2019 (1) TMI 2049 - HC - Indian Laws

Quantum of compensation - Land Reference for enhancement of compensation - assessment of market value of the acquired land on the date of publication of notification under Section 4 (1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - HELD THAT - In the case at hand, no evidence has been laid by the respondents to prove that other sale instances of the land situated at village Baswantpur are available to determine the proper market value of the land. Therefore, the sale instance (Exh. X 2) can be considered, though it is of a small piece of land. Only there shall be deduction in the market value of the acquired land. So also, after going through the sale deed (Exh. X 2), it emerges that the plot which was the subject matter of this sale instance, is situated abutting 35 ft. wide road. Therefore, for this advantageous factor annexed with the land under sale instance (Exh. X 2), there shall be reasonable deduction from the value of the acquired land. On the basis of sale instance (Exh. X 2) the value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 46/ per sq.ft. After deducting 40% from this amount, the fair market price of the acquired land, on the date of publication of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, comes to Rs. 27/ per sq.ft. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 27/ per sq.ft. In addition to this, claimant is entitled to statutory benefits under Section 23 (1A) and 23 (2) of the Act together with interest under Section 28 of the said Act from the date of award. The judgment and award passed by 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur is set aside - Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of the Land Reference by the Reference Court.
2. Assessment of the market value of the acquired land.
3. Consideration of evidence and comparable sale instances.
4. Determination of compensation and statutory benefits.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of the Land Reference by the Reference Court:
The original claimant appealed against the judgment and order passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Latur, which dismissed the Land Acquisition Reference No. 128/2000. The Reference Court had rejected the Land Reference after considering the evidence presented by both parties.

2. Assessment of the market value of the acquired land:
The claimant argued that the compensation awarded was inadequate and sought enhancement based on the potential value of the land. The claimant contended that the land had N.A. potential and was valued at more than Rs. 1,000 per sq.ft. The Reference Court, however, upheld the Special Land Acquisition Officer's assessment of Rs. 1.46 per sq.ft., considering the land's use as agricultural land at the time of notification.

3. Consideration of evidence and comparable sale instances:
The claimant's counsel argued that the Reference Court erroneously rejected the evidence of valuer Anil Phulari (PW-2) and comparable sale instances (Exh.23). The court noted that the valuer's report lacked data and was prepared 12 years after the land visit. The sale instance of village Arvi (Exh.18) was rejected due to lack of proximity, and the judgment in L.A.R. No. 159/2004 (Exh.23) was discarded as it pertained to a different village. The court also found that the Government notification (Exh.65) did not include Survey No. 17 within Latur's municipal limits, and the claimant failed to provide sale instances from Baswantpur.

4. Determination of compensation and statutory benefits:
The court considered the sale deed dated 13.09.1995 (Exh.X-2), where the claimant sold a part of Survey No. 17 for Rs. 46 per sq.ft. The court applied a 40% deduction due to the small size of the land and its advantageous location, resulting in a fair market price of Rs. 27 per sq.ft. The claimant was entitled to compensation at this rate, along with statutory benefits under Sections 23 (1A) and 23 (2) of the Act, and interest under Section 28 from the date of the award.

Judgment:
The appeal was partly allowed, setting aside and modifying the Reference Court's judgment. The respondents were directed to pay compensation at Rs. 27 per sq.ft., along with statutory benefits and interest as detailed in the judgment. The claimant was advised to approach the competent authority for rental compensation.

Conclusion:
The judgment emphasized the importance of proximity and genuine sale instances in determining market value and highlighted the necessity of presenting adequate and timely evidence. The court meticulously applied legal principles and guidelines to arrive at a fair compensation for the acquired land.