State Of U.P. vs Sri Hakin Singh
2015 Latest Caselaw 12 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Court No. - 34
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 1198 of 1990
 

 
Appellant :- State Of U.P.
 
Respondent :- Sri Hakim Singh
 
Counsel for Appellant :- S.C.,N.P.Nigam
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Shri L.P. Singh,Rajesh Dubey
 
Connected with 
 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 1153 of 1990
 
Appellant :- State Of U.P.
 
Respondent :- Sri Hakim Singh
 
Counsel for Appellant :- S.C.
 
Counsel for Respondent :- L.P. Singh,C.B. Singh,R.K.Dubey
 

 
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.

1. These two appeals under Section 381 of U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1959"), have arisen from a composite award dated 14.02.1984 passed by Sri J.P. Sharma, Presiding Officer, Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in Reference Nos. 6 of 1981 and 7 of 1981. First Appeal No. 1198 of 1990 has arisen from Reference No. 6 of 1981 whereas First Appeal No. 1153 of 1990 has arisen from Reference No. 7 of 1981. By the impugned award, Tribunal has determined market rate for the purpose of compensation at Rs.4,896/- per bigha, besides, damages and solatium etc. as per statute.

2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as "SLAO") had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.357.13 per bigha but the same has not been found adequate and appropriate market value by Tribunal and it has enhanced market value to Rs.4,896/- per bigha.

3. Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, after approval of Government, under section 357 of Act 1959 published a scheme no. 40 for development of Kanpur City vide notifications dated 14.04.1962, 21.04.1962 and 28.04.1962. This scheme was known as Kalyanpur Panki Pandu Belt Extension Scheme No. 40. Final sanction was given by Government to the aforesaid scheme under section 363 of Act, 1959 vide notification dated 05.10.1963. In furtherance of execution of said scheme, the Executive Engineer of the concerned Section of Kanpur Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "KDA") vide letter dated 13.05.1966 proposed acquisition of 132 Bigha and 8 biswa land in Village Dabauli. However, period of scheme under Section 365 (4) of the Act, 1959 expired on 31.12.1968, hence, land acquisition record was consigned to record room. State Government, then extended period upto 31.12.1976. A fresh application dated 04.10.1976 was received for acquisition of land and the Executive Engineer mentioned therein that land is lying vacant and there is no structure at all.

4. On enquiry, it was found that in Gata No. 543 and 571 there existed certain structures and in most of the part agricultural land, trees etc., were existing, valuation whereof was not given by Executive Engineer concerned. After collecting necessary information in this regard, it was found that 54 Bigha 19 Biswa of proposed land, to be acquired, already belong to Gaon Sabha and now with Nagar Mahapalika, therefore, the proposed land to be acquired was reduced by 54 Bigha 19 Biswa. Requisite entries were made in Khasra and Khatauni. It was also found that earlier SLAO had issued notices under sections 9(1) and 9(3) in 1967 and objections were invited upto 27.12.1967, pursuant whereto, total 27 objections were received but despite opportunity, no written or documentary evidence was adduced by any of objectors. In order to give fresh opportunity to objectors, information was given and 08.08.1977 was fixed. Most of the objectors said that proposed land situate near industrial area of Gun Factory, and, therefore, compensation at the rate of Rs. 50-60 per sq. yard should be paid. The rate was to be determined as it was on the date of notification under Section 354 of the Act, 1959, i.e. 14.01.1962. SLAO vide order dated 22.07.1980 determined market value at Rs. 357.13 per bigha.

5. Aggrieved by the award of SLAO, land owners/claimants sought for reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1894"), which have been adjudicated by Tribunal by the impugned award. The claimants asked for payment of compensation at the rate of Rs.75,000/- per bigha. The Tribunal, however, has made its award by determining market value at the rate of Rs.4,896/- per bigha. It has allowed 15% solatium as it was payable at that time and damages under Section 48-A etc.

6. State of U.P. aggrieved by the aforesaid award dated 14.02.1984 has come up in these appeals.

7. Learned Standing Counsel confined its challenge to the market value determined by Tribunal at Rs.4,896/- per bigha. He submitted that Tribunal ought to have followed the determination of market value of SLAO and instead it has enhanced value multifold, which is highly excessive and illegal.

8. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. Before coming to the merits of the appeal, it would be appropriate to have a bird eye view of the general principles laid down in last several decades by the Apex Court for the purpose of determining fair market value of land acquired forcibly. These principles are mainly with reference to Act, 1894 but are equally applicable in the present case. So far as material placed before SLAO as well as his award is concerned, it is not a relevant material to be looked into by the Court/Tribunal in a reference under Section 18 of Act, 1894.

10. An award passed by SLAO is like an offer and not to be treated as a judgment of Trial Court. It is well settled, when land holders are not agreeable to accept offer made by SLAO, they have a right to approach Collector under section 18 of the Act, 1894, by a written application, for referring the matter to Court, for determination of amount of compensation or if there is any dispute regarding measurement of land, for that also. In the present case References in question were made at the instance of claimants for determining the amount of compensation.

11. In Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (1988) 3 SCC 751, the Court has said that a Reference is like a suit which is to be treated as an original proceeding. The claimants are in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that price offered for his land in award is inadequate. However, for the said purpose Court would not consider the material, relied upon by Land Acquisition Officer in award, unless the same material is produced and proved before the Court. The Reference Court does not sit in appeal over the award of Land Acquisition Officer. The material used by Land Acquisition Officer is not open to be used by the Court suo motu unless such material is produced by the parties and proved independently before Reference Court. Determination of market value has to be made as per market rate prevailing on the date of publication of notification under section 4 of Act, 1894. The basic principle which has to be followed by Reference Court for determining market value of land, as if, the valuer i.e. the Court is a hypothetical purchaser, willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price, as on the crucial day, i.e., date of publication of notification under section 4 of Act, 1894. The willingness of vendor to sell land on reasonable price shall be presumed. The Court, therefore, would co-relate market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value. Only genuine instances would be taken into account. Sometimes even post-notification instances may be taken into account if they are very proximate, genuine and acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects. Proximity from time angle and from situation angle would be relevant considerations to find out most comparable instances out of the genuine instances. From identified instances which would provide index of market value, price reflected therein may be taken as norm and thereafter to arrive at the true market value of land under acquisition, suitable adjustment by plus and minus factors has to be made. In other words a balance sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn and the relevant factors may be valuated in terms of price variation, as a prudent purchaser would do. The market value of land under acquisition has to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instances taken for plus factors and unloading for minus factors.

12. Some of the illustrative examples of plus and minus factors given by the Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddas (supra) are as under:

S.N.

Plus factors

Minus factors

Smallness of size

Largeness of area

Proximity to a road.

Situation in the interior at a distance from the road.

Frontage on a road.

Narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth.

Nearness to developed area.

Lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up.

Regular shape.

Remoteness from developed locality.

Level vis-a-vis land under acquisition.

Some special disadvantageous factor which would deter a purchaser.

Special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage.

13. The size of the land, therefore, would constitute an important factor to determine market value. It cannot be doubted that small size plot may attract a large number of persons being within their reach which will not be possible in respect of large block of land wherein incumbent will have to incur extra liability in preparing a lay out and carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers etc. The Court said that in such matters, factors can be discounted by making deduction by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging between 20% to 50%, to account for land, required to be set apart for carving out road etc. and for plotting out small plots.

14. The concept of smaller and larger plots should be looked into not only from the angle as to what area has been acquired, but also the number of land holders and size of their plots. When we talk of concept of a prudent seller and prudent buyer, we cannot ignore the fact that in the category of prudent seller the individual land holder will come. It is the area of his holding which will be relevant for him and not that of actual total and collective large area which is sought to be acquired.

15. In V.M. Salgoacar & brother Ltd. vs. Union of India (1995) 2 SCC 302 the land acquired by notification dated 06.07.1970 in village Chicalim near Goa Airport belonged to a single owner. The Court observed, when land is sold out in smaller plots, there may be a rising trend in the market, of fetching higher price in comparison to the plot which are much higher in size. Having said so the Court further said " though the small plots ipso facto may not form the basis per se to determine the compensation, they would provide foundation for determining the market value. On its basis, giving proper deduction, the market value ought to be determined".

16. Again in Shakuntalabai (Smt.) and others vs. State of Maharashtra, 1996 (2) SCC 152, 20 acres of land in Akola town was sought to be acquired by notification published on 11.08.1965 under section 4(1) of Act, 1894 which was owned by a single person. It is in this context the Court said "the Reference Court committed manifest error in determining compensation on the basis of sq. ft. when land of an extent of 20 acres is offered for sale in an open market, no willing and prudent purchaser would come forward to purchase that vast extent of land on sq. ft. basis. Therefore, the Reference Court has to consider valuation sitting on the armchair of a willing prudent hypothetical vendee and to put a question to itself whether in given circumstances, he would agree to purchase the land on sq. ft. basis. No feat of imagination is necessary to reach the conclusion. The answer is obviously no".

17. We need not go into a catena of other decisions rendered in the last several decades since we have benefit of a recent Division Bench decision of this Court in First Appeal No. 454/2003 and other connected matters, Meerut Development Authority through Its Secretary vs. Basheshwar Dayal (since deceased) Through His L.Rs and another decided on 01.08.2013 wherein the legal principles settled by Apex Court in various judgments, relevant for determination of market value have been crystallized as under:

(i) Function of the Court in awarding compensation under the Act is to ascertain the market value of the land on the date of the notification under Section 4(1),

(ii) The method for determination of market value may be :

(a) Opinion of experts,

(b) the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages,

(c) a number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the land acquired.

(Ref. (1994) 4 SCC 595 para 5 Jawajee Nagnatham Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer & others)

(iii) While fixing the market value of the acquired land, comparable sales method of valuation is preferred than other methods of valuation of land such as capitalisation of net income method or expert opinion method. Comparable sales method of valuation is preferred because it furnishes the evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land at which a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it had been sold in the open market at the time of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, comparable sales method of valuation of land for fixing the market value of the acquired land is not always conclusive but subject to the following factors:-

(a) Sale must be a genuine transaction,

(b) the sale deed must have been executed at the time proximate to the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act,

(c) the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land,

(d) the land covered by the sales must be similar to the acquired land

(e) the size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired.

(f) if there is dissimilarity in regard to locality, shape, site or nature of land between land covered by sales and land acquired, it is open to the Court to proportionately reduce the compensation for acquired land.

(iv) The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-a-vis the land under acquisition which are as under : -

Positive factors

Negative factors

(i) Smallness of size

(i) Largeness of area

(ii) Proximity to a road.

(ii) Situation in the interior at a distance from the road.

(iii) Frontage on a road.

(iii) Narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth.

(iv) Nearness to developed area.

(iv) Lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up.

(v) Regular shape.

(v) Lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up.

(vi) Level vis-a-vis land under acquisition.

(vi) Some special disadvantageous factor which would deter a purchaser.

(vii) Special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage.

(v) For ascertaining the market value of the land, the potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into consideration. Potentiality means capacity or possibility for changing or developing into state of actuality.

(vi) Deduction not to be done when land holders have been deprived of their holding 15 to 20 years back and have not been paid any amount.

(vii) In fixing market value of the acquired land, which is undeveloped or under-developed, the Courts have generally approved deduction of 1/3rd of the market value towards development cost except when no development is required to be made for implementation of the public purpose for which land is acquired. (Ref. (2011) 8 SCC page 9, Valliyammal and another Vs. Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition and another , paras 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19.

(viii) When there are several exemplars with Reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied, that it is a bona fide transaction has to be considered and accepted. When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition.( Ref. (2012) 5 SCC 432, Mehrawal Khewaji Trust ( Registered ), Faridkot and others Vs. State of Punjab and others.

(ix) In view of Section 51A of the Act certified copy of sale deed is admissible in evidence, even the vendor or vendee thereof is not required to examine themselves for proving the contents thereof. This, however, would not mean that contents of the transaction as evidenced by the registered sale deed would automatically be accepted. The legislature advisedly has used the word 'may'. A discretion, therefore, has been conferred upon a Court to be exercised judicially, i.e., upon taking into consideration the relevant factors. Only because a document is admissible in evidence, the same by itself would not mean that the contents thereof stand proved. Having regard to the other materials brought on record, the Court may not accept the evidence contained in a deed of sale. (Ref. (2004) 8 SCC 270 para 28 and 38, Cement Corpn. Of India Ltd. Vs. Purya and others).

(x) While fixing the market value of the acquired land, the Land Acquisition Collector is required to keep in mind the following factors : -

(a) Existing geographical situation of the land.

(b) Existing use of the land.

(c) Already available advantages, like proximity to National or State Highway or road and/ or developed area,

(d) Market value of other land situated in the same locality/ village/ area or adjacent or very near the acquired land.

(xi) Section 23(1) of the Act lays down what the Court has to take into consideration while Section 24 lays down what the Court shall not take into consideration and have to be neglected. The main object of the enquiry before the Court is to determine the market value of the land acquired. The market value is the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities when led out in most advantageous manner excluding any advantage due to carrying out of the scheme for which the property is compulsorily acquired. The determination of market value is the prediction of an economic event viz. a price outcome of hypothetical sale expressed in terms of probabilities. For ascertaining the market value of the land, the potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into consideration. Potentiality means capacity or possibility for changing or developing into state of actuality.

(xii) The question whether a land has potential value or not, is primarily one of fact depending upon its condition, situation, user to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put and proximity to residential, commercial or industrial areas or institutions. The existing amenities like water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, whether near about town is developing.

(xiii) In fixing market value of the acquired land, which is undeveloped or under-developed, the Courts have generally approved deduction of 1/3rd of the market value towards development cost except when no development is required to be made for implementation of the public purpose for which land is acquired. Deduction of "development cost" is the concept used to derive the "wholesale price" of a large undeveloped land with Reference to the "retail price" of a small developed plot. The difference between the value of a small developed plot and the value of a large undeveloped land is the "development cost". (Ref. (2012) 7 SCC 595 paras 16, 17, 18, 21 and 22, Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla ( dead) and others).

18. In Bhupal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana, 2015(5) SCC 801, the Court said that the fair market value of acquired land is required to be determined under Section 23 of Act, 1894 on the basis of market rate of adjacent land similarly situated to the acquired land prevailing on the date of acquisition or/and prior to acquisition but not subsequent to the date of acquisition. In appropriate cases, addition of 10% per annum escalation in the prices specified in the sale deeds (if filed and relied on) in relation to adjacent, similarly situated, lands for fixing market value of acquired land may be permitted.

19. Similar view was expressed earlier also in General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Company Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr., (2008) 14 SCC 745; Valliyammal and Anr. Vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and Anr., (2011) 8 SCC 91; and K. Devalimma & Ors. Vs. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams & Ors., 2015(5) SCALE 454.

20. In Bhule Ram Vs. Union of India & Ors., JT 2014 (5) SC 110, the Court said :

"The market value of the land should be determined taking into consideration the existing geographical situation of the land, existing use of the land, already available advantages, like proximity to National or State Highway or road and/or notionally or intentionally renowned tourist destination or developed area, and market value of other land situated in the same locality or adjacent or very near to acquired land and also the size of such a land."

21. The Court further held that Court should not take into consideration the use for which land is sought to be acquired and its remote potential value in future. In arriving at the market value, it is the duty of party to lead evidence in support of its case, in absence of which the court is not under a legal obligation to determine market value merely as per the prayer of the claimant.

22. We may examine the correctness of argument advanced by learned Standing Counsel for assailing the impugned award in the light of the principles and exposition of law, as discussed above.

23. A perusal of the award shows that Tribunal has taken care that market value, as it was on the date of issuance of notification in the year 1962, will have to be considered for the purpose of compensation and subsequent developments, if had the effect of enhancement of the value of the acquired land, that will not help the claimants. The land acquired was being used for agricultural operations, had all attending facilities for irrigation etc. like Pakka Nali. It also found that SLAO has taken into consideration sale deed executed by one Shiv Sagar in favour of Ganga Prasad transferring 2 bigha 2 biswa land at the rate of Rs.476.19 per bigha. The said land situated about 50 yards away from the disputed land. The SLAO thereafter allowed deduction of 25% and made its award. However, this sale deed was executed in 1960 though the acquisition in question commenced vide notification dated 14.4.1962, 21.4.1962 and 28.4.1962. It was, therefore, liable to be rejected being quite earlier in point of time. The Tribunal has rightly discarded material before SLAO since it was required to look into the material, which was placed before it and proved.

24. In the aforesaid references, the claimants did not file any exemplars but adduced evidence that the land in question was near Panki Railway Station and Kalpi Road near the bye-pass. There exist industrial establishments like Singh Wagon Factory, Fertilizer Factory and Panki Industrial Estate. Since the land was in a factory area itself, building potential could not be doubted. It also referred to a judgment of this Court in Smt. Sukhrani Vs. State of U.P. 1993 ALJ 803, which pertains to acquisition of land in Village Panki Gangaganj, which is in the vicinity of land in dispute wherein acquisition proceedings were initiated in 1959. The SLAO made award at the rate of 80 times of land revenue of Bhumidhari land. The Tribunal enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.1/- per sq. yard and the matter when came to this Court, the market value was determined at Rs.1.50 per sq. yard. The rate of 1.50 per sq. yard would mean Rs.4537.50 per bigha in 1959. In another matter, i.e. R.L.Arora Vs. State, AIR 1974 Allahabad 162, the acquired land was in village Naroaya Khera situated about 1/2 km. away on the Panki side. The land in question comes in the village which situate by the side of Kalpi Road and Panki Railway Station. In R.L. Arora (supra), this Court fixed rate at the rate of Rs.2/- per sq.yard, which was in respect of acquisition of 1963. This would mean Rs.6,050/- per bigha in 1963.

25. Relying on the aforesaid decisions and also considering location of land, existing development etc., Tribunal has determined the rate at Rs.4,896/- per bigha.

26. All these facts noticed in the award are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the land in question actually situate in already industrially developed area has great potential of development, and near Panki Railway Station on the Kalpi Road.

27. Considering the fact that learned Standing Counsel has not been able to show anything from the award to demonstrate that Tribunal has considered any irrelevant material or any relevant material has not been taken into consideration or otherwise the findings are perverse or that it has applied any principle of law, which was not permissible, we do not find that any judgment of reversal of decree would be justified in this case. In an appeal a judgment of reversal is not to be passed lightly simply because the aggrieved person has filed an appeal unless there are just and valid reasons for the same.

28. In S.V.R.Mudaliar (Dead) by Lrs. and Ors. Vs. Rajabu F.Buhari (Mrs) (Dead) by Lrs. and Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1607, the Court in paras 14 and 15 of the judgment has upheld the contention that though the appellate court is within its right to take a different view on the question of fact, but that should be done after adverting to the reasons given by trial court in arriving at the findings in question. The Appellate Court before reversing a finding of fact has to bear in mind the reasons ascribed by Trial Court. The Apex Court relied and followed an earlier decision of Privy Council in Rani Hemant Kumari Vs. Maharaja Jagadhindra Nath, 10 CWN 630 and in para 15 of the judgment said:

"There is no need to pursue the legal principle, as we have no doubt in our mind that before reversing a finding of fact, the appellate court has to bear in mind the reasons ascribed by the trial court. This view of ours finds support from what was stated by the Privy Council in Rani Hemant Kumari Vs. Maharaja Jagadhindra Nath, (1906) 10 Cal.W.N. 630, wherein, while regarding the appellate judgment of the High Court of judicature at Fort William as "careful and able", it was stated that it did not "come to close quarters with the judgment which it reviews, and indeed never discusses or even alludes to the reasoning of the Subordinate Judge."

29. Following the above decision Hon'ble B.L.Yadav, J in Smt. Sona Devi Vs. Nagina Singh and Ors. AIR 1997 Patna 67 observed that whenever judgment of Appellate Court is a judgment of reversal, it is the primary duty of Appellate Court while reversing the findings of Trial Court to consider the reasons given by Trial Court and those reasons must also be reversed. Unless that is done, judgment of lower Appellate Court cannot be held to be consistent with the requirement of Order XLI, Rule 31, which is a mandatory provision.

30. The above view has also been followed recently in Jaideo Yadav Vs. Raghunath Yadav & Anr., 2009(3) PLJR 529 wherein the Court said that Trial Court recorded its findings but lower Appellate Court had not reversed the said findings and rather on the basis of some findings of its own, title appeal was allowed by lower Appellate Court without appreciating findings of Trial Court on the concerned issue. The court then said :

"The law is well settled in this regard that where the judgment of the lower appellate court is a judgment of reversal it is primary duty of the appellate court to consider the reasons given by the trial court and those reasons must also be reversed."

31. This court has also followed the same view in Doodhnath and another Vs. Deonandan AIR 2006 Allahabad 3.

32. Here, we would also like to observe that these appeals have actually arisen from acquisition of land of respondent(s), who is/are basically farmer(s). The State, in exercise of its statutory powers, has taken away valuable source of earning livelihood and rather, the only source of livelihood available to respondent(s), and in lieu thereof, compensation is sought to be paid. It is true that acquisition of land is a statutory right of State and therefore, respondent(s), by itself, may not oppose it successfully. But the fact remains that action of State has deprived respondents from having the solitary means of earning livelihood, which is being pursued, by farmer(s), normally from generation to generation. The cash amount, paid to them, does not result, normally, in acquisition of another land by these persons. Experience has shown that most of time, cash money is spent on material luxuries and thereafter these poor farmers, deprived of their land, come on road, find it difficult to sustain a bare two times meal for themselves as also the family. The conflict of development of nation and right of individual relating to his very sustenance, has a long chequered history of litigation as also legislation, giving rise to multifarious amendments in Land Acquisition Act. Now, a new enactment has come up.

33. The fact remains that agricultural land is continuously reducing though population of country is increasing and thereby creating another complication in the field of agricultural produce. The Court also finds that in the matter of compensation, if amount, thought to be adequate by State, is not accepted by Court below and compensation is increased, almost invariably land holders/farmers are dragged to higher Courts with continued litigation, which result in exhaustion of such person(s) not only in respect of their labour and energy but residuary worth and financial capacity etc. also. Sufficient amount of compensation, they are compelled to spent, in such litigation also.

34. The appeals normally are filed by State and its instrumentalities, as a matter of course, without any proper initial scrutiny whether it is worth filing or not and that is how a very huge chunk of appeal, in such matters, are filed by State against land holders/farmers, who are already denuded of their most valuable possession i.e. land/agricultural land. The State has constitutional obligation of a welfare State, must think over such aspect seriously. There should be an honest attempt to curtail frivolous, unfruitful litigation, particularly, if it can save innocent and poor citizens from litigious harassment.

35. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any flaw, factual, legal or otherwise, in the impugned award passed by Tribunal. Even otherwise, the matter is almost half a century old and deserves a decent burial at this stage. We cannot forget that here is a case where agricultural land of farmers, yielding good crops, having all irrigation facilities, has been taken away, forcibly, in the name of development. The farmers, therefore, are entitled for payment of compensation not for the loss of the land but also for the loss of source of earning livelihood for all times to come, which is bound to affect not only the farmers individually but their family as a whole. A due consideration in the form of fair market value has been determined by Tribunal and we find no reason to tinker with the same in these appeals.

36. Both the appeals are, therefore, dismissed with costs throughout.

(Shashi Kant, J.)              (Sudhir Agarwal, J.)
 
Order Date :- 18.4.2015
 
shailesh/KA