9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (4) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er acre. On appeal by the appellants as well as the claimants - respondents, the High Court by judgment and decree dated March 23, 1994, further enhanced the compensation to Rs. 23.50 per sq. yard; thus it allowed the appeals of the respondent-claimants and dismissed those of the appellants. Thus, these appeals by special leave and cross appeals by the respondent-claimants for further enhancement of compensation. They are disposed of by common order. 5. The High Court, after rejecting the entire evidence adduced by the claimants relied only on a sale deed, Ex. A-12 dated May 19, 1978 relating to a piece of land of an extent of 250 sq. yard with a thatched house. It worked out compensation at the rate of Rs. 48 per sq. yard; on that basis, it gave margin of deduction of 50% of the awarded compensation, namely, at the rate of Rs. 23.50 per sq. yard. The question for consideration is : whether the principle laid down by the High Court is correct in law? The Land Acquisition Officer in his award had referred to the topographical features of the land thus. The lands under acquisition form a compact block surrounded on the north by Tenali-Guntur Railway Track, on the east by lands own ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... getting earth rooted to those lands for levelling them up. From the experience of the Municipality which understood levelling work for provision of houses to weaker sections of the society, it can be said with certainty that the cost involved in levelling up these lands to make them fit for residential purposes would be not less than Rs. 60,000 per acre. 6. On the basis of the above factual material collected, the Land Acquisition Officer passed his award. The question arises : whether the acquired lands possessed of potential value for being used as building sites? The High Court has found, as pointed out by the Shri Sudhir Chandra, learned senior counsel for the claimants, that the lands are possessed of potential value for being used for building purpose. It is well settled legal position that the claimants stand in the position of plaintiffs. Burden of proof is always on the claimants to prove by adduction of cogent and acceptable evidence that the lands are capable of fetching higher compensation than what is determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, which is only an offer. It the award is accepted without protest, it binds the parties. It is the bounden duty of the court t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue of the lands. In that process, though some guess work is involved, feats of imagination should be eschewed and mechanical assessment of the evidence should be avoided. Even in the absence of oral evidence adduced by the Land Acquisition Officer or the beneficiaries the judges are to draw from their experience the normal human conduct of the parties and bona fide and genuine sale transactions are guiding star in evaluating the evidence. Misplaced sympathies or undue emphasis solely on the claimants' right to compensation would place very heavy burden on the public exchequer to which other everyone contributes by direct or indirect taxes. 7. Whether fair and reasonable and adequate market value is always a question of fact depends on the evidence adduced, circumstantial evidence, and probabilities arising in each case. The guiding star or the acid test would be whether a hypothetical willing vendor would offer the lands and a willing purchaser in normal human conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market conditions prevailing in the open market in the locality in which the acquired lands are situated as on the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s duly proved and the witnesses, viz., the vendor or the vendee, are examined. This principle has been repeated in. a catena of subsequent decisions of this Court. 9. In Basant Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.(1996)11SCC542 , this Court pointed out that doctrine of equality in determination of the payment of same compensation to all claimants covered by the same notification, is not a good principle. Treating the entire village as one unit and uniformly determining compensation on that basis not sustainable in law. The Court must always determine market value prevailing as on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and not what was claimed by the parties. Even estimate of claimant is not decisive. The status of the claimant is irrelevant. It was reiterated that while determining the compensation under Section 23(1), the Court should sit in the arm chair of a prudent willing purchase in the open market and see whether he would be willing to offer the same price as is proposed to be fixed by Land Acquisition Officer as Market value for the same or similar lands possessed of all the advantageous features. This Test should always be kept in mind in analysing th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the claim. It is not in dispute, as even pointed out by the Land Acquisition Officer, that there is colony and railway shed etc. near the acquired lands. But the question is : whether on the date of the notification, the lands possessed of potential value and were fit for use as building site? On the basis of the evidence adduced before the Land Acquisition Officer and the contents of the award which is always part of the record and material evidence, it is difficult to accept the contention to Shri Sudhir Chandra that the lands possessed of potential value for being used for building purpose. Except a small fraction of land, the lands are agricultural lands. To make them fit for construction, even according to the conservative estimate, an amount of Rs. 60,000 per acre would be required. So, no prudent purchaser in open market would be willing to purchase the said lands at the rate of Rs. 23,50 per sq. yard and then spend Rs. 60,000 per acre to level up the same. It would be figment of imagination to believe that a prudent builder would do that. The High Court, therefore, is clearly in error in treating the lands as fit for building purpose and on that basis determining the comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sition (Amendment) Bill, 1982 in the House of the People, in which no award has been make by the Collector before that date; 15. In S. K. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors AIR1995SC1012 the Constitution Bench considered the effect of the transitional provisions in Section 30(1)(a). The right to additional amount @ 12 per cent per annum on enhanced compensation was held to be part of the component of determination of compensation. If the proceedings were pending as on the date the notification under Section 4(1) came into force, the provisions of the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 would apply. By operation of the transitional provisions in Section 30(1)(a), the claimant is entitled to additional amount @ 12 per cent per annum to be paid from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) till the date of deposit into court and where the possession was already taken, from the date of the notification till taking of possession. Similar view was reiterated in Special Tahsildar (LA) P.W.D. Schemes, Vijaywada v. M.A Jabbar : [1995]1SCR180 and Khanna Improvement Trust v. Land Acquisition Tribunal and Ors. [1995]1SCR180 . Accordingly, the respondent-claimants are entitled to payment of ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
