- (1.) THE land holders have filed these First Appeals against the common judgment and award dated 31.7.1999 passed by Sri Manoranjan Prasad Srivastava, the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge IV, Patna in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 1 to 9 of 1997. THE First Appeal No. 541 of 1999 has been filed by the land holders of Land Acquisition Case No. 6 of Mungeshwar Sahoo, J. 1997 whereas the First Appeal No. 544 of 1999 has been filed by the land holders of Land Acquisition Case No. 2 of 1997. Since both the Land Acquisition Cases out of which, these two appeals have been filed were decided by the common judgment and award, both these appeals are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment because common fact and law are involved in both the First Appeals. (2) It appears that total 0.683 acres of land was acquired by the State of Bihar for widening the Braj Kishore Path(Exhibition Road), Patna. Out of the said 0.683 acres land, the land measuring 0.023 acres of Shahnaz Harris, the appellant of First Appeal No. 541 of 1999 and only a part of construction of Smt. Krishna Rana, the appellant of First Appeal No. 544 of 1999 were involved. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the District Gazette on 1.9.1990. THE Collector after hearing the parties, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.2,45,163 per katha. THE land holders, appellants filed application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act claiming that the market value of the lands acquired was Rs.15 lacs per katha. THE case of the appellants was that the land and holding under acquisition situated in the Exhibition Road in the heart of town adjacent to Chiraiyatand over-bridge and is very near to Patna Junction and further, it is a biggest business commercial centre and residential area in Patna.
(2.) THE claim of the land holders was referred to the Land Acquisition Judge. THE State of Bihar filed objection and it is stated that the Collector has rightly awarded the compensation and the market value of the land fixed by the Collector is reasonable and proper. After trial, the learned Land Acquisition Judge considering the oral as well as documentary evidences dismissed the reference case finding that the award of the Collector is reasonable and proper. (4) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Land Acquisition Judge has wrongly not appreciated the documentary evidences and dismissed the reference case. THE learned counsel submitted that the lands which were acquired is situated in the heart of the town and in these days the rate per katha is about Rs.60-70 lacs and on the date of acquisition, the valuation was Rs.18-20 lacs but the claimants claimed only Rs.15 lacs per katha. THE learned counsel further submitted that the State Government fixed the rate at Rs.8,55,000 per katha in the year 1996 of the land at Exhibition Road and charging stamp at the time of registration on the said valuation but the Collector wrongly fixed Rs.2,45,163 per katha and therefore, the impugned judgment and award are liable to be set aside and the enhanced amount as claimed by the appellant may be awarded. (5) On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar, respondent submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and award and the learned Land Acquisition Judge after considering each and every evidence available on record found that the award of the Collector is reasonable and proper and therefore, in this appeal, the same cannot be interfered with. In view of the above contentions of the parties, the points arise for consideration in these appeals are as to "whether the compensation awarded by the Collector is reasonable and proper" or "whether the appellants are entitled to higher compensation as claimed by them" and "whether the impugned judgment and award are sustainable in the eye of law?" (7) It appears that all the land holders of all the 9 claim cases have been examined as witness in the case. The appellant of First Appeal No. 541 of 1999 has been examined as A.W. 1 whereas the appellant of First Appeal No. 544 of 1999 has been examined as A.W. 2. The appellants have stated that the lands and house of the land holders have been acquired by the State of Bihar for widening the Exhibition Road but proper compensation has not been paid by the State of Bihar. According to them, at the time of acquisition, the market value of the land acquired was about Rs.18-20 lacs per katha. The other witnesses have been examined who are awardees in other Land Acquisition Cases, have also stated the same thing. In support of this oral evidence, the claimants have also filed documentary evidences. (8) Exhibit-4 is a sale deed dated 12.10.1996. By this sale deed, 515 square feet lands of plot no. 723 were sold for Rs.2 lacs. On calculation, it comes to Rs.5,28,155 per katha as has been admitted and submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant. So far this sale deed is concerned, it is of the year 1996. As stated above, the lands have been acquired in the year 1990. In my opinion, therefore, on the basis of this sale deed the market value could not have been fixed and the learned Land Acquisition Judge has rightly not relied upon this sale deed. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the State of Bihar has fixed minimum rate of land in this area at Rs.8,55,000 per decimal. The learned counsel relied upon Exhibit-5 which is rate chart. From perusal of the same, it appears that this is an order dated 4.3.1996. The notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act has been issued on 1.9.1990. Therefore, in my opinion, this rate fixed by the State Government in the year 1996 is also not applicable. The appellant have not filed a chit of paper showing as to what was the rate fixed in the year 1990 or whether there was any rate fixed or not? Moreover, this Exhibit-5 is dated 4.3.1996 and the Exhibit-4 is dated 12.10.1996 which is after fixation of rate by the Government but valuation of the land sold is shown at Rs.5,28,155 per katha in Exhibit-4. (10) In view of the above facts, the learned Court below has rightly not relied upon these Exhibits. From perusal of Exhibit-C and D(Sale Report), it appears that the Collector collected the sale chart of the relevant years. There are 23 sale deeds. It appears that Collector discarded all the 22 sale deeds which were either of lower value or the lands, which were of far distance and relied upon a sale deed which is at Serial No. 16 of the year 1990 and relates to plot no. 701 which is under acquisition in these present appeals also. The O.P.W. 1 has proved these Exhibits and has stated that the Government has given proper compensation. He has also stated that it is not true that the price of the land at Exhibition Road was Rs.18-20 lacs on the date of acquisition. Except the above evidences, no other evidences have been produced in support of their claim. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no compensation has been awarded for the construction part. So far this submission is concerned, it appears that there is no evidence on record to show that what was the actual cost of construction in the year 1990. In a decision reported in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Sharda Ben (1996) 8 Supreme Court Cases 93, the Supreme Court has held that the burden is always on the claimants to prove by adducing reliable evidence that the compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate and the lands are capable of fetching higher market value on the date of acquisition.
(3.) IN the case of State of U.P. v. Ram Kumari Devi reported in (1996) 8 Supreme Court Cases 577, the Apex Court has held that it is well settled principle that it is the duty of the Court to assess reasonable compensation. Burden is on the owner to prove the prevailing market value. Again the same view has been reiterated by the Hon"ble Supreme Court in (1996) 3 Supreme Court Cases 766(Hookiyar Singh v. Special Land Acquisition Officer). In the present case at our hand, the documentary evidences produced by the claimants are of the year 1996. The Land Acquisition Officer considered the sale deeds which relate to the same plot and of the same year and therefore, in my opinion, it was the best evidence which the Land Acquisition Officer has rightly relied upon and made the same basis for determining the market value of the lands acquired. As discussed above, the appellants have failed to prove that the value of the lands acquired is more than the market value fixed by the Collector. The oral evidences adduced by the appellants and the witnesses are not supported by the documentary evidences. The claim of the appellants that the value was Rs.18-20 lacs per katha is belied by the sale deed of the same plot in the year 1990 which is at Serial No. 16 of the sale report. It is not denied that no such sale deed is in existence. I, therefore, find that the appellants have failed to prove that the market value of the lands acquired is inadequate. Therefore, the finding of the learned Court below is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, I find that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is proper and adequate and therefore, the Land Acquisition Judge has rightly not interfered with the said compensation. (15) In the result, I find no merit in these Appeals and accordingly, both the First Appeals are dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.) Patna High Court, Patna The 30th November, 2010 Saurabh/N.A.F.R. ;