that appellants had received the compensation amount as awarded by reference court vide its judgment dated 15.1.1976 immediately thereafter and it would be too much to recover it now after decades in case impugned judgment was maintained. reliance is placed on supreme court judgment in union of india v. mangat : air2000sc3527 ) for this. l/c also referred to the judgment of the same first appellate court in union of india v. diwan chand (rfa 23/72) awarding compensation of rs. 11,000/- per bigha in the same village of shakurpur and in reference to same section 4 notification dated 24.10.1961.5. it appears to us that first appellate court had lost track of the crux, perhaps, because it was dealing with a whole lot of acquisition matters involving huge areas of land and was confronted with conflicting market value valuation ranging from rs. 3,500/- per bigha to rs. 14,000/- per bigha for the land in same village though in reference to different s-4 notifications. the other reason could be that there was no worth while evidence led by parties at the relevant time to facilitate the fair and reasonable determination of market value.6. in the present case also all that was submitted before courts below by way of evidence was ext. -a2, ext.-a6 and ext.-a3. the first two are judgments of adjs awarding compensation for the land acquired in reference to different notifications and the third was a sale deed dated 9.11.1959 showing sale of a plot of land at the rate of rs.14 per square yard. reference court chose to rely upon ext.-a6, which, as already noticed is a judgment rendered by the other adj in ram mehr's case awarding rs. 8,000/- per bigha in reference to section 4 notification dated 9.3.1960. the reference court in the present case had, thereforee, justifiably taken in regard the time differential qua the subsequent acquisition and the situation of land to fix compensation at rs. 12,000/- per bigha. this award could be said to be on the higher side only if there was some counter material on record to suggest to the contrary. but that was not to be and the first appellate court swung from one thing to the other to fix the general compensation at rs. 8,000/- per bigha and at the same time went on enhancing it from rs. 1,500/- to rs. 2,500/- or more in the process. what is worse is that it did so in the very case (ram mehr v. union of india, rfa 409/71), arising out of lac no. 627/68 which was relied upon by the adj to enhance compensation from rs. 8,000/- to rs. 12,000/- per bigha. in other words first appellate court enhanced the compensation from rs. 8,000/- in ram mehr's case to rs. 10,000/- per bigha in reference to section 4 notification dated 9.3.1960 but then reduced it to rs. 8,000/- in appellant's case. if that was to be taken to be the basis or guideline, it could not be said that award of rs. 12,000/- p.b. for acquired land in the same village was unjustified in case of a subsequent acquisition made roughly two years later under section 4 notification dated 24.10.1961. to top it all we find no reason given by the court for reducing the compensation except placing a stray reliance on one judgment or the other and without coming into the grips with the issue of determination of market value.7. considering all this and also taking in regard the supreme court judgment in union of india v. mangat & others, : air2000sc3527 suggesting non-interference for reducing the compensation amount in cases where the higher amount was already received by the claimant, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment dated 16.10.79 passed in rfa 144/76 and affirm that of reference court dated 15.1.1976. no further direction is required to be passed because appellants, on their own admission have received the full compensation amount.

Judgment:
ORDER

Khan, (J)

1. Appellants land measuring 10 bighas and odd was acquired in Village Shakarpur pursuant to Section 4 Notification dated 24.10.61. Collector categorised the land of this Village in different categories and placed the appellant's land in category 'B' and awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,500/- per bigha to them. Appellants sought reference and ADJ enhanced the compensation to Rs.12,000/- per bigha by relying upon a judgment of other ADJ in Ram Mehr v. U.O.I. (LAC No. 267/68) decided on 18.12.1970 dealing with Section 4 Notification dated 9.3.1960 and fixing the compensation of the land in this village at Rs. 8,000/- per bigha. While doing so Learned ADJ found that the land in the present case was more advantageously situated than in Ram Mehr's case and that there was a time gap of two years between that acquisition and the present subsequent one.

2. This award was challenged by respondent in RFA No.144/76 which was disposed by First Appellate court in terms of another connected RFA No. 187/72 (Bhagmal v. UOI) decided on 15.10.1979 wherein compensation was fixed at Rs. 8,000/- per bigha in this Village. The Court had, however, intern decided Bhagmal's case in terms of RFA No. 409/71 (Ram Mehr V. UOI) arising out of LAC 267/68, referred to herein above which was relied upon by the Reference Court also for raising compensation from Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per bigha. thereforee, as it is, the leading judgment of First Appellate Court was passed in Ram Mehr's case in RFA No. 409/71 and other Appells including that of appellants herein (RFA No. 144/76) were disposed off in terms of that judgment.

3. A perusal of this judgment shows that First Appellate Court found itself caught in a difficult situation confronted by conflicting evaluations made of the acquired land under different notification s ranging form Rs.3,500/- per bigha to Rs. 14,000/- per bigha. The Court in this process of balancing the scales fell back upon a award passed in an identical acquisition in Kripa Ram v. UOI (RFA No. 135/62) decided on 17.9.1970 to conclude that market value of the land per bigha was Rs. 8,000/- which the Court had determined for the acquisition in reference to Section 4 Notification dated 5.3.1960 and which it maintained inspire of the time gap because of the advantageous position of the land in the previous acquisition. It, thereforee, proceeded to deal with different Appeals separately and while disposing off Ram Mehr's leading appeal (RFA 409/71), it enhanced compensation from Rs.1,500/- to Rs. 2,500/- per bigha in case of some specific Khasra numbers.

4. Appellants feel aggrieved of this reduction of the compensation from Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- per bigha by the First Appellate Court and assail it on a variety of grounds. Their case is that First Appellate Court had not assigned any reason for reduction of compensation amount and had disposed off bunch of appeals before it without any application of mind. It is pointed out by L/C for appellants, Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani that First Appellate Court had disposed off respondent's RFA 144/76 in terms of Bhagmal's case which in turn was disposed off in reference to Ram Mehr's case which arose out of LAC No.627/68 and which was relied upon by the Reference Court to enhance the compensation to Rs. 12,000/- per bigha. The Court had compounded the confusion by fixing the general compensation at Rs. 8,000/- per bigha for the acquired land in Village Shakurpur and had then proceeded to enhance it in some cases, which was a contradiction in terms. It is also submitted that appellants had received the compensation amount as awarded by Reference Court vide its judgment dated 15.1.1976 immediately thereafter and it would be too much to recover it now after decades in case impugned judgment was maintained. Reliance is placed on Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Mangat : AIR2000SC3527 ) for this. L/C also referred to the judgment of the same First Appellate Court in Union of India v. Diwan Chand (RFA 23/72) awarding compensation of Rs. 11,000/- per bigha in the same village of Shakurpur and in reference to same Section 4 Notification dated 24.10.1961.

5. It appears to us that First Appellate Court had lost track of the crux, perhaps, because it was dealing with a whole lot of acquisition matters involving huge areas of land and was confronted with conflicting market value valuation ranging from Rs. 3,500/- per bigha to Rs. 14,000/- per bigha for the land in same village though in reference to different S-4 Notifications. The other reason could be that there was no worth while evidence led by parties at the relevant time to facilitate the fair and reasonable determination of market value.

6. In the present case also all that was submitted before Courts below by way of evidence was ext. -A2, ext.-A6 and ext.-A3. The First two are judgments of ADJs awarding compensation for the land acquired in reference to different notifications and the third was a sale deed dated 9.11.1959 showing sale of a plot of land at the rate of Rs.14 per square yard. Reference Court chose to rely upon ext.-A6, which, as already noticed is a judgment rendered by the other ADJ in Ram Mehr's case awarding Rs. 8,000/- per bigha in reference to Section 4 Notification dated 9.3.1960. The Reference Court in the present case had, thereforee, justifiably taken in regard the time differential qua the subsequent acquisition and the situation of land to fix compensation at Rs. 12,000/- per bigha. This award could be said to be on the higher side only if there was some counter material on record to suggest to the contrary. But that was not to be and the First Appellate Court swung from one thing to the other to fix the general compensation at Rs. 8,000/- per bigha and at the same time went on enhancing it from Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 2,500/- or more in the process. What is worse is that it did so in the very case (Ram Mehr v. Union of India, RFA 409/71), arising out of LAC No. 627/68 which was relied upon by the ADJ to enhance compensation from Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per bigha. In other words First Appellate Court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 8,000/- in Ram Mehr's case to Rs. 10,000/- per bigha in reference to Section 4 Notification dated 9.3.1960 but then reduced it to Rs. 8,000/- in Appellant's case. If that was to be taken to be the basis or guideline, it could not be said that award of Rs. 12,000/- p.b. for acquired land in the same village was unjustified in case of a subsequent acquisition made roughly two years later under Section 4 Notification dated 24.10.1961. To top it all we find no reason given by the Court for reducing the compensation except placing a stray reliance on one judgment or the other and without coming into the grips with the issue of determination of market value.

7. Considering all this and also taking in regard the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Mangat & others, : AIR2000SC3527 suggesting non-interference for reducing the compensation amount in cases where the higher amount was already received by the claimant, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment dated 16.10.79 passed in RFA 144/76 and affirm that of Reference Court dated 15.1.1976. No further direction is required to be passed because appellants, on their own admission have received the full compensation amount.