Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhya Pradesh Road Developement ... vs Prakash Kumar Pradeep Kumar on 13 April, 2022
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
BEFORE
SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
&
SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 13th APRIL, 2022
ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 8 of 2020
BETWEEN :-
Madhya Pradesh Road
Development Corporation,
Through Divisional
Manager, R.P. Singh aged
about 55 years, O/o Road
Development Corporation,
Jabalpur, Chief Engineer,
Madhya Kshetra, in front of
Public Works Department,
South Civil Lines, Jabalpur
(M.P.) 482001.
........Appellant
(By Shri Atul Nema, Advocate.)
AND
1. Mohd. Shahbuddin and
others, R/o Gauraiyaghat,
Teh. And Distt. Jabalpur
(M.P.)
2. The Competent Authority
[Land Acquisition
National Highway
No.12A, and Sub-
Divisional Officer
2
(Revenue)] Jabalpur
(M.P.)
3. Mohd. Abbas S/o Shri
Abdul Waheed, R/o 903,
Badi Omti Jabalpur,
Distt. Jabalpur (M.P.)
4. Mohd. Riyaz S/o Shri
Abdul Waheed, R/o 903,
Badi Omti Jabalpur,
Distt. Jabalpur (M.P.)
5. Mohd. Razzak S/o Shri
Abdul Waheed, R/o 903,
Badi Omti Jabalpur,
Distt. Jabalpur (M.P.)
......Respondents
(By Shri Sanjiv Kumar Chaturvedi, Advocate)
ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 46 of 2021
BETWEEN :-
Madhya Pradesh Road
Development Corporation,
Representing through
Divisional Manager,
Jabalpur O/o Road
Development Corporation,
in front of Public Works
Department, South Civil
Lines, Jabalpur (M.P.)
482001
........Appellant
(By Shri Atul Nema, Advocate)
3
AND
1. Sudeep Agrawal S/o Shri
R.S. Agrawal, R/o 3,
Adarsh Nagar, Narmada
Road, Jabalpur (M.P.)
2. National Highway
Authorities Pradhikaran,
Road Transport and
Highway, Through
Project Director, Project
Execution Unit, Near
Ahinsa Chouk, Vijay
Nagar, Jabalpur (M.P.)
3. The Competent Authority
(Land Acquisition),
National Highway No.
12A and Sub-Divisional
Officer (Revenue)
Jabalpur (M.P.)
......Respondents
(By Shri Sanjiv Kumar Chaturvedi, Advocate)
ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 59 of 2019
BETWEEN :-
Smt. Damyanti Chouhan,
W/o Dheeraj Bhai Chouhan,
aged about 75 years, R/o
Katiyaghat Pump House,
Chouhan Dairy, Tahsil and
District Jabalpur (M.P.)
........Appellant
(By Shri Sanjiv Kumar Chaturvedi, Advocate.)
4
AND
1. Madhya Pradesh Road
Development
Corporation Through
Divisional Manager/Road
Development
Corporation, Jabalpur,
Chief Engineer, Madhya
Kshetra, In Front of
Public Works
Department, South Civil
Lines, Jabalpur (M.P.).
2. National Highway
Authority, Road
Transport and
Highway through Project
Director, Project
Execution Unit, Near
Ahinsa Chowk, Vijay
Nagar, Jabalpur (M.P.) at
present South Civil
Lines, Near Ridge Road,
Jabalpur (M.P.)
3. The Competent Authority
(Land Acquisition),
National Highway No.
12-A and Sub Divisional
Officer (Revenue),
Collectorate, Jabalpur
(M.P.)
......Respondents
(By Shri Atul Nema, Advocate)
ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 84 of 2021
5
BETWEEN :-
Madhya Pradesh Road
Development Corporation,
Representing through
Divisional Manager,
Jabalpur O/o Road
Development Corporation,
in front of Public Works
Department, South Civil
Lines, Jabalpur (M.P.)
482001
........Appellant
(By Shri Atul Nema, Advocate.)
AND
1. Prakash Kumar @
Pradeep Kumar S/o
Ramesh Prasad, R/o
Katiyaghat, P.H. No.
23/27, Teh. and Distt.
Jabalpur (M.P.)
2. National Highway
Authorities Pradhikaran,
Road Transport and
Highway, Through
Project Director, Project
Execution Unit, Near
Ahinsa Chouk, Vijay
Nagar, Jabalpur (M.P.)
3. The Competent Authority
(Land Acquisition),
National Highway No.
12A and Sub-Divisional
Officer (Revenue)
Jabalpur (M.P.)
6
......Respondents
(By Shri Sanjiv Kumar Chaturvedi, Advocate)
ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 85 of 2021
BETWEEN :-
Madhya Pradesh Road
Development Corporation,
Representing through
Divisional Manager,
Jabalpur O/o Road
Development Corporation,
in front of Public Works
Department, South Civil
Lines, Jabalpur (M.P.)
482001
........Appellant
(By Shri Atul Nema, Advocate.)
AND
1. Deepchand Mahavar S/o
Shivdayal Mahavar, R/o
Sadar Bazaar, Chaavni,
Jabalpur (M.P.)
2. National Highway
Authorities Pradhikaran,
Road Transport and
Highway, Through
Project Director, Project
Execution Unit, Near
Ahinsa Chouk, Vijay
Nagar, Jabalpur (M.P.)
3. The Competent Authority
(Land Acquisition),
7
National Highway No.
12A and Sub-Divisional
Officer (Revenue)
Jabalpur (M.P.)
......Respondents
(By Shri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate)
ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 86 of 2021
BETWEEN :-
Madhya Pradesh Road
Development Corporation,
Representing through
Divisional Manager,
Jabalpur O/o Road
Development Corporation,
in front of Public Works
Department, South Civil
Lines, Jabalpur (M.P.)
482001
........Appellant
(By Shri Atul Nema, Advocate.)
AND
1. Lalaji Maravi S/o
Kishan Maravi, R/o
Katiyaghat, P.H.
No.23/27, Teh. and Distt.
Jabalpur (M.P.)
2. National Highway
Authorities Pradhikaran,
Road Transport and
Highway, Through
Project Director, Project
Execution Unit, Near
8
Ahinsa Chouk, Vijay
Nagar, Jabalpur (M.P.)
3. The Competent Authority
(Land Acquisition),
National Highway No.
12A and Sub-Divisional
Officer (Revenue)
Jabalpur (M.P.)
......Respondents
(By Shri D.R. Vishwakarma, Advocate)
ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 87 of 2021
BETWEEN :-
Madhya Pradesh Road
Development Corporation,
Representing through
Divisional Manager,
Jabalpur O/o Road
Development Corporation,
in front of Public Works
Department, South Civil
Lines, Jabalpur (M.P.)
482001
........Appellant
(By Shri Atul Nema, Advocate.)
AND
1. Vincent Daniel S/o Peter
Daniel, Aged about 63
years, R/o H. No. 9/1,
Fourth Mile, Mandla
Road, Jabalpur (M.P.)
9
2. National Highway
Authorities Pradhikaran,
Road Transport and
Highway, Through
Project Director, Project
Execution Unit, Near
Ahinsa Chouk, Vijay
Nagar, Jabalpur (M.P.)
3. The Competent Authority
(Land Acquisition),
National Highway No.
12A and Sub-Divisional
Officer (Revenue)
Jabalpur (M.P.)
......Respondents
ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 88 of 2021
BETWEEN :-
Madhya Pradesh Road
Development Corporation,
Representing through
Divisional Manager,
Jabalpur O/o Road
Development Corporation,
in front of Public Works
Department, South Civil
Lines, Jabalpur (M.P.)
482001
........Appellant
(By Shri Atul Nema, Advocate.)
AND
10
1. Lalaji Maravi S/o
Kishan Maravi, R/o
Katiyaghat, P.H.
No.23/27, Teh. and Distt.
Jabalpur (M.P.)
2. National Highway
Authorities Pradhikaran,
Road Transport and
Highway, Through
Project Director, Project
Execution Unit, Near
Ahinsa Chouk, Vijay
Nagar, Jabalpur (M.P.)
3. The Competent Authority
(Land Acquisition),
National Highway No.
12A and Sub-Divisional
Officer (Revenue)
Jabalpur (M.P.)
......Respondents
(By Shri D.R. Vishwakarma, Advocate)
ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 89 of 2021
BETWEEN :-
Madhya Pradesh Road
Development Corporation,
Representing through
Divisional Manager,
Jabalpur O/o Road
Development Corporation,
in front of Public Works
Department, South Civil
Lines, Jabalpur (M.P.)
482001
11
........Appellant
(By Shri Atul Nema, Advocate.)
AND
1. Society of A.B.
Offnorum India S/o Sir
Sevatan Father Niyolam
A Ampresh Kadar Center
Birds Primary, R/o
Jamtara, Teh. and Distt.
Jabalpur Through Head
Jay Prakash Tirki.
2. National Highway
Authorities Pradhikaran,
Road Transport and
Highway, Through
Project Director, Project
Execution Unit, Near
Ahinsa Chouk, Vijay
Nagar, Jabalpur (M.P.)
3. The Competent Authority
(Land Acquisition),
National Highway No.
12A and Sub-Divisional
Officer (Revenue)
Jabalpur (M.P.)
......Respondents
ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 90 of 2021
BETWEEN :-
Madhya Pradesh Road
Development Corporation,
Representing through
12
Divisional Manager,
Jabalpur O/o Road
Development Corporation,
in front of Public Works
Department, South Civil
Lines, Jabalpur (M.P.)
482001
........Appellant
(By Shri Atul Nema, Advocate.)
AND
1. Prakash Kumar @
Pradeep Kumar S/o
Ramesh Prasad, R/o
Katiyaghat, P.H. No.
23/27, Teh. and Distt.
Jabalpur (M.P.)
2. National Highway
Authorities Pradhikaran,
Road Transport and
Highway, Through
Project Director, Project
Execution Unit, Near
Ahinsa Chouk, Vijay
Nagar, Jabalpur (M.P.)
3. The Competent Authority
(Land Acquisition),
National Highway No.
12A and Sub-Divisional
Officer (Revenue)
Jabalpur (M.P.)
......Respondents
(By Shri D.R. Vishwakarma, Advocate)
ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 91 of 2021
13
BETWEEN :-
Madhya Pradesh Road
Development Corporation,
Representing through
Divisional Manager,
Jabalpur O/o Road
Development Corporation,
in front of Public Works
Department, South Civil
Lines, Jabalpur (M.P.)
482001
........Appellant
(By Shri Atul Nema, Advocate.)
AND
1. Prakash Kumar @
Pradeep Kumar S/o
Ramesh Prasad, R/o
Katiyaghat, P.H. No.
23/27, Teh. and Distt.
Jabalpur (M.P.)
2. National Highway
Authorities Pradhikaran,
Road Transport and
Highway, Through
Project Director, Project
Execution Unit, Near
Ahinsa Chouk, Vijay
Nagar, Jabalpur (M.P.)
3. The Competent Authority
(Land Acquisition),
National Highway No.
12A and Sub-Divisional
14
Officer (Revenue)
Jabalpur (M.P.)
......Respondents
(By Shri D.R. Vishwakarma, Advocate)
ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 97 of 2021
BETWEEN :-
Madhya Pradesh Road
Development Corporation,
Representing through
Divisional Manager,
Jabalpur O/o Road
Development Corporation,
in front of Public Works
Department, South Civil
Lines, Jabalpur (M.P.)
482001
........Appellant
(By Shri Atul Nema, Advocate.)
AND
1. Sukhvir Kaur W/o Late
Savinder Kaur, R/o
Chauthameel Patthar,
Mandla Road, Jabalpur
(M.P.)
2. National Highway
Authorities Pradhikaran,
Road Transport and
Highway, Through
Project Director, Project
Execution Unit, Near
15
Ahinsa Chouk, Vijay
Nagar, Jabalpur (M.P.)
3. The Competent Authority
(Land Acquisition),
National Highway No.
12A and Sub-Divisional
Officer (Revenue)
Jabalpur (M.P.)
4. Manjeet Singh S/o
Savinder Singh, R/o
Chauthameel Patthar,
Mandla Road, Jabalpur
(M.P.)
......Respondents
(By Shri Tirthraj Pillai, Advocate)
Whether approved for Yes.
reporting
Law Laid down :- 1. Section 23 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (Act of 1894) and Section 26 of
The Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 (Act of 2013) - There is a marked
difference in the language employed and
formula prescribed for determination of
market value of land in the previous act
and the subsequent Act.
2. Section 26 of Act of 2013- The
expression 'The Market Value, if any,
specified in the Indian Stamp Act' must be
given full meaning and effect. The
16
expression is not a dull and lifeless
expression which can be ignored.
3. Interpretation of Statute- The
endeavour should be made by the Courts to
assign meaning to each word, term and
expression used in the Statute. The golden
principle of interpretation is that the
legislature has used every word
consciously and for a definite purpose.
4. M.P. Preparation and Revision of
Market Value Guideline Rules, 2018
(Guidelines Rules)- Rules are statutory in
nature and are introduced in exercise of
power under Section 47-A and Section 75
of Indian Stamp Act.
5. Collector Guideline dated 03.03.2014-
Guidelines are issued in furtherance of
Indian Stamp Act and Guidelines Rules
and therefore having statutory colour and
effect.
6. The Guidelines Rules, 2018- a holistic
reading of Rules shows that a scientific
procedure is laid down for the expert
committee to prepare the market value
guidelines.
7. M.P. Nagar tatha Gram Nivesh
Adhiniyam, 1973- cannot be made
applicable relating to lands acquired under
the Highways Act/Act of 2013 for
determination of compensation or
17
reduction of amount of compensation.
8. The undeveloped acquired land- the
compensation needs to be determined as
per Collector guideline dated 03.03.2014.
The governing provision of Act of 2013,
Highways Act and Collector guidelines do
not permit any deduction while
determining amount of compensation.
9. Law of precedent- A judgment of court
is precedent for a principle which has been
specifically decided and not for something
which logically flows from it. A single
difference of fact or a different applicable
Statute may change the precedential value
of a judgment.
10. Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996- Section 34 and 37-
application/appeals can be entertained if
the award is found to be contrary to-
(i) Fundamental policy of Indian Law,
(ii) The interest of India,
(iii) Justice or morality or
(iv) It is patently illegal.
The application/appeal under the
Arbitration Act is not a regular first appeal
like a civil appeal u/s 96 of CPC and
therefore order impugned must be judged
on the anvil of aforesaid litmus test.
11. Theory of deduction- The theory was
applied by Supreme Court in certain
matters arising out of 1894 Act. The Court
opined that in view of legislative change as
18
per Section 26 of the Act of 2013, the said
theory cannot be pressed into service.
JUDGMENT
Sujoy Paul, J.:-
This common judgment will dispose of these batch of appeals
which were analogously heard on the joint request of the parties
considering the similitude of the questions involved.
2. Facts are taken from A.A. No.46/2021. Respondent/claimant is
owner of Khasra No.73 total area 0.110 hectare. Out of this land, small
piece of land was acquired. On 31.8.2015, the competent authority
determined the amount of Rs.95,16,384/- as compensation by treating the
land in question as 'agricultural land'. Being aggrieved by said
determination of compensation made by the competent authority on
31.8.2015, a dispute under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act,
1956 (in short 'Highways Act') was filed by respondent No.1 before the
Commissioner-cum-Arbitrator.
Argument of Corporation :
3. The appellant entered appearance before the Arbitrator and filed a
detailed reply stating that in case of raw land, necessary deduction would
be applicable. Shri Atul Nema, learned counsel for the appellant placed
reliance on para- 16 (vii) & (xiv) of the reply and contended that specific
objection / pleadings raised by appellant were not considered by learned
Arbitrator.
4. Arbitrator passed the award dated 10.8.2016 whereby amount of
compensation was enhanced.
5. The appellant feeling aggrieved by such enhancement, preferred an
application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 (in short 'Arbitration Act') before the Court below. The Court
below by order dated 22.3.2021, rejected the said application preferred by
the present appellant.
6. Shri Atul Nema, learned counsel for the appellant Corporation
fairly submits that in all these appeals filed by the Corporation, the lands
acquired are admittedly undiverted and undeveloped agricultural lands.
The size of lands is more than 1000 sq.m. The Collector has issued the
guidelines on 03.03.2014. In the Collector guidelines, there is no
mention that initial 1000 sq.m. should be determined by reducing the size
of the land as per Section 59 of M.P. Gram Tatha Nagar Nivesh
Adhiniyam, 1973 (in short 'Adhiniyam'). In other words, it is argued
that initial 1000 sq.m. of lands in all the cases are undiverted agricultural
lands. If lands are to be developed, as per the Adhiniyam, certain portion
of the land must be left for the purpose of development in view of
statutory mandate ingrained in the said Adhiniyam. Thus, only 50% of
the land out of 1000 sq.m. of land would be left as developed land. The
compensation for this portion of land is to be quantified accordingly. The
compensation would be applicable for 50% of the land and not for the
entire piece of land of 1000 sq.m.
7. The next limb of argument is that the Court below has erred in
rejecting the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act whereas
a Coordinate Bench of Court below in MJC (AV) 165/2017 (MPRDC vs.
Damyanti Chouhan) (Annexure A/2 in A.A. No.8/2020) took a decision
in consonance with the aforesaid argument of the appellant. Putting it
differently, Shri Nema submits that the Coordinate Bench of Court below
in Damyanti Chouhan (supra) opined that the 50% of initial 1000 sq.m.
of acquired land alone deserves compensation. It was not proper for the
Coordinate Bench of Court below to take a different view in the
impugned order.
8. Shri Atul Nema, Advocate in support of his aforesaid submissions
placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court passed in Civil
Appeal No.15448/2017 (Union of India Vs. Savitri Devi) and urged that
the 'circle rate' mentioned in this judgment is nothing but the 'Collector
guideline'. The Apex Court clarified as to how Collector guidelines can
be prepared and to what extent they can be pressed into service. The said
requirements are not fulfilled in the instant case. Similarly, judgment of
Supreme Court in Union of India vs Dyagala Devamma and others
decided on 25th July, 2018 (Civil Appeal No.6986/2018) is referred to
contend that para-24 makes it clear that Apex Court permitted 50%
deduction from the value assessed on the basis of market value.
9. The bone of contention of Shri Nema is that market value has not
been defined either in the Act of 1894 or in the Act of 2013. The Supreme
Court while laying down law in catena of judgments relating to
determination of compensation under the 1894 Act applied theory of
deduction. The theory of deduction, since not defined in any statute, this
judge made law occupied the field pursuant to various judgments of
Supreme Court based on the 1894 Act and since that theory is not defined
in 2013 Act also, the previous principle of deduction will continue to
apply for the purpose of determination of compensation in cases arising
out of Act of 2013 also.
10. The judgment of Supreme Court in Patel Engineering Ltd Vs.
North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. NEEPCO SLP (C)
Nos. 3584-85 of 2020 is relied upon to contend that if award passed runs
contrary to Section 31(3) of the Arbitration Act, it can be set aside by
treating it to be a 'patent illegality' in view of test laid down in Section 34
of the said Act. For the same principle, the judgment of Andra Pradesh
High Court in Lingam Dasaradharamayya Vs. Kanuri Raja Rao and
others AIR 1964 AP 348 is referred.
11. A Division Bench judgment of this Court in Rohit Gupta vs. The
Arbitrator- cum- Divisional Commissioner Revenue Jabalpur and
others (W.P. No.13213/2019) is relied upon wherein it is held that once
section 3 (J) of NHAI Act is declared as ultra vires by the Supreme Court,
the compensation is to be determined under the relevant Land Acquisition
Act. The judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Vithal Rao and
Another Vs. The Special Land Acquisition (Civil Appeal No.1645-
1647 of 2016) is cited to demonstrate the theory of deduction. It is urged
that the said theory is still applicable. The cases reported in (1988) 3 SCC
751 (Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer)
and (2011) 6 SCC 47 (Trishala Jain v. State of Uttaranchal) were also
relied upon to contend that examining it from any angle, the
determination of compensation without considering the theory of
deduction is bad in law. Secondly, no reasons are assigned by the
Arbitrator for not considering the relevant objection raised in the reply.
He mechanically applied the Collector guidelines which is bad in law.
Contentions of claimants :
12. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for certain
claimants supported the order of learned Arbitrator and the Court below.
By placing reliance on various paragraphs of the impugned order, Shri
Chaturvedi submits that the method of calculation of compensation is
indisputably based on the Collector guidelines. The said guidelines and
Adhiniyam nowhere prescribes that 50% of initial 1000 sq.m. alone can
be taken into account for the purpose of grant of compensation.
13. Learned counsel for the claimants further urged that the First
Schedule of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ( in
short 'Act of 2013') prescribes compensation for land owners. The law
makers introduced the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Removal of
Difficulties) Order, 2015 (in short, 'Order of 2015'). He placed reliance
on Clause 2 which reads as under:-
"2. The provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013, relating to the
determination of compensation in accordance with the
First Schedule, rehabilitation and resettlement in
accordance with the Second Schedule and
infrastructure amenities in accordance with the Third
Schedule shall apply to all cases of land acquisition
under the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule
to the said Act."
[Emphasis Supplied]
In the light of Clause 2, Shri Chaturvedi submits that the Act of
2013 and the relevant schedule is applicable. Section 26 of the Act of
2013 is pressed into service by contending that determination of market
value of land by the Collector should be based on the factors mentioned
in the said section.
14. Shri D.R. Vishwakarma, learned counsel for another claimant
placed reliance on Section 3G(7) of the National Highways Act,1956. The
parameters of determination of the amount of compensation are laid down
in this statutory provision is the next contention of Shri Vishwakarma.
15. It is common ground taken by learned counsel for the
respondents/claimants that before the Court below, necessary ingredients
for invoking jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act were
not available and, therefore, no fault can be found in the impugned order
of the Court below.
16. So far present appeals are concerned, it is jointly urged that the
learned Arbitrator has determined the compensation as per the Collector
guidelines. He has assigned adequate reasons for determining the amount
as per the applicable formula. The Court below has considered all the
grounds raised by the appellants. Thus, no case is made out for
interference under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.
17. Shri Sanjeev Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the claimants submits
that the necessary factors on the basis of which compensation is to be
determined are laid down in Section 26 of Act of 2013. The Collector
guidelines in question were issued by the State Government in exercise of
powers under Section 47-A and Section 75 of the Indian Stamp Act.
The State Government in exercise of power under Sections 75 of the
Indian Stamp Act also introduced Statutory Rules namely M.P.
Preparation and Revision of Market Value Guideline Rules, 2018
(Guidelines Rules). The various provisions of the said Rules makes it
clear that an expert committee was constituted which was required to
determine market value by taking into account relevant facts which are
mentioned in Rule 6 of the said Rules. An expert committee after taking
note of all the relevant facts prepared the 'Collector guidelines' which are
binding in view of language employed in Section 26(1)(a) of the Act of
2013.
18. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgement
of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.266/2022 (Haryana Tourism Ltd.
vs. M/S. Kandhari Beverages Ltd.), another judgment in SLP (Civil
No.14078/2019 (R.B. Dealers Private Ltd. vs. The Metro Railway,
Kolkata) and on the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in
W.P.No.13720/2017 Kashiraju Seetharamaiah and 82 Ors. vs. Union
of India and 7 Ors.
19. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for both the sides
jointly submit that pivotal questions to be decided by this court are :-
1. Whether the arbitrator was justified in
determining the compensation solely on the basis
of Collector guidelines without applying the
theory of deduction.?
2. Whether the Court below while passing
impugned orders failed to exercise jurisdiction
under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.?
20. No other point is pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
21. We have heard the parties at length and perused the record.
FINDINGS
First Question
22. The bone of contention of Shri Atul Nema is founded on theory of
deduction. It was canvassed that since the theory of deduction is applied
by Supreme Court while examining correctness of compensation relating
to acquisition of land made pursuant to Act of 1894, in absence of any
justifiable reason, same theory of deduction must be applied relating to
compensation determined under the Act of 2013 as well.
23. This point deserves serious consideration. In order to examine the
legislative journey, it is apt to consider the relevant provisions relating to
determination of compensation in the Act of 1894 and in contrast to the
Act of 2013. The same are reproduced in juxtaposition :-
Act of 1894 Act of 2013
Section 23. Matters to be considered 26. Determination of market value
in determining compensation.- (1) In of land by Collector.- (1) The
determining the amount of Collector shall adopt the following
compensation to be awarded for land criteria in assessing and determining
acquired under this Act, the Court the market value of the land, namely-
shall take into consideration-
(a) the market value, if any,
first, the market value of the land specified in the Indian Stamp Act,
at the date of the publication of the 1899 (2 of 1899) for the registration
[notification under section 4, sub- of sale deeds or agreements to sell, as
section (1)]; the case may be, in the area, where
the land is situated; or
secondly, the damage sustained by
the person interested, by reason of (b) the average sale price for similar
the taking of any standing crops or type of land situated in the nearest
trees which may be on the land at the village or nearest vicinity area; or
time of the Collector's taking
possession thereof; (c) consented amount of
thirdly, the damage (if any), compensation as agreed upon under
sustained by the person interested, at sub-section (2)of section 2 in case of
the time of the Collector's taking acquisition of lands for private
possession of the land, by reason of companies or for public private
severing such land from his other partnership projects,
land; whichever is higher:
fourthly, the damage (if any), Provided that the date for
sustained by the person interested, at determination of market value shall
the time of the Collector's taking be the date on which the notification
possession of the land, by reason of has been issued under section 11.
the acquisition injuriously affecting Explanation 1.--The average sale
his other property, movable or price referred to in clause (b) shall be
immovable, in any other manner, or determined taking into account the
his earnings; sale deeds or the agreements to sell
registered for similar type of area in
fifthly, if, in consequence of the the near village or near vicinity area
acquisition of the land by the during immediately preceding three
Collector, the person interested is years of the year in which such
compelled to change his residence or acquisition of land is proposed to be
place of business, the reasonable made.
expenses (if any) incidental to such
change; and Explanation 2.--For determining the
average sale price referred to in
sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide Explanation 1, one-half of the total
resulting from diminution of the number of sale deeds or the
profits of the land between the time agreements to sell in which the
of the publication of the declaration highest sale price has been
under section 6 and the time of the mentioned shall be taken into
Collector's taking possession of the account.
land. Explanation 3.--While determining
the market value under this section
and the average sale price referred to
in Explanation 1 or Explanation 2,
any price paid as compensation for
land acquired under the provisions of
this Act on an earlier occasion in the
district shall not be taken into
consideration.
Explanation 4.--While determining
the market value under this section
and the average sale price referred to
in Explanation 1 or Explanation 2,
any price paid, which in the opinion
of the Collector is not indicative of
actual prevailing market value may
be discounted for the purposes of
calculating market value.
(2) The market value calculated as
per sub-section (1) shall be
multiplied by a factor to be
specified in the First Schedule.
[Emphasis Supplied]
24. A careful reading of Section 23 of previous Act (Act of 1984)
makes it clear that it only talks about the market value of the land at the
date of publication of notification whereas Section 26 (1) (a) of later Act
(Act of 2013) envisages that the market value can be determined as
specified in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
25. Thus, there is a marked difference in the language employed and in
the formula prescribed for determination of market value of land in the
previous act and the subsequent Act. The Act of 2013 gives statutory
recognition to the market value specified in the Stamp Act.
26. The golden Principle of Interpretation is that the legislature has
used every word consciously and for a purpose. Thus, endeavour should
be made to assign meaning to each word, term and expression used in the
statute. It will not be proper to brush aside words of a statute as being
inapposite surplusage. It is well established that it is incumbent on the
courts to avoid a construction, if reasonable permissible on the language,
which would render a part of statute devoid of any meaning or
application.(See : Aswini Kumar Ghose V. Arabinda Bose, AIR 1952
SC 369, p. 377 : 1953 SCR 1; see further Union of India v. Hansoli
Devi, AIR 2002 SC 3240, p. 3246 : (2002) 7 SCC 273; State of Orissa
v. Joginder Patjoshi, AIR 2004 SC 1039, p. 1142 : (2004) 9 SCC 278.
Rao Shiv Bhadur Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1953 SC 394, p.397 :
1953 SCR 1188. J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v.
State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC 1170, p. 1174 : (1962) 1 SCJ 417 : (1961) 1
LLJ 540; Shri Mohammad Alikhan v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax,
AIR 1997 SC 1165, p. 1167 :(1997) 3 SCC 511; Dilawar Babu Kurane
v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 564, p. 566 : (2002) 2 SCC 135;
Ramphal Kundu v. Kamal Sharma, AIR 2004 SC 1039, p. 1042 :
(2004) 9 SCC 278).
27. In view of aforesaid principle, in our view, the new expression
employed in Section 26 (1)(a) of Act, 2013 must be given full meaning
and effect. We are unable to hold that the expression, the market value, if
any, specified in the Indian Stamp Act is such a dull and lifeless
expression which can be ignored. Apart from this, clause (a) aforesaid
talks about the area where land is situated. These factors are of utmost
importance for determination of market value of land by Collector.
28. In the case of Savitri Devi (Supra), the Supreme Court interfered
in the impugned judgment of High Court and opined that the circle rates
fixed for the purpose of stamp duty could not have been made basis for
determining the market value. A closure scrutiny of this judgment shows
that there was no material placed before the Supreme Court to establish
that any statutory Committee had determined the said rate on any
scientific basis and methodical assessment of market value (See para-3).
In this backdrop, the Apex Court opined that the circle rates cannot form
basis for determining compensation. This is well settled that while
considering a judgment, the facts and circumstances of that case as well
as governing statutory provision must be taken into account (See: Union
of India v. Major Bahadur Singh, (2006) 1 SCC 368, Padma Sundara
Rao and others v. State of T.N. and others, (2002) 3 SCC 533, Ram
Prasad Sarma v. Mani Kumar Subba, (2003) 1 SCC 289).
29. In exercise of power conferred by Section 75 of Stamp Act, the
State Government introduced Statutory Guidelines Rules, 2018. Rule 3
and 4 reads as under :-
"3. Constitution of Central Valuation Board and its functions.-(1) The
Central Valuation Board shall consist of:-
1. Inspector General of Registration; -Chairperson
2. Engineer in Chief, Public works Department or his -Member
representative not below th rank of Chief Engineer
3. Director of Town and Country Planning or his -Member
representative not Below the rank of Joint Director;
4. Commissioner, of Land Records or his representative not -Member
below the Rank of Deputy Commissioner;
5. Director, Agriculture or his representative not below the -Member
rank of Joint Director;
6. Chief Conservator of Forest or his representative not -Member
below the rank of Conservator of Forest;
7. Head of Department of Architecture of Maulana Azad -Member
National Institute of Technology;
8. Head of The Department of Civil Engineering of Maulana -Member
Azad National Institute of Technology;
9. All regional Deputy Inspector General, Registration; -Member
10. Joint Inspector General, Registration/departmental Member/
officer working in the office of Inspector General Convener
Registration - authorized by the Inspector General,
Registration in this regard.
11. Any other member nominated by the State Government. -Member
(2) The Board shall perform the following function:-
(a) Receive information/date of property transactions entered by the
District Valuation Committee alongwith the provisional rates for analysis
and final approval.
(b) Determine norms/sub-clause for fixation of market values in
respect of valuation of lands, buildings and various kinds of
interests in the immovable property.
(c) May fix rates for different categories of construction etc.,
which may be different for different areas.
4. Constitution of District Valuation Committee and sub-District
Valuation Committee and their Functions.-- (1) District Valuation
Committee shall consist of :-
1. Collector; -Chairperson
2. A Member of Legislative Assembly from the Urban area -Member
of the concerned constituency as recommended by the
Minister in charge of the district concerned;
3. Chairperson, Janpad Panchayat, District Headquarter; -Member
4. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department; -Member
5. .Executive Engineer, Department of Water Resources; -Member
6. Commissioner, Municipal Cooperation or Chief -Member
Municipal Officer at the District Headquarter;
7. Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat; -Member
8. Superintendent, Land records/Superintendent Diversion;- -Member
9. Rent Control Officer; -Member
10. District Forest Officer; -Member
11. Chief Executive Officer, Development Agency/Deputy -Member
Commissioner Madhya Pradesh Housing Board;
12. Joint Director/Deputy Director Town and Country -Member
Planning.
13. General Manager, Industries. -Member
14. Senior District Registrar/District Registrar of the -Convener
District.
(2) The District Valuation Committee shall perform the following
functions namely ;-
(a) collect information on property values and property trends which
would be complied in the form of primary data along with the existing
data.
(b) analyze the proposed values in the Formats received in the manner
prescribed by Inspector General of registration which includes
SAMPADA along with other information received from the Sub District
Valuation Committee and the information collected in respect to
construction rates, actual rates of the properties etc. compiled in the form
of primary data and to fix the provisional values.
(c) notify the provisional values in the manner prescribed by the
Inspector General of registration which includes SAMPADA and to invite
the suggestions of the public thereon and to consider them.
(d) send the provisional values for approval of Central Valuation
Board and to issue the market value guidelines for different areas on
approval.
(3) The Sub-District Valuation Committee shall consist of;-
1. Sub-District Officer, Revenue; -Chairperson
2. Chairman, Janpad Panchayat, Sub District Headquarter -Member
3. Tehsildhar/Naib Tehsildar; -Member
4. Assistant Engineer, Water Resource Department; -Member
5. Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department; -Member
6. Chief Municipal Officer/or Commissioner Municipal -Member
Corporation or his nominee;
7. Chief Executive officer, Janapad Panchayat or his Nominee -Member
8. Sub-Divisional Officer, Forest; -Member
9. Senior Sub-Registrar/Sub Registrar. -Member
(4) The Sub-District Valuation Committee shall perform the following
functions, namely:-
(a) Collect and compile data pertaining to property values. For this
purpose the data of average value on the basis of documents registered in
the Sub-Registrar office, shall be taken into consideration. In the absence
of any sale transaction during that period, either sale instances of
comparable land/property would be taken as the basis or the price may
be increased as per price index. The information regarding the prevalent
market value of the property may be provided by patwaries through
Tehsildars. The other information like cost of construction, official sales,
auction sale etc would be collected by the Committee from the concerned
offices.
(b) Analyse the date collected and to propose the values in the
prescribed input forms and forward the same in the manner prescribed by
the Inspector General of Registration which includes "SAMPADA" to the
respective District Valuation Committee alongwith all the data and
information collected."
30. Rule 6 prescribes the procedure to prepare market value guidelines.
The facts which needs to be considered for working out the value of
immovable property are enumerated in Rule 6 which reads thus:-
"6. Procedure to prepare Market Value Guideline- While working out
the values of immovable property, the committees shall take into account
the following facts:-
(1) The case of lands:-
(a) classification of land as unirrigated or irrigated, diverted or Non
diverted and the like;
(b) classification under various categories in the settlements register;
(c) the rate of revenue assessments for each classification;
(d) other factors which influence the valuation of the land in question;
(e) points, if any, mentioned by the parties to the instrument or any
other person which required special consideration;
(f) value of adjacent land or lands in vicinity;
(g) average yield from the land, proximity to road and market,
distance from village site, level of land transport facilities, facilities
available for irrigation in any form;
(h) the nature of Crops raised on the land;
(i) Use of land as residential, commercial or industrial,
(j) the relative position of urban area and investment area or
development of the town.
(2) In case of house sites :-
(a) The general value of house sites in locality;
(b) Proximity to roads, railway stations, bus routes;
(c) Proximity to market, shop and the like;
(d) Amenities available in the place like, Public Offices, Hospitals and
Educational Institutes;
(e) Development activities, industrial improvements in the vicinity;
(f) Any special feature having a special bearing on the valuation of
the site; and
(g) Commercialization of home location and affiliation of these with
reserved area by master plan or town and country planning.
(3) In case of buildings :-
(a) type and structure,
(b) locality in which constructed,
(c) plinth area,
(d) year of construction,
(e) kind of material used,
(f) rate of Depreciation,
(g) fluctuation in rates,
(h) Any special feature having a special bearing on the valuation of
the site;
(i) The purpose for which the building is being used, and the income,
if any, by way of rent per annum secured on the building; and
(j) Relative position and reputation of the area where the building is
located.
(4) Other factors which the Committee considers necessary."
31. Rule 5 provides that market value guidelines needs to be revised
annually from 1st April.
32. Rule 8 provides that the market value guidelines prepared under
Rule 6 and 7 must be made available to the concerned statutory
officers. A holistic reading of the 'Guidelines Rules' shows that a
scientific procedure is laid down for the expert committee to prepare the
'Market Value Guidelines.'
33. The Collector guidelines dated 03.03.2014 shows that the same are
issued under Section 47 (A) read with Section 75 of Stamp Act and as
per the Guidelines Rules aforesaid. Thus, Collector guidelines, in our
view, provides determining factors for calculation of market value of land
and compensation as per Section 26 (1)(a) of the Act.
34. As noticed, the judgments of Supreme Court on which reliance is
placed by Shri Atul Nema are based on the aspect of determination of
compensation for the lands acquired under the Act of 1894. Section 23 of
the Act of 1894 does not talk about specification of market value under
the Indian Stamp Act whereas Section 26 of Act of 2013 laid emphasis on
such market value and therefore, this statutory recognition of market
value specified under the Stamp Act cannot be brushed aside. Indeed, it
deserves serious recognition in view of legislative change in the
determination of market value pursuant to the Act of 2013. We are
constrained to hold that the Collector guidelines have received statutory
colour if read with Section 75 of the Stamp Act and provisions of
guidelines Rules, 2018 and therefore the Collector rate can certainly
become the basis for determination of compensation for land acquired
under Highways Act as well.
35. The judgment of Supreme Court cannot be read as Euclid's
theorem (See: Ashwani Kumar Singh v. U.P. Public Service
Commission and others (2003) 11 SCC 584, Indian Performing
Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia (2015) 10 SCC 161, Vishal N.
Kalsaria v. Bank of India (2016) 3 SCC 762). The judgment of
Supreme Court is binding for the principles which are specifically laid
down and not for something which logically flows from it [See: State of
Orissa Vs. Sudhansu Sekhar Mishra and others AIR 1968 SC 647,
Regional Manager & Anr. vs. Pawan Kumar Dubey AIR 1976 SC 1766,
Ambica Quarry Works & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Ors. AIR 1987 SC
1073, Union Of India and another vs. Major Bahadur Singh (2006) 1
SCC 368, Commissioner of Customs (Port) vs. Toyota Kirloskar
Motor (P) Ltd. (2007) 5 SCC 371].
36. In the case of Dyagala Devamma (Supra) the compensation was
determined on the basis of sale deed (Ex. P/18) which was relating to a
small piece of land out of large chunk of land (101 acres approximately).
In this backdrop and in view of provisions of old act where there existed
no statutory recognition to Collector guidelines, the Apex court applied
the theory of deduction. This theory, in view of statutory recognition
given to Collector guidelines in Section 26 (1)(a) of Act of 2013, in our
view has lost its importance and applicability. Putting it differently, it
must be remembered that a singular different fact may change the
precedential value of previous judgments. None of the judgments cited by
Shri Nema deal with impact of Section 26(1)(a) of 2013 Act and
Collector guidelines issued pursuant to the Indian Stamp Act. Thus, those
judgments cannot be pressed into service in this case.
37. In the Collector guidelines dated 03.03.2014, special provision is
made for agricultural land. Clause-4 of said provision provides the
method of valuation in urban areas relating to agricultural/nazul land. For
municipal corporation area of Indore, Bhopal, Gwalior and Jabalpur, a
separate valuation criteria is prescribed. The relevant portion on which
parties laid emphasis reads as under :-
"¼4-1½ uxj fuxe {ks= bUnkSj] Hkksiky] Xokfy;j] tcyiqj esa rFkk mDr ftyksa dh
xkbZM ykbZu esa bl izko/kku gsrq fof'k"V :i ls mfYyf[kr xzkeksa esa Hkwfe dk ewY;kadu
fuEukuqlkj ekU; fd;k tkosxk&
Øekad Hkwfe dk {ks=Qy O;iofrZr d`f"k Hkwfe vO;iofrZr d`f"k Hkwfe
¼v½ tc Hkwfe dk {ks=Qy 1000 izk:i&1 esa vkoklh; O;olkf;d izk:i&1 esa fu/kkZfjr
oxZehVj vFkok blls de gks Hkw&[k.M dh nj vkoklh; Hkw[k.M dh nj
¼c½ tc Hkwfe dk {ks=Qy 1000 izFke 1000 oxZehVj rd ¼v½ IzFke 1000 oxZehVj rd ¼v½
oxZehVj ls vf/kd gks vuqlkj vuqlkj
$ $
'ks"k Hkwfe ds fy, izk:i&3 esa 'ks"k Hkwfe ds fy, izk:i&3 esa
fu/kkZfjr d`f"k Hkwfe dh vf/kdre fu/kkZfjr d`f"k Hkwfe dh nj
nj dk Ms<+ xquk
[Emphasis Supplied]
38. So far argument of Shri Nema based on the provisions of Local Act
i.e. Adhiniyam is concerned, suffice it to say that no statutory
provision/law is brought to our notice which mandates that while
determining compensation under the Act of 2013, 50% compensation
must be reduced for initial 1000 sq.m. of land or more. In view of
Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Rohit Gupta (supra), the
compensation needs to be determined as per the relevant Land
Acquisition Act which is in vogue. Thus, this argument deserves to be
rejected.
39. In our judgment, the scheme ingrained in Section 26 of the Act of
2013 gives legitimacy to the contention of counsel for claimants. Thus,
we are constrained to hold that theory of deduction cannot be applied in a
case of this nature which is covered and governed by statutory guidelines
issued by the Collector.
Second Question
40. This question is relating to legality, validity and propriety of the
impugned order passed by the Court below. The Court below declined
interference in exercise of power under Section 34 of Arbitration Act.
The Apex Court in Haryana Tourism Limited (supra) poignantly held
that such applications/appeals can be entertained if the award is found to
be contrary to, (a) fundamental policy of Indian Law; or (b) the interest of
India; or (c) justice or morality; or (d) if it is patently illegal. If we
examine the impugned orders on the anvil of said litmus test, it will be
clear that none of the said factors are attracted on which interference can
be made. It is nobody's case that award is against the fundamental policy
of Indian Law or against the interest of India or it runs contrary to justice
or morality. The singular ground of attack was that theory of deduction is
not made applicable by the Arbitrator which, in our opinion, does not fall
within the ambit of aforesaid test mentioned in clause (a), (b) and (c). We
are unable to hold that award or impugned order can be termed as
'patently illegal'. We say so because we analyzed this aspect in sufficient
details hereinabove and found that theory of deduction is alien to the
scheme envisaged in the Act of 2013. More particularly it is alien in
view of Section 26(1)(a) of Act of 2013. In addition, it is noteworthy
that in Madhya Pradesh for rural lands, factor (1) was determined by the
Government as per Section 26 of the Act of 2013. This can be gathered
from the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court wherein in tabular form
the factors applicable to different States were mentioned which contains
the name of Madhya Pradesh (See Kasiraju Seetharamaiah's case)
(supra).
41. In view of foregoing analysis, the appeals filed by Madhya Pradesh
Road Development Corporation viz. A.A. Nos.8/2020, 46/2021, 84/2021,
85/2021, 86/2021, 87/2021, 88/2021, 89/2021, 90/2021, 91/2021 97/2021
are devoid of substance and are hereby dismissed. In contrast, the
appeal filed by the claimant A.A. No. 59/2019 deserves to be and is
accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment/order in this Appeal dated
08.07.2019 is set aside. The compensation of this claimant/appellant be
determined by applying the Collector guidelines without any deduction as
held in aforesaid Arbitration Appeals filed by Corporation. The entire
exercise be completed within 90 days from the date of communication of
this order and the compensation be paid to the appellant of A.A.
No.59/2019 within aforesaid time.
42. The appeals are disposed of. No cost.
(SUJOY PAUL) (DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ahd/Akm/PK
PARITOSH KUMAR
2022.04.13 12:39:27
+05'30'
