Union Of India Through The General ... vs Nand Lal & Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 5633 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Court No. - 10
 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 484 of 2006
 
Appellant :- Union Of India Through The General Manager Central Railway
 
Respondent :- Nand Lal & Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Tarun Varma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- J.K. Sharma,Rahul Sahai,S.K. Chaturvedi,Y.K. Saxena,Y.S. Saxena
 

 
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

Heard Sri Tarun Verma, counsel for the appellant-Union of India and Sri Rahul Sahai, Advocate on behalf of the claimants.

This first appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been filed by the Union of India through General Manager Central Railway Mumbai against the judgment and order of the reference court namely Additional District Judge, Mathura passed in Land Acquisition Reference No. 123 of 1989. Facts relevant for deciding the present first appeal are as under:

Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was published on 1.11.1986 in matter of acquisition of the land falling within village Mathura Bangar, Tehsil Mathura, District Mathura, which included amongst others the land on which the claimants Nandlal and others were recorded as tenure holders. Notification under Section 4 was followed by a notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 17.12.1986 but it so happened in between the village was brought into consolidation and therefore, there had been a change of plot numbers. This resulted in a fresh notification being issued under Section 6 with the correct plot numbers on 22.10.1988. In order to keep the record straight, it may be noticed that on the basis of incorrect notification published under Section 6 on 17.12.1986, the State of Uttar Pradesh, through its Collector had taken possession of the land subject matter of the notification. As a consequence to the subsequent notification published under Section 6 dated 22.10.1988, the possession, which was irregular stood regularized.

We may record that there is no challenge to the publication of the notification dated 1.11.1986 or dated 22.10.1988 as well as to taking over of possession.

The proceedings of acquisition of the land culminated in the order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer dated 17.3.1989 passed in Case No. 6/24 of 1984. As many as 31 objections were decided under the said order by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. He having regard to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 9.11.1986 called for the record from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Tehsil Mathura in respect of sale-deeds execute on various plots of the same village. It has been recorded that 72 such sale-deeds executed between 7.11.1983 to 9.11.1986 have been considered and examined on the basis of the exemplars so produced before the Special Land Acquisition Officer. He relied upon the exemplars marked as Serial No. 55 executed on 19.4.1986 for the purpose of determining the fair market value on the ground that they were nearest to the date of notification under Section 4. The Special Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation to be paid to the recorded tenure holders @ Rs. 60,000/- per acre and the total compensation was quantified at Rs. 15,33,600/-.

The recorded tenure holders not being satisfied, filed an application under Section 18 of the Act for making of reference. The application so made was registered as Land Acquisition Reference No. 123 of 1989. The reference has been decided by the Learned Additional District Judge IIIrd, Mathura under the order dated 31.5.2002. The reference court amongst others has returned following findings:

The notification published under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act on 17.12.1986 was not the correct notification inasmuch as in between the village had been brought under consolidation and that there has been change in the plot numbers. Having regard to the said discrepancy, a fresh notification under Section 6 was published on 22.10.1988 with the correct plot numbers. It has been held sale deeds of relevant period for determination of the compensation to be paid to the recorded tenure holders had not been considered. The reference court for the said reason and on other factors relevant to decide the market value has therefore held that the criterion adopted for determining the market value of the land by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was bad.

Issue no.1 framed for the purpose has accordingly been answered in favour of the recorded tenure holders/claimants.

Up to this stage, there is hardly any dispute between the parties and nothing could be brought to the notice of the court to take any different view that the one which has been taken by the reference court having regard to the date of the correct notification i.e. 22.10.1988.

The reference court only on the basis of the circle rates said to have been notified by the District Magistrate has proceeded to determine the fair market value of the acquired land at Rs. 200/- per square yard and has accordingly determine the compensation to be paid to the tenure holders.

Union of India is not satisfied with such determination. Hence this appeal.

According to the Union of India, the exemplars of the relevant period that sale deeds upto the date of correct notification under Section 6 i.e. 22.10.1988 would be relevant for arriving at the fair market value. The circle rate as notified by the District Magistrate is only one of the material fact to be taken into consideration. In absence of exemplars having been considered for the relevant period, the order of the reference court determining the compensation at Rs. 1200/- according to the Union of India, would not be justified.

Sri Rahul Sahai, counsel for the respondent submits that Special Land Acquisition Officer has committed error in not calling for exemplars from the office of the Registrar in respect of the period upto three years backwards from 22.10.1988 for determination of the fair market value of the land acquired. Since, such exemplars have not been considered, the reference court has not correct in determining the compensation. The matter regarding determining the compensation may be remitted back to the Special Land Acquisition Officer itself.

We may record that even if the State through Collector had taken possession on the basis of incorrect notification in the year 1987, the same would be irregular. Lawful possession shall be deemed to have been taken only with the issuance of the correct notification on 22.10.1988. Therefore 22.10.1988 would be the crucial date for determination of the fair market value of the land of the tenure holders acquired under the notifications in question. 

Having arrived to the said conclusion, we find that the exemplars up to the date of publication of the notification i.e. 22.10.1988 are required to be taken into consideration alongwith other attending circumstances and material on record for arriving at the correct market value of the acquired land.

In view of what has been noticed hereinabove by us, we record that the circle rate notified by the District Magistrate is only one of the material to be considered for the purpose of determination of the fair market value of the acquired land. From the order of Special Land Acquisition Officer as already noticed above, exemplars for the period of three years backwards from 9.11.1986 alone were called for, which in our opinion resulted in manifest error in determination of the fair market value. The crucial date for determination of the fair market value, would be the date on which the correct notification under Section 6 was published i.e. 22.10.1988. It is only from such date that the possession of the land even be said to be legal and valid.

In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the matter with regard to the determination of compensation payable to the tenure holders need to be revisited by the Special Land Acquisition Officer keeping in mind the correct date of Section 6 notification i.e. 22.10.1988 and for the purpose the Special Land Acquisition Officer may summon the necessary sale-deeds from the office of Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned and thereafter the fair market value be determined. The exercise in that regard be completed within four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

The order passed by the reference court dated 31.5.2002 is hereby, set aside to the extent indicated above as also the order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer determining the compensation to that extent. The amount deposited by the department shall continue to lie in the account concerned and shall abide by the order to be passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer as aforesaid.

Appeal is allowed.

Order Date :- 24.10.2017/Noman