Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, while allowing the appeal challenging the award passed by the lower court, held that the determination of the value of land would be done after taking into consideration the acquisition of land vide Award, along with the sale deed that is relevant for determining the value of the land. Both of these transactions are relevant to determine the value of the land.
Brief Facts:
The present appeal has been filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against an award passed by the Additional District Judge wherein, the value of land was enhanced irrespective of its classification and category, even though the Land Acquisition Collector had determined the value of the land at a lower rate after taking into account the classification and category of the land.
The land of the respondents was acquired for public purposes relating to the expansion of the factory of Gujrat Ambuja Cement Ltd. which is the appellant. The value of the land was determined at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per bigha for uncultivated land and Rs. 1,00,000/- per bigha for cultivated land. In the reference petition, the land owners have claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 10 lacs per bigha irrespective of its classification and the order of the reference court has been challenged in the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Reference Court failed to factor in the value determined in Award No.4 of 2000 for other land acquisitions in the same village. The aforementioned Award pertained to the acquisition of land under the same notification as the present case, and the value of the land was determined at a specific rate for both cultivated and uncultivated land. This fact was stated by witness Shyam Singh Pal, who was examined by the landowners during the trial.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The learned counsel for the respondents claimed that Award No.4 of 2000 was a consent award, which means that the fair compensation value was not determined during the adjudication process. Instead, it was an agreed value between the two parties, and it cannot be considered when determining the compensation value for the current appeal's landowners.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed that Award No. 4 of 2000 established two different values for the land, with Rs. 2 lakhs per bigha for cultivated land and Rs. 50,000 per bigha for uncultivated land. However, the court stated that the value of land for acquisition should be determined at a uniform rate, regardless of the land's classification or category. Therefore, the highest value determined by the Land Acquisition Collector should be used as the basis for determining the value of land for all types of land.
The court also considered a sale deed from August 27, 1997, which sold land measuring 1-3 bighas for Rs. 3,56,500. The court deemed this transaction relevant in determining the compensation for the landowners. The court further elaborated on the law regarding determining the market value of land for acquisition and stated that the purpose for which the land is acquired is relevant, and not the land's classification or category. When the land's nature and classification are not relevant, the market value of the land should be determined as a single unit, regardless of its nature or classification. In such cases, a uniform rate for all types of land should be awarded.
The court accepted that the consent award did not determine the value of the land on merits, but it was definitely a transaction between two parties with respect to transferring the land for compensation payable as per the agreed value of the land. It was noted that it is like a sale deed where two parties negotiate between them for the sale and purchase of land for consideration and, Therefore, it is a relevant document for determining the compensation value payable to other landowners. The court concluded that both the acquisition of land through Award No. 4 of 2000 and the sale deed was relevant in determining the value of the land. The court calculated the mean value of both transactions as Rs. 2,78,250, but since Award No. 4 of 2000 was not proven on record by either party, the court determined the value of the land to be slightly higher than Rs. 2,78,250, at Rs. 2,85,000 per bigha.
The decision of the Court:
The appeal was allowed by the High Court and it was held that the landowners were entitled to be compensated based on the value of the land at the rate of Rs. 2,85,000/- per bigha, along with other statutory benefits like solatium, additional compulsory acquisition charges, etc.
Case Title: M/s Gujarat Ambuja Cement Factory, Darlaghat & Ors. vs Sukh Ram (deceased) through LRs & Ors.
Coram: Justice Vivek Singh Thakur
Case No.:RFA No. 322 of 2007
Advocate for the Appellants: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Mr. Vedhant Ranta and Mr. Janesh Gupta
Advocate for the Respondent:
Mr. Adarsh K Vashista (For Respondent 1(a) to 1(d))
Mr. Rajender Sharma (For Respondents No. 2 and 3)
Ms. Seema Sharma (For Respondents No. 4 and 5)
Read Judgment ;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure .
0 Comments