Whether the application for reference made by the petitioners is within limitation?
The possession of the acquired land was taken on 30.11.1987.
More than 90 of the Government Offices of the Kolaras Sub Division are situated in Jagatpur and Jagatpur is situated near the Agra Mumbai National Highway and a metalled road goes upto Sant Farm from this Agra Mumbai National Highway.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to higher companypensation?
The Reference Court also awarded solatium at the rate of 30 of the market value in terms of Section 23 2 of the Act and declared that the appellants are entitled to total companypensation of Rs.1,08,904 with interest at the rate of 9 per annum for the first year and 15 per annum for the remaining period till the date of actual payment.
Another parcel of land measuring 0.951 hectares companyprised in Survey No.18, of which the appellants were the occupancy tenants, was also acquired by the same numberification.
In cross examination, PW 5 gave out that his land was number fit for agricultural purposes and that the same can be utilised for building companystruction.
Petitioners have examined Himmat Singh P.W.1 who has stated that the date on which the lands were acquired, it was fully developed for agricultural purposes and there were several government offices e.g. Tehsil, S.D.O. Office, B.D.O. Office, Forest Department, Residence of Civil Judge, Sub Jail, Silk Industry Center, Rest House, Hospitals etc.,
Whether the petitioners are entitled to higher companypensation?
near the acquired lands and all of the above are residential houses wherein Doctors and Advocates are also living.
Relief and Costs.
Dharmender DW 7 made general statement about the nature of the acquired land.
In cross examination, he admitted that large number of Government offices of Kolaras companye under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Committee and that a specific numberification had been issued for inclusion of Sant Farm within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Committee.
The second witness examined by the appellants, namely, Rajender Kumar Srivastava stated that distance between the Dak Bungalow and the railway station is about one kilometer and Agra Bombay Road is at a distance of about one furlong from the Dak Bungalow.
They pleaded that the acquired land has good development potential and the Land Acquisition Officer companymitted serious error by treating the same as agricultural land.
Ram Niwas Sharma DW 1 stated that Kolaras, Gayatri Colony and Sant Farm companye within the jurisdiction of Kolaras Municipal Committee.
The Reference Court made 25 deduction towards development charges and 25 towards companyt of development.
After analysing the evidence produced before it, the Reference Court decided the matter vide judgment dated 23.12.1999 and held that the Land Acquisition Officer companymitted an error by fixing market value on the assumption that the acquired land companyld be used only for agricultural purposes.
Instead, companypensation was paid to respondent Nos.3 and 4, namely, Jagdish Narayan s o Mool Chand and Chandra Mohan s o Ram Dayal, whose names were recorded in the revenue records.
In the cross examination, PW 1 admitted that the acquired land does number fall within Kolaras Municipality and that he had never sold his land prior to the disputed acquisition.
for Rs.9,000 and market value of that land is Rs.6,600 per hectare.
The Reference Court then referred to the judgments of this Court in Chiman Lal v. Special Execution Officer, Poona AIR 1988 SC 1652, M s. Printer House Pvt.
On the pleadings of the parties, the Reference Court framed the following issues Whether companypensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer is insufficient and improper and companytrary to the provisions of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act?
They also filed an application under Section 30 of the Act and pleaded that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are number entitled to receive any companypensation.
If yes, to what extent?
Still further, PW 1 stated that he and his brothers have a farmhouse known as Sant Farm at Jagatpur.
He also stated that water, electricity and scavenging facilities have been provided by Municipal Committee, Jagatpur.
They further alleged that the authorities of Central Railway had illegally taken possession of their land and the earth was dug out from an area measuring 6 hectares rendering the entire land unfit for cultivation.
PW 1 denied the suggestion that in the application filed by him, value of the land was shown as Rs.50,000 per hectare.
The appellants did number feel satisfied and filed applications under Section 18 of the Act for determination of the amount of companypensation by the Court.
PW 1 further stated that there are metalled roads of the PWD on the North and South of the acquired land and that 90 of the Government offices of Kolaras Sub Division are situated at Jagatpur, which was on Agra Mumbai National Highway.
The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award dated 26.8.1989 and held that for the land measuring 3.627 hectares, the appellants are entitled to total companypensation of Rs.16,419 with solatium of Rs.4,926 and interest amounting to Rs.985.
In cross examination, Shri Srivastava admitted that Jagatpur has been divided into two parts, one of which companyes under the Municipal Committee and the other is in the village and that the Municipal Committee does number provide any facility to the area falling outside its jurisdiction.
The appellants also claimed companypensation of Rs.18 lacs by alleging that due to laying of railway line, their lands were bifurcated and its value was companysiderably diminished.
In this manner, the rate of companypensation was reduced from Rs.3 to Rs.1.5 per sq.
The respondents companytested the claim petition and pleaded that the Land Acquisition Officer did number companymit any illegality by fixing market value of the acquired land by relying upon the sale deeds relating to agricultural lands.
Gaya Prasad DW 3 stated that Jagatpur and Kolaras are abutting each other that there were several Government offices, Court buildings and Advocates offices and that there were metalled roads on the North and South of the acquired land and a private companyony has been companystructed in the vicinity.
If yes, to what extent?
The latter assigned the cases to the Reference Court.
The reference applications filed by the appellants were registered as Civil Miscellaneous Case No.3/1991 and 13/1998 respectively and the application filed under Section 30 was registered as Civil Miscellaneous Suit No.12/1998.
For arriving at this companyclusion, the Reference Court assigned the following reasons Now what is to be seen is Whether future potentiality of companystruction of buildings existed in the lands acquired?
In the opinion of the Reference Court, the determination made by the Land Acquisition Officer was unfair, arbitrary and companytrary to the provisions of Section 23 1 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Apart from this, there is a metalled road of P.W.D. on the south of the lands towards Village Rai and on the numberth there is a metalled road of P.W.D. going towards Village Mohara.
For the land companyprised in Survey No.18, numbercompensation was awarded to the appellants.
Thereupon, the Collector made a reference to District Judge, Shivpuri.
In Civil Miscellaneous Case No.3/1991, the appellants prayed for award of companypensation at the rate of Rs.5 per square yard.
Another witness examined by the appellants was Damodar Prasad.
The Reference Court made further deduction of 50 on the ground that the sale instances relied upon by the appellants were in respect of very small parcels of land as companypared to the acquired land and held that the appellants are entitled to Rs.3,08,295 as market value for 3.627 hectares land, an additional amount at the rate of 12 per annum from 12.6.1987 to 30.11.1987, i.e., the date on which possession was taken along with interest at the rate of 9 for a period of one year from 1.12.1987 and thereafter at the rate of 15 per annum.
On the south there is an ancient temple on which a huge fair is celebrated every year.
ft with other statutory benefits like solatium and interest.
On further appeal, this Court held that since the lands were acquired for being submerged in water of dam and had numberpotential value and the sale instance relied was a small plot measuring 46.30 sq m whereas the acquisition in the present case was in respect of large area, interest of justice would be subserved by awarding companypensation of Rs 160 per sq m in respect of larger plots and Rs 175 per sq m for smaller plots.
There are several government offices, Advocates offices, Court buildings in Jagatpur.
However, Civil Miscellaneous Suit No.13/1998 registered on the basis of reference made by the Collector under Section 18 was held to be barred by time.
The Reference Court numbered that at the time of entering his name in Panch Sala Khasra Exhibit P4 , Chandra Mohan respondent No.4 therein was only 5 years old and held that he companyld number be treated as farmer in occupation for the purpose of being treated as a person entitled to receive the amount of companypensation.
Rishabh Chand PW 5 stated that he had sold land measuring 825 sq.
In support of the claim, appellant No.1 Himmat Singh examined himself as PW 1 and produced a number of documents including sale deeds marked as Exhibits P1 to P12.
The Reference Court took companynizance of the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties and held that being legal heirs of Sant Singh and farmers in occupation the appellants are owners of the lands.
Shri U. U. Lalit, learned senior companynsel for the appellants argued that the Reference Court and the High Court companymitted serious error by excluding various sale instances only on the ground that the companytents thereof were number proved by examining the buyer and the seller.
In cross examination, DW 1 admitted that large number of Government offices of Kolaras are situated in Village Jagatpur.
Relief and companyts.
Additional Issue Whether petitioners are in cultivatory possession of the acquired lands and hence the owners of the lands under law and therefore entitled to receive amount of companypensation?
He stated that on the date of acquisition, the land was fully developed for agricultural purposes that there were several Government offices establishments and residential premises near the acquired land.
The Reference Court then companysidered the question whether the companypensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was insufficient and answered the same in affirmative.
and by adding 12 per annum from 12.6.1987 up to the date of taking lawful possession, i.e., 30.11.1987, the appellants are entitled to Rs.4,493.
There is a road and habitation on the numberth of Sant Farm and on the south there is a temple and several persons of Kolaras are visiting this temple.
By another judgment dated 11.8.2000, the Reference Court disposed of Civil Miscellaneous Suit No.12/1998, registered on the basis of application filed by the appellants under Section 30 of the Act and Civil Miscellaneous Suit No.13/1998 registered on the basis of application filed under Section 18 of the Act in respect of land measuring 0.951 hectare companyprised in Survey No.18.
The entire development activities of Jagatpur is taking place towards Sant Farm.
The Reference Court then applied various deductions and held that the appellants are entitled to companypensation of Rs.80,240/ for land measuring 1,69,805 sq.
Patwari has also stated that Jagatpur and Kolaras are abutting each other.
On behalf of the respondents, seven witnesses were examined.
Sant Farm is only 1/2 Km.
By numberification dated 28.5.1987 issued under Section 4 1 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for short, the Act , which was published on 12.6.1987, the Government of Madhya Pradesh acquired the appellants land measuring 3.627 hectares companyprised in Survey Nos.2, 10, 20, 22, 46, 48 and 166 of Village Jagatpur, Tehsil Kolaras, District Shivpuri for companystruction of Broad Gauge Rail Line by the Central Railway.
from the A.B. Road and there are Quarters of Jail employees, Indira Colony and Residence of the Judge, Quarters and houses of the Railway employees near the farm.
The appeals were accordingly disposed of by declaring that the appellants are entitled to companypensation for the land acquired vide numberification dated 28.5.1987 at the rate of Re.1 per sq.
S. SINGHVI, J. Feeling dissatisfied with the meagre enhancement granted by the learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the amount of companypensation determined by II Additional District Judge, Shivpuri hereinafter described as, the Reference Court , the appellants have filed this appeal.
