Chaturbhuja Modi & Ors vs State Of Orissa & Anr

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 940 OF 2004

Chaturbhuja Modi & Ors. ... Appellants

Versus

State of Orissa & Anr. ... Respondents

JUDGMENT

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order

dated 12.09.2002 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack.

The appellant and the State filed three appeals before the High

Court against the judgment and order dated 16.04.1998 passed by

the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Cuttack

in L.A. Case No. 3 of 1995. The said appeal arose out of a

land acquisition proceeding pertaining to the land of the

appellants - claimants herein.

2. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition

Act was published on 09.12.1982, proposing to acquire land of

the appellants measuring 2.429 acres covered under Khata No.

581 of Mouza - Bahar Bisinabar for construction of additional

building, office, garage and staff quarters of Orissa State 2

Financial Corporation, Cuttack. The Land Acquisition Officer

assessed the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.

75,000/- per acre. The appellants - claimants sought for a

reference to the learned Civil Judge as envisaged under Section

18 of the Land Acquisition Act, and the Ld. Judge after

receiving evidence adduced by the parties, enhanced the

compensation to Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre. The appellants -

claimants being dissatisfied with the aforesaid determination

of compensation, filed an appeal before the High Court,

claiming a higher compensation at the rate of Rs. 12, 50,000/-

per acre. After appreciation of the evidence available on

record and relying primarily on the sale consideration in

Exhibit 1, dated 06.10.1982, the High Court enhanced the

compensation for the acquired land to Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre

and also held that the appellants should be entitled to other

statutory benefits as available under the Act.

3. The appellants, still aggrieved, filed the present special

leave petition in this Court in which leave was granted after

which the appeal is listed for hearing. We took up the appeal

for hearing during the course of which we heard learned counsel

appearing for the parties who have painstakingly taken us

through the evidence on record in support of their contentions.

4. This appeal is filed to prove and establish that the 3

acquired land is situated in the heart of the Cuttack City and

close to the National Highway No. 5. The land was acquired for

construction of additional building of O.S.F.C. for

accommodation of office etc. At the time of acquisition, other

commercial establishments like a cinema hall, hotel, etc. had

already come up near about the acquired land. The learned

Civil Judge as well the High Court found that the acquired land

is not on the side of National Highway No. 5 but the same is

not very far away from the said Highway. It is also on record

that the acquired land is a low-lying land and remains water-

logged round the year. But the said fact could not belie the

fact that the acquired land had great potential value. In

order to assist the Courts to properly assess and determine the

fair and reasonable market value, the parties adduced evidence,

both oral and documentary.

5. In this appeal, the parties have adduced limited evidence

to establish their case. The records indicate that the

appellants had filed two certified copies of the registered

sale deeds, namely Exhibits 1 and 2, which were of course

exhibited without objection from the respondent. Sale deeds

were produced on behalf of the respondent - State and Land

Acquisition Officer also, and they were exhibited as Exhibit B

to B/3 but the same were marked as such with objection.

Exhibit 1, which was produced by the appellants herein, is a

certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 04.10.1982.

Under the aforesaid sale deed, a total land of Acre 0.0070 4

decimals in Baharbisinabar was sold for Rs. 40,000/- i.e. at

the rate of 22,500/- per gunth or Rs. 5,50,000/-

(approximately) per acre.

6. The other sale deed relied upon by the appellants -

claimants is Exhibit 2, which is a certified copy of registered

sale deed dated 17.04.1982 by which land measuring Ac. 0.003

decimals was sold for Rs. 2,700/-. Exhibit 2 shows that a very

small piece of land measuring only Ac. 0.003 decimals was sold

at the rate of Rs. 9, 00,000/- per acre indicating its highly

inflated value, which is established even when compared with

Exhibit 1. Sale of such a tiny piece of land must have been for

some specific object. The land which is acquired in the present

case is a large tract of land, measuring Ac. 2.429 decimals and

therefore, Exhibit 2 cannot be put up as a safe guide and basis

for determining the market value of the present acquired land.

The High Court has therefore rightly kept said sale deed out of

its consideration. It has also come in evidence, which is

referred to and relied upon by the Civil Judge, that the

purchaser of Exhibit 2 had his own land adjoining to the south

of the land covered under it. Therefore, it appears that the

purchaser was in dire necessity for purchasing the said land

for the convenience of his own adjoining land. That being the

position, the purchaser of the land in Exhibit 2 was even

prepared to purchase the same at a higher value. Figures

represented in sale deeds may not always be seen by Courts as a

parameter of existing fair values. In that view of this aspect, 5

the assessed value of the acquired land is not comparable to

the land mentioned in Exhibit 2.

7. In so far as the evidentiary value of Exhibit 1 is

concerned, the same is found to be proximate to the date of

notification under Section 4(1) but under the said

notification, another small piece of land measuring Ac. 0.070

decimals of land was also sold for Rs. 5,50,000/- per acre.

The document, however, did not indicate whether the said land

is in proximity to the acquired land or if the same is

comparable to the land in question. By the aforesaid sale

deed, only a small piece of land was sold whereas the acquired

land is a large tract of land.

8. Other sale deeds which were produced on behalf of the

Land Acquisition Officer, namely Exhibits B to B/3, were placed

on record under objection. There is no evidence by the

Collector indicating that the lands covered by the aforesaid

sale deed transaction are in any manner comparable land with

that of the land under acquisition. The land under the said

sale deeds are located in some other village whereas the

acquired land is "Puratan Partita" in Kisan, but the land sold

vide Exhibit B series are Bari in Kisan. Therefore, the said

sale deeds also cannot be made as the basis for determining

fair and reasonable market price of the land acquired. 6

9. The only evidence that could be considered and relied upon

is Exhibit 1. The following criteria provide a good indication

of whether a sale deed may be comparable to the one in

question: (1) it must be within a reasonable time of date of

notification under Section 4(1) of the Act; (2) it should be a

bonafide transaction; (3) it should be a sale of the land

acquired or of the land adjacent to the one acquired; and (4)

it should possess similar advantage. Although the land whose

sale is evidenced in Exhibit 1 is not an excellent comparison

in terms of area, the same indicates a sales transaction

completed at around the same time as the acquisition of the

said land. Moreover, Exhibit 1 also concerns a plot that is in

geographical proximity to the acquired land. There being no

other evidence on record, and since we are not inclined to

remand the matter after such a long delay, we would rely on

Exhibit 1 with necessary scrutiny and caution. Reliance could

be placed on the said documentary evidence for determining and

assessing the compensation of the acquired land after giving

the necessary deduction.

10. The High Court appears to have taken notice of the

aforementioned criteria and has given some discount in

compensation as the land under Exhibit 1 is a very small piece

of land and the land acquired in the case in hand is much

larger in size. After giving the said discount, the High Court

computed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,00,000/- per

acre for the acquired land. While determining compensation, 7

some conjecture is unavoidable as it is generally not possible

to have any documentary evidence of sale of land of similar

nature and in the near vicinity of the acquired land. The

value shown in Exhibit 1 cannot be assessed as the value of the

acquired land for the reason that the said land which is sold

under Exhibit 1 is a very small piece of land, whereas the

acquired land being a large tract of land. This Court has held

in Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi,

reported at (1988) 2 SCC 150, that where large tracts of land

are required to be valued, valuation in transactions with

regard to small plots is not to be taken as the real basis for

determining the compensation of large tracts of land. It

follows that where the market-value of large block of land is

determined on the basis of sale transactions for smaller

property, appropriate deduction has to be made for making

allowance for the loss of the acquired land required to be used

for internal development such as construction of roads, drains,

sewers, open spaces and the expenditure involved in providing

other amenities like water, electricity etc. The extent of area

required to be set apart has to be assessed by the Court having

regard to the shape, size and situation of the concerned block

of land.

11. After giving some variations and discount, the High Court

fixed the rate of the land at Rs. 3, 00,000/- per acre, which

in our considered opinion and in the light of evidence on

record, seems to be just and proper. Consequently, we dismiss 8

this appeal as we find no merit in it but without any cost.

..........................................J. [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma]

..................................J. [Anil R. Dave] New Delhi, August 11, 2010.