PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, J. - (1.) THE Judgment of the Court was as follows: Both the appeals arise out of the judgment and award passed by the learned District Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair on November 30, 2003 in Land Acquisition Case No.3 of 1996. THE learned District Judge held that the appellant in FAT No.002 of 2010 had made less payment of Rs. 10,96.400/-. THE learned District Judge, upon relying on Ext 10 tendered in evidence, opined that the market price of the relevant house site should be reasonably assessed at Rs.600/- per square metre. THE Collector had assessed the house site at Rs.300/- per square metre which, according to the learned District Judge, was much below the then market price. THE learned District Judge relied on Ext. 10 as a comparable sale deed for the purpose of evaluating the market price of the house site of the objector. THE learned District Judge assessed the price of the house site in question at Rs.600 x 1400 =Rs.8,40,000/-. THE Collector had allowed the objector a sum of Rs.300xl400=Rs.4,20,000/-. THE learned District Judge, therefore, held that the Collector had assessed Rs.4,20,000/- less towards the market price of the house site. THE learned District Judge also granted further solatium to the tune of Rs.1,20.000/-. In view of section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the learned District Judge granted 12% per annum on the enhanced market price and held that the Administration had made a less payment of Rs. 5,96,400/- to the deceased objector who was substituted by his legal heirs.
(2.) MR.Tabraiz submits that since the sale price mentioned in Ext. 10 included the price towards the structure standing on the land, the same could not have been relied upon by the learned District Judge for the purpose of determining the market price of the relevant house site. MR.Tabraiz further submits that the learned District Judge, on the basis of the Ext. 10 where the market price of the house site was Rs.422/- per square metre, assessed the market price of the respondents' house site at Rs.600/- per square metre as on the date of the award passed by the Collector i.e. on March 30, 1996. MR.Tabraiz urges that the market price of the acquired house site should have been assessed as on the date of the notification published under section 4(1) of the Act and not as on the date of the award.It is also submitted by MR.Tabraiz that for the purpose of extension of the airport at Port Blair the Administration acquired vast stretches of land by a common notification dated March 13, 1995. The parcels of land acquired under the common notification were classified in the following categories :- (1) Agricultural land; (2) House site; and (3) Commercial site. The Collector, upon considering various reports submitted by various authorities and also taking into account several judicial pronouncements, determined the market value of the aforesaid three categories of land as follows: (1) Agricultural land at Rs.34/- per square metre; (2) House site at Rs.300/- per square metre; and (3) Commercial site at Rs.500/- per square metre. According to learned counsel for the Administration, several similarly placed plot-holders had challenged the determination of the market price by the Collector before the learned District Judge and also subsequently before this Court but the market price of the plots as determined by the Collector was not enhanced. In the instant case, however, the market price of the house site from Rs.300/- per square metre to Rs.600/- per square metre. Mr.Tabraiz submits that there was no reason to enhance the market price in respect of the house site of the deceased objector particularly when the market price of the other house sites in the area acquired under the same notification was uniformly assessed at Rs.300/- per square metre. Apart from the enhancement of the compensation on account of the land, the Administration also challenges the grant of the quantum on account of damages incurred for the shifting of residence by the land-loser. The Administration contends that the sum of Rs. 15,000/-awarded by the Collector was sufficient and there was no justification for the Court to have suo motu increased such amount way beyond the Rs.45,000/-claimed in the petition under section 18 of the Act by the land-loser. The Administration questions the basis of the Court largesse by asserting that the judgment under appeal does not expend even a sentence in such regard; either as to the perceived arbitrariness in the Collector awarding a lesser amount or in the justification of allowing an astronomical sum of Rs.5,00,000/- when the person affected had confined the amount sought on such head to Rs.45,000/-. The Administration insists that the land-loser chose not to justify the sum of Rs.45,000/- claimed in the petition or even adduce any evidence in support of such head of claim. The Administration wants the enhancement of the sum on such head to be reduced to the level assessed by the Collector. The Administration refers to a previous decision of this Court rendered in FMA No.001 of 2011 on December 16, 2011 [Shri Bhagat Ram v. The Collector. Land Acquisition) and suggests that the present matter should be governed by such verdict. The Administration demonstrates that such previous decision was also in respect of a similar house site acquired under the same notification as in the present case. The Administration claims that since it was the compensation adjudged by the Collector that was upheld in Bhagat Ram, the compensation awarded to this land-loser should be pegged at the same level. In the Bhagat Ram case, it was the land-loser who had come up in appeal against the refusal by the Court below to enhance the amount awarded by the Collector. The Administration says that there should be a degree of uniformity maintained by Court and dissimilar levels of compensation should not be awarded to similarly placed persons.
(3.) THE heirs of the land-loser refer to the treatment of Ext. 10 by the learned District Judge and submit that no error was committed in relying on a sale deed of November, 1995 in respect of a nearby house site when the notification in the present case was issued in March, 1995 and the award was rendered in March of the following year. THEy rely on Supreme Court judgments on the principles involved in assessing compensation and suggest that the learned District Judge did not commit any error in enhanciing the quantum on the several heads. In their independent appeal, the heirs of the land-loser question the reduced rate of interest awarded and suggest that the mandate of Section 28 of the Act has been breached thereby. The parties have referred to the judgments reported at (1997)6 SCC 41; AIR 1997 SC 1779; AIR 1994 SC 1160; and, (1997)2 SCC 640. In the light of the view taken herein, there is no occasion to discuss such judgments in any great detail. In any event, neither side has sought to question the principles involved in assessing a matter of the present kind as recognised in the cited decisions. While it is true that appropriate compensation should be received by a land-loser upon the acquisition of any property by the State, there is also the hallowed principle of maintaining a level of uniformity in decisions rendered by the Court. Though it is appreciated that merely for the sake of form or uniformity a subsequent litigant should not be denied the rightful compensation, yet the circumstances of the subsequent litigant should be sufficiently distinguishable from the matter of a previous land-loser where the order has attainted finality; or, a case of immense . prejudice has to be made out for the Court not to be guided by an order made in a similar case. One of the factors that could count in such a situation would be if it is demonstrated that the previous matter passed unchallenged on behalf of the relevant land-loser or if it is apparent that an inadequate case was made out by the previous litigant. It is in such circumstances that the papers relating to the Bhagat Ram case have been directed to be produced and both sets of parties have been afforded time to go through the same. ;