M.L. Bhatt, J. - (1.) THESE four appeals are filed by the land owners claimants against the judgment of the III Addl. District Judge, Nainital dated 1.9.1979 whereby all the four References made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act were dismissed and the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer was accepted and confirmed. In all these acquisition appeals the appellants had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 75/ - per sq. meter but the Land Acquisition Officer in his respective awards has awarded a very meager amount of compensation and has not paid solatium, which was payable to the appellants. The rate of interest also is calculated at the rate of 6% per annum, which is not in accordance with law. The following issues were framed by the court below in these Land Acquisition References: 1. Whether the compensation awarded to the petitioner in respect of the acquired land is unfair and inadequate? If so, what is the fair amount of compensation?
(2.) WHETHER the compensation awarded to the petitioner in respect of trees over the acquired land is unfair and inadequate? If so, what is the fair amount of compensation? In Land Acquisitions Reference No. 77 two more issues were framed, which are: 1. Whether the petitioner's acquired land measured 1.25 acres in plot No. 127 and 0.75 acres in plot No. 128? 2. Whether there stood any trees over the petitioner's acquired land of plot No. 125? If so, to what compensation the petitioner is entitled to get for these trees? 2. The acquired land was divided into three belts for the purposes of calculating compensation and for determination of rate. The first belt was 100 yard deep from the main road of Bazpur -Rudrapur. The second belt was 100 yards deep thereafter and the rest was put in the third belt. For the land, which was included in the first belt Rs. 6/ - per yard was awarded. The land which was included in the second belt was given the rate of Rs. 4/ - per sq. yard and for the land, which was in the third belt Rs. 3/ - per sq. yard was awarded. In the case of Ram Mohan's land was divided into three belts Satyendra Saran's land also was divided into three belts. Hirday Narain's land was divided into two belts and the land of Girish Chandra was divided into three belts. The court below has held that the land was agricultural land prior to the acquisition and that from the date of notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act i.e. 11.1.1975 it was not within the municipal limits of Kashipur. Later on after notification this area was included within the municipal limits. In the award 27 sale deeds of village Ujjain were obtained from the Registration Department and considered. The land mentioned in the sale deeds was of different nature. It was sold for agricultural purposes, it was an area far from the acquired land and at certain place its level was higher than the acquired land and at certain place its level was lower than the acquired land. The rate per sq. foot ranged between Rs. 0.58 paise to Rs. 25.35. However, all these sale deeds except those mentioned at serial No. 16, 19, 22 and 23 were discarded as exemplars. The lands shown in the said sale deeds were said to be identical with the acquired land. The land shown in the sale deed mentioned at serial No. 16 was sold @ Rs. 16.38 per sq. yard, which was considered unreasonable seeing the rate of the land in other sale deeds. The land in other sale deeds was sold at the rate of Rs. 8/ - per sq. yard, which was chosen as correct exemplar .25% was deducted in different belts and the rate was fixed accordingly. The court below has also held that there is no cogent and direct evidence of market rate of the land. It is also admitted that the land was acquired for Avas and Vikas for residential purposes but at the time of acquisition it was used for agricultural purposes. At the time of notification under section 4 of the Act it was outside the municipal limits but thereafter it was included in the municipal limits of Kashipur town. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the collector has determined compensation in respect of Ashish Gopal's land and that of Anand Gopal at the rate of Rs. 19.10 per sq. yard. The cases of Ashish Gopal and Anand Gopal were covered by the land Acquisition Reference No. 79 and 80 of 1978. The said land was also acquired by the same award by which the land of the appellants was acquired. The land of Land Acquisition References No. 79 and 80 of 1978 was identical in nature and of the same quality with that of the acquired land. The Land Acquisition Reference for the said Land was decided in the year 1983 but the Land Acquisition References in the present cases were decided in the year 1978. The entire land which is covered by these references was sought to be acquired on 11.1.1975 with the publication of the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and on 13.3.1976 the acquired land had become part of the Nagar Palika of Kashipur town and possession was taken from the appellants on 24.4.1976 under Section 17 of the Act.
(3.) THE division of the land in three belts or in two belts in one case is not warranted. The same plot of land of each claimant has been divided in different belts for the purposes of determining the compensation. The method of dividing it into belts has been adopted for assessing the value of the land without any intelligible rationale. The entire land of each individual should have been taken as a compact unit and thereafter rate fixed according to the market value. In the notification it is given that the land was acquired for residential purposes. That aspect of the matter has completely been ignored by the learned III Addl. District Judge and the Collector. If the land was agricultural land but it was being put to a different use and that was the object for its acquisition, its potential value should have been kept in mind for assessing the market value. The Collector's demarcation of the land without considering the potential value of the land suffers from a grave legal error. The Court below has also not taken this fact into consideration and has accepted the rate given in the award as correct without mentioning as to what was the object of creating different belts of the land of each individual and fixing different rates varying from Rs. 3/ - to Rs. 6/ - per sq. yard. The court below's observation that there is no cogent and direct evidence about the market rate of the land could not be lost sight of. The exemplar of 27 sale deeds was prepared for determining the market value. Twenty three sale deeds were discarded and the court below has not cared to consider as to whether the exemplar of rates given in 23 sale deeds was liable to be discarded according to law or not. It has believed the Collector's version in this regard as gospel truth. In the remaining four sale deeds, which are taken as exemplar for the rate of the acquired land, there was variance in the rate between Rs. 8/ - per sq. yard and Rs. 16/ - per sq. yard. That was also not accepted. Though the four sale deeds, which were relied upon by the Collector for the purposes of determining the rate, were not discarded, the rate fixed by the Collector at Rs. 6/ -, Rs. 4/ - and Rs. 3/ - per sq. yard for different belts is not, therefore, based on any evidence and is rather arbitrary and arrived at by ignoring the relevant material from the record.;