- (1.) K. N. Singh, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Meerut, D/-20- 3-1965 awarding compensation to the respondents for their land acquired by the State Government.
(2.) A notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued on 1st Dec. 1958, which was followed by another notification under S. 6 of the Act on 12th Dec. 1958. Under these notifications the State Government acquired an area of 23 bighas 3 biswas 10 Biswansis of land situate within the Municipal limits of Meerut for the purpose of construction of Industrial Training Institute. S. 17 (4) was applied and possession of the land was taken on 29-1-1979 before the award was delivered. The respondents, whose land was acquired under the said notifications, claimed compensation. The Land Acquisition Officer treated the entire land as agricultural land and awarded compensation on that basis. At the instance of the respondents a reference was made by the Collector to the District Judge under S. 18 of the Act. The District Judge on appraisal of evidence, Oral and documentary, produced by the parties awarded compensation at the enhanced rate of Rs. 1. 50 paise per sq. yard by his judgment dated 20-3-1965. Aggrieved, the State of Uttar Pradesh has preferred this appeal under S. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. Learned standing counsel urged that the land in question was being put to agricultural use and as such the District Judge committed error in awarding compensation treating the land to be potential building site. He urged that the claimants were entitled to the value of the property in its actual condition at the time of acquisition and the District Judge was not justified in treating the land as a building site. Admittedly, the land in dispute is situated in Meerut town within the Municipal limits. On one side of the acquired land there is metalled road connecting Meerut Cantonment with Garhmukteshwar. On the other side of the land there is another metalled road connecting Nagla Battu with Parichhatgrah. Both the roads join the Mall Road which is an important road of Meerut city. In front of the land in dispute, there was Hydel Colony and Hydel Inspection House and also Public Works Department Inspection house. The land is in the vicinity of Saket Colony and Prabhat Nagar Colony, which are developing colonies of the city. In the locality there are bungalows of Civil Surgeon, Deputy Inspector General of Police and Commissioner. There is oral and documentary evidence on record to show that there was pressure on the land in the locality as a number of sale deeds were executed transferring agricultural land for the purpose of constructing building for business and residence. Section 23 lays down that in determining the amount of compensation for the land acquired under the Act, the Court shall take into consideration the market value of the land at the date of publication of the notification under S. 4 (1) of the Act. The market value must be determined by reference to the price which a willing purchaser is ready to offer. In V. N. Gajapatiraju v. Revenue Divisional Officer (AIR 1939 PC 98) it was held that while determining the market value, land is not to be valued merely by reference to the use to which it is being put at the time at which its value has to be determined but also to the use to which it is reasonably capable of being put to in future. It is now well settled principle of law that while determining the market value of the land potentialities of the land must be taken into consideration. This was emphasised by the Supreme Court in Raghubans Narain Singh v. Govt. of U. P. (AIR 1967 SC 465 ). The Supreme Court held that market value on the basis of which compensation is payable under S. 23 of the Act means the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for a property having due regard to its existing condition, with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities when laid out in its most advantageous manner. A vendor willing to sell his land at the market value will take into consideration potentialities or special adaptability of the land in fixing the price. It is not the fancy or obsession of the vendor that enters the market value but the objective factor, namely the said potentiality can be turned into account within a reasonable near future. While considering the potentialities the facts of each case have to be examined. The building potentialities of the land depend upon the pressure on the land for building activity, extension of the building activities towards the land acquired and whether buildings have been put upon the land purchased for building purposes in the locality. The District Judge has referred to Exts. 2 to 27 which relate to transactions of sale of land in the locality where the land in dispute is situated. These documents evidence the sale transactions of land for the purpose of constructing buildings in the locality. The testimony of Atar Singh, Lekhpal, examined on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh, also indicates that there was building activity in the locality and the land was situated near the Abadi. Having regard to these facts and circumstances it is clear that the land in dispute had building potentiality. The District Judge in our opinion, rightly assessed the market value of the land on the basis of building potentialities.
(3.) THE claimants had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 2. 50 paise per sq. yard but the learned Judge awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1. 50 per sq. yard. THE claimants produced a number of examples in support of their contention. Ext. 2 in a copy of the sale deed dated 23-9-1958, by which one Zalim Singh sold a portion of a plot at the rate of 3. 75 paise per sq. yard. Under Ext. 3 dated 26-4-1956. Zalim Singh sold portion of a plot to Kirpa Ram at the rate of Rs. 3. 47 paise. Ext. 4 is a copy of the sale deed dated 11th March, 1955 under which Duli Chand sold his land to Ram Singh at the rate of Rs. 4/- per sq. yard. Ext. 6 is dated 2-2-1962 that one Khushal sold land to Madan Gopal at the rate of Rs. 7. 07 paise per sq. yard. A number of other sale deeds have also have been filed but none of them relate to the year 1958, and as such these sale deeds are not relevant for the purpose of determining the market value of the land in dispute. Ext. 2 is the only relevant sale deed which was executed on 23rd Sept. , 1958 by Zalim Singh, under which he sold a portion of his land at the rate of Rs. 3. 75 paise per sq. yard. Since the notification under S. 4 was issued on 1-12-1958 Ext. 2 is nearest in time which provides safe guide for determining the value of the land. Exts. 3 and 4 indicate that the land was sold in the locality in question at the rate of Rs. 3. 47 and Rs. 4/- per sq. yard respectively. THEse sale deeds indicate that the land was being sold between Rs. 3 to 4/- per sq. yard. THE learned Judge has, however, pointed out that these transfers were in respect of small fragments of land. It is a matter of common knowledge that a purchaser of small piece of land generally pays fancy price and the rate at which a small piece of land is sold cannot be the rate for a larger area of land. THE District Judge rightly held that having regard to the potential value of the land as building site the land in dispute could easily fetch Rs. 1. 50 per sq. yard. On the facts and circumstances as discussed above, we are of the opinion that the District Judge did not commit any error or act arbitrarily in awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 1. 50 per sq. yard. Learned counsel for the respondents urged that the learned Judge should have awarded 15 per cent compensation as solatium to the respondents under S. 23 (2) of the Act. S. 23 (2) provides that the Court shall in every case award a sum of 15 per cent on the market value of the land in determining compensation for the land acquired under the Act. This provision is mandatory in nature. Normally a claimant whose land is acquired is entitled to 15 per cent solatium in consideration of the compulsory nature of acquisition of land. Admittedly the learned District Judge has not awarded solatium as provided by S. 23 (2) of the Act. S. 23 (2) was deleted by S. 8 of the Land Acquisition (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act XXII of 1954. Sub-sec. (2) of S. 23 was however restored in its application to Uttar Pradesh by the Land Acquisition (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act XXVII of 1972 S. 23 (2) was not applicable to State of Uttar Pradesh since 1954 to 1972. The land in dispute was acquired in 1958 and at then time S. 23 (2) was not applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh in view of the U. P. Act XXII of 1954 as such the respondents were not entitled to any solatium.;