(Ranjan Gogoi and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.)
Bhanushankar Oghadbhai Mehta(D) by Lrs. ____________ Appellant(s)
v.
Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation Limited & Anr. _____________________________________________ Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal Nos. 4146-4147/2013, decided on July 20, 2016
With
C.A. No. 4620/2013, C.A. No. 4621/2013
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Civil Appeal Nos. 4146-4147 of 2013 have been filed by the landowners – claimants seeking enhancement of compensation; Civil Appeal No. 4620 of 2013 and Civil Appeal No. 4621 of 2013 have been filed by the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”) being aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation as made by the High Court.
2. For acquisition of land measuring roughly about 17 acres compensation at the rate of Rs. 1.50 per square yard was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector which was enhanced to Rs. 25 per square yard by the Reference Court and to Rs. 29 per square yard by the High Court.
3. We have perused the relevant records and the orders of the High Court as well as the Reference Court. We have also looked into the details of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
4. The landowners had exhibited several documents in support of their claim for higher compensation. Of these, specific notice was taken by the High Court of four sale deeds which were exhibited as Exhibits 139, 140, 141 and 142. On the other hand, on behalf of the Corporation reliance was placed on four documents which were marked as Exhibits 271, 306, 307 and 322. The High Court in the appeal filed by the land-owners exhaustively considered the evidentiary worth of the exemplars relied upon by the contesting parties and came to the conclusion that the sale deeds relied upon by the Corporation cannot form a reasonable basis for computation of compensation in view of the location of the land involved in the sale deeds and as the value/rate per square yard, on the basis of the prices mentioned in the sale deeds, is less than what was offered by the Land Acquisition Collector. Additionally, the High Court also took into account the fact that for parts of the acquired area other landowners had settled the compensation package by negotiation and agreement and the price agreed to was Rs. 16.10 per square yard.
5. Coming to the sale deeds exhibited on behalf of the landowners the High Court took the view that Exhibits 139, 140 and 141 were not reliable. The price mentioned in Exhibit 139 was found to be artificially high whereas Exhibits 140 and 141 were executed on dates which were roughly 20/21 months prior to the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the instant case. Considering the fact that the sale deed exhibited as Exhibited 142 (10th March, 1969) was closest in proximity of time to the date of the acquisition notification (10th September, 1970), though the sale was for an area of about 420 square yards, the High Court thought it proper to take the same into consideration. The price mentioned in the said sale deed (Exhibit 142) i.e. Rs. 39.75 per square yards was taken as the base price and considering the time lag between the date of sale and the acquisition notification the High Court thought it proper to grant increase of 15% over the price mentioned in Exhibit 142. Thereafter 35% of such price was deducted to take care of development charges, conversion charges, etc. It is by the aforesaid method of calculation that the High Court came to the conclusion that the market price for the land should be Rs. 29 per square yard.
6. Having perused the reasons given by the High Court for accepting the sale deed dated 10th March, 1969 (Exhibit 142) and for deducting 35% from the value computed on the basis thereof, taking into account the evidence on record with regard to the location and the advantages and disadvantages of the land, we do not find any fault in the exercise undertaken and the market value determined by the High Court. Quantification of compensation is an exercise involving several imponderables and approximation and the figure arrived at may admit of different opinions. However, unless the exercise undertaken is inherently unacceptable the same ought not to be substituted by the appeal Court. In the present case, looking into the grounds assigned; the manner in which the evidence was considered; and the manner in which the cases of the respective parties were balanced by the High Court we concur with the quantification made and do not consider the present to be a fit case for interference in the market value worked out by the High Court.
7. There is however another aspect of the case which would require a specific mention. An area of 20 gunthas of land which was sought to be acquired by the notification was claimed by the landowners to be wasteland. The High Court taking into account the evidence on record thought it proper to reduce the compensation for acquisition of such wasteland from Rs. 25 per square yard to Rs. 5 per square yard. The High Court also directed the Land Acquisition Officer to carry out a fresh survey to determine the actual area of such wasteland. In so directing i.e. fresh survey/measurement, the High Court took the view that there was no mention in the revenue record of any land in the nature of wasteland which was covered by the acquisition notification. So far as the fixation of the amount of compensation at Rs. 5 per square yard is concerned if such wasteland was to be found on actual survey and measurement, we do not find any basis for the said conclusion; neither is there any reason as to why the amount of compensation should be anything less than what was awarded for the rest of the land.
8. In this regard, we have looked into the order of the Reference Court. We find that the conclusion of the Reference Court that wasteland measuring 20 gunthas was actually covered by the impugned acquisition is based on Exhibit 117 which is a revenue register. Relying on the aforesaid revenue register the Reference Court answered the question in favour of the landowners and having regard to the purpose of the acquisition thought it proper to award compensation at the same rate as had been awarded for the rest of the land i.e. Rs. 25 per square yard. The aforesaid view taken by the Reference Court seems to be reasonable. The basis of the order of the High Court on this aspect of the case being what has been indicated above we are of the view that the same ought to receive our interference. We accordingly modify the order of the High Court and award compensation to the landowners for acquisition of 20 gunthas of wasteland at the same rate i.e. Rs. 29 per square yard as fixed by the High Court.
9. Coming to the question of interest we find that though the High Court had awarded interest on the additional compensation payable under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, no interest on the solatium amount has been awarded. In view of the Constitution Bench judgment in Sunder v. Union of India [(2001) 7 SCC 211], we are of the view that the entitlement of the landowners to interest on the solatium amount is automatic. The ratio of the law laid down in paragraph 54 of the judgment of this Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India [(2006) 8 SCC 457] would not apply as the present is not a stage in execution. Accordingly, following the ratio of the law laid by the Constitution Bench in Sunder (supra) we award interest to the landowners on the solatium amount. The amount due on account of interest and all other amounts payable, on due and proper computation, in terms of the present order, be paid, in any case, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
10. Consequently and in the light of the above, the appeals filed by the Corporation i.e. Civil Appeal No. 4620 of 2013 and Civil Appeal No. 4621 of 2013 will have to be dismissed which we hereby do while allowing the appeals of the landowners i.e. Civil Appeal Nos. 4146-4147 of 2013 in part.
———
