Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chhote Singh Gurjar vs Up Mukhya Engineeer (Nirman) on 13 February, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3445
1 FA. No. 528 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 13th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
FIRST APPEAL No. 528 of 2023
CHHOTE SINGH GURJAR
Versus
UP MUKHYA ENGINEEER (NIRMAN) AND ANOTHER
Appearance:
Shri Ankur Maheshwari and Shri Anshu Gupta- Advocates for appellant.
Shri Praveen Kumar Newaskar- Deputy Solicitor General and Shri S.S.
Bansal- Advocate for respondent No.1.
Shri G.K. Agrawal - Government Advocate for respondent No.2/State.
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed under Section 74 of Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
against the award dated 27-12-2022 passed by Principal District Judge, Sheopur
in MJC No.42/2022 for enhancement of compensation amount.
2. This Court by a separate order passed today in connected F.A. No. 1414 of
2023 (Babulal Meena Vs. Dy. Chief Engineer and another) has held as under :
1. This appeal has been filed under Section 74 of Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 against the award dated 31-3-2023 passed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3445
by Principal District Judge, Sheopur in MJC No. 21/2022 for
enhancement of compensation amount.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal in short are that for
conversion of Narrow Gauge Railway Line into Meter Gauge Railway
Lines, the lands of village Bardhabujurg, Raipura and Dantardakhurd
were acquired. One Railway Station is already situated in village
Dantardakhurd. About 8.200 hectares of land of village Dantardakhurd,
2.394 hectares of land of Raipura and 17.555 hectares of land of village
Bardhabujurg, in all 28.689 hectares of land was acquired under Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (In short Act, 2013).
3. The Land Acquisition Officers, ascertained the market value of
the lands on the basis of Collector Guidelines. As per the Collector
Guideline, the market value of land situated in village Raipura was
assessed as Rs. 30,00,000/- per hectares whereas as per Collector
Guidelines, the market value of land situated in village Dantardakhurd
and Bardhabujurg was ascertained as Rs. 12,13,333/- per hectare. The
compensation for the building constructed over the land belonging to
the appellant was also ascertained.
4. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Land Acquisition
Officer, the Appellant invoked Section 64 of Act 2013 and by the
impugned award, the Court below has enhanced the compensation
amount.
5. As the Appellant is not satisfied with the compensation amount
ascertained by the Court below, therefore, this Appeal has been filed on
the following two grounds :
(i) For ascertaining the market value of the land, the Court below
has relied upon the Collector Guidelines, whereas single piece of land
has been acquired and merely because the land falls within village
Raipura, Dantardakhurd, and Bardhabujurg, therefore, different
yardsticks for ascertaining the market value should not have been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3445
adopted. The Appellants are also entitled for the same compensation
which has been awarded in respect of land of village Raipura.
(ii) That construction cost building of the Appellant has not been
valued properly.
6. Per contra, the Counsel for the respondents submitted that the
Court below has rightly assessed the compensation and doesnot require
any interference.
7. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
Market Value of irrigated land situated in village Dantardakhurd
and Bardhabujurg.
8. Section 26 of Act, 2013 reads as under :
26. Determination of market value of land by Collector.--(1) The
Collector shall adopt the following criteria in assessing and determining
the market value of the land, namely:--
(a) the market value, if any, specified in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2
of 1899) for the registration of sale deeds or agreements to sell, as the
case may be, in the area, where the land is situated; or
(b) the average sale price for similar type of land situated in the nearest
village or nearest vicinity area; or
(c) consented amount of compensation as agreed upon under sub-
section (2) of Section 2 in case of acquisition of lands for private
companies or for public private partnership projects,
whichever is higher:
Provided that the date for determination of market value shall be the
date on which the notification has been issued under Section 11.
Explanation 1.--The average sale price referred to in clause (b) shall be
determined taking into account the sale deeds or the agreements to sell
registered for similar type of area in the near village or near vicinity
area during immediately preceding three years of the year in which such
acquisition of land is proposed to be made.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3445
Explanation 2.--For determining the average sale price referred to in
Explanation 1, one-half of the total number of sale deeds or the
agreements to sell in which the highest sale price has been mentioned
shall be taken into account.
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.
(3) Where the market value under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2)
cannot be determined for the reason that--
(a) the land is situated in such area where the transactions in land are
restricted by or under any other law for the time being in force in that
area; or
(b) the registered sale deeds or agreements to sell as mentioned in
clause (a) of sub-section (1) for similar land are not available for the
immediately preceding three years; or
(c) the market value has not been specified under the Indian Stamp Act,
1899 (2 of 1899) by the appropriate authority,
the State Government concerned shall specify the floor price or
minimum price per unit area of the said land based on the price
calculated in the manner specified in sub-section (1) in respect of
similar types of land situated in the immediate adjoining areas:
Provided that in a case where the Requiring Body offers its shares to the
owners of the lands (whose lands have been acquired) as a part
compensation, for acquisition of land, such shares in no case shall
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3445
exceed twenty-five per cent of the value so calculated under sub-section
(1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) as the case may be:
Provided further that the Requiring Body shall in no case compel any
owner of the land (whose land has been acquired) to take its shares, the
value of which is deductible in the value of the land calculated under
sub-section (1):
Provided also that the Collector shall, before initiation of any land
acquisition proceedings in any area, take all necessary steps to revise
and update the market value of the land on the basis of the prevalent
market rate in that area:
Provided also that the appropriate Government shall ensure that the
market value determined for acquisition of any land or property of an
educational institution established and administered by a religious or
linguistic minority shall be such as would not restrict or abrogate the
right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
9. Thus, it is clear that for ascertaining the market value, the Court
has to consider the provisions of Section 26(1)(a) or (b) or (c)
whichever is higher. Therefore either the market value, if any,
specified in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) for the registration
of sale deeds or agreements to sell, as the case may be, in the area,
where the land is situated; or (b) the average sale price for similar type
of land situated in the nearest village or nearest vicinity area; or (c)
consented amount of compensation as agreed upon under sub-section
(2) of Section 2 in case of acquisition of lands for private companies or
for public private partnership projects, whichever is higher is to be
considered.
10. The Land Acquisition Officer had assessed the market value of
irrigated agricultural land falling in village Raipura as Rs. 30 lac per
hectare. Whereas the average market value of the land falling in
villages Dantardakhurd and Bardhabujurg has been assessed as Rs.
12,13,333/-. The Court below has held that since, the land falling in
village Raipura was commercial land and was situated adjoining to the
city therefore, the land situated in village Dantardakhurd and
Bardhabujurg cannot be equated with the land situated in village
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3445
Raipura. However, the Court below failed to see that the Land
Acquisition Officer, had assessed the market value of the land falling in
village Raipura by treating it to be an irrigated agricultural land and not
by holding that the said land has any commercial value. Therefore, the
reasons assigned by the Court below for drawing a distinction between
the land of village Raipura and Dantardakhurd and Bardhabujurg
cannot be upheld.
11. Now the only question for consideration is as to whether the land
situated in village Dantardakhurd and Bardhabujurg can be equated
with land situated in village Raipura for the purposes of ascertaining the
market value ?
12. Section 26(1)(a) and (b) of Act 2013 have already been
reproduced in previous paragraphs. Collector guideline can be one of
the guiding factor for ascertaining the market value but Collector
guideline cannot be a solitary guideline for ascertaining the market
value. Section 26(1)(b) of Act, 2013 provides that for ascertaining
market value, the average sale price for similar type of land situated in
the nearest village or nearest vicinity area can also be a guiding factor
and the higher market value has to be fixed.
13. The Court below has not considered the case from the angle of
Section 26(1)(b) of Act 2013. The land has been acquired for
construction of Railway Station and Railway Line. For construction of
Railway Station, a single piece of land is required. Merely because the
said single piece of land consisted of land situated in village Raipura,
Datardakhurd and Bardhabujurg, it cannot be said that the said land is
not situated in the nearest village or nearest vicinity. For the purposes of
ascertaining the market value, a single piece of land cannot be divided
into three different parts on the basis of the villages. Vinod Kumar
Sharma (D.W.1) has stated that distance of land of village Bardhabujurg
and Dantardakhurd is 1.5 Km. This witness has also stated that the land
situated in village Raipura is adjoining to land situated in village
Bardhabujurg. This witness in para 5 of his cross examination has
admitted that all the lands which have been acquired are irrigated
lands and the market value of all the lands is same. However, stated
that the Collector Guideline is different.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3445
14. The Court below has not given any importance to this vital
admission made by Vinod Kumar Sharma (D.W.1). Neither the Land
Acquisition Officer, nor the Court below have considered that when a
single piece of land has been acquired for construction of Railway
Station and Railway Line and all the lands are irrigated and even
according to Vinod Kumar Sharma (D.W.1), the lands of village
Bardhabujurg and Dantardakhurd are adjoining and contiguous to each
other and land of Raipura is adjoining to village Bardhabujurg and the
market value of all the lands is same, then why all the lands cannot be
treated as similar type of land situated in the nearest village or nearest
vicinity area?
15. Merely because the single piece of land, which has been acquired
falls within three different villages, the market value of the said land
cannot be ascertained merely on the basis of Collector guidelines. Even
assuming that the lands of village Badhabujurg and Dantardakhurd are
1.5 kms away, still that would not make any difference. Generally a
train consists of 22 bogies and an engine. The Railway Station not only
consists of Railway Platform, but also has different offices which are to
be constructed by the side of the platform for smooth running of trains.
Cabins are also required to be constructed for change of railway tracks
etc. Thus, the length of a railway station is generally more than 1.5 kms.
16. The Supreme Court in the case of Ali Mohammad Beigh v.
State of J&K, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 717 has held as under :
11. As noted earlier, Village Chandapora is situated adjacent to
Villages Bhagichandpora and Pazwalpora; while so, there was no
reason why the Reference Court differentiated the land of the
appellant landowners of the acquired land in Chandapora Land
Reference No. 15 of 2002 by awarding lesser compensation of Rs
2,50,000. On a perusal of the judgment of the Reference Court in
Reference No. 15 of 2002, it is seen that the witnesses were
examined by the appellants to substantiate their case that the
market rate of the land in Village Chandapora in the year 1998 was
about Rs 8,00,000 per kanal. Though the Tahsildar of the area
recommended Rs 2,50,000 per kanal, the witnesses have stated
that the compensation fixed by the Tahsildar was not reliable and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3445
not based on any material. The appellants have also produced a
sale deed by one Mr Bansilal under which he sold a small strip of
land measuring 1360 sq ft in the vicinity of the acquired land for
an amount of Rs 1,00,000. But the Reference Court discarded the
evidence of witness Bansilal on the ground that under the sale
deed only a small area of land was sold and the sale deed cannot
be taken to be a representative character of the entire land. In our
view, the Reference Court was not right in discarding the said sale
deed which was supported by oral evidence of the witnesses, to
substantiate their claim that the market rate assessed by the
Tahsildar at Rs 2,50,000 was not a fair compensation.
12. When the lands are more or less situated nearby and when the
acquired lands are identical and similar and the acquisition is for
the same purpose, it would not be proper to discriminate between
the landowners unless there are strong reasons. In Union of India
v. Bal Ram, this Court held that if the purpose of acquisition is
same and when the lands are identical and similar though lying in
different villages, there is no justification to make any
discrimination between the landowners to pay more to some of the
landowners and less compensation to others. The same was the
view taken in Union of India v. Harinder Pal Singh, wherein this
Court held as under: (SCC pp. 568-69, paras 15-16)
"15. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf
of the respective parties and we see no justification to interfere
with the decision of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court which, in our view, took a pragmatic approach in
fixing the market value of the lands forming the subject-matter of
the acquisition proceedings at a uniform rate. From the sketch plan
of the area in question, it appears to us that while the lands in
question are situated in five different villages, they can be
consolidated into one single unit with little to choose between one
stretch of land and another. The entire area is in a stage of
development and the different villages are capable of being
developed in the same manner as the lands comprised in Kala
Ghanu Pur where the market value of the acquired lands was fixed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3445
at a uniform rate of Rs 40,000 per acre. The Division Bench of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court discarded the belting method of
valuation having regard to the local circumstances and features
and no cogent ground has been made out to interfere with the
same.
16. In our view, in the absence of any contemporaneous document,
the market value of the acquired lands of Village Kala Ghanu Pur
which were acquired at the same time as the lands in the other five
villages was correctly taken to be a comparative unit for
determination of the market value of the lands comprising the
lands forming the subject-matter of the acquisition proceedings
under consideration. ..."
13. When the lands are acquired at the same time and for the same
purpose that is for resettlement of Dal dwellers, the lands situated
in three different villages, namely, Chandapora, Bhagichandpora
and Pazwalpora, and since the land is similar land, it would be
unfair to discriminate between the landowners and other references
and the appellants who are the landowners in Reference No. 15
and pay less that is, Rs 2,50,000 per kanal to the appellants and
pay more to other landowners that is, Rs 4,00,000 per kanal.
Impugned judgments of the High Court in CIA No. 211 of 2009
and Cross-Appeal No. 64 of 2011 are to be set aside by enhancing
the compensation to Rs 4,00,000 per kanal. As a sequel to this, the
order passed in review is also to be set aside.
17. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered
opinion, that fixation of different market value merely on the basis of
Collector Guidelines of the said village cannot be approved and after
applying the provisions of Section 26(1)(b) of Act, 2013, it is held that
the average market value of the lands falling in village Dantardakhurd
and Bardhabujurg is to be treated at par with the market value of land
falling in village Raipura. Therefore, it is held that the market value of
land falling in village Dantardakhurd and Bardhabujurg which has been
acquired is Rs. 30 Lac per hectare.
Valuation of Construction
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3445
18. Rakesh Parashar (D.W.2) has stated that as per the S.O.R. of
P.W.D. the construction cost is Rs. 11,000 per Sq. Meter whereas as per
the Collector Guideline the valuation has to be done @ of Rs. 6,300 per
Sq. Meter and accordingly the valuation of the constructed property has
been done @ Rs. 6,300 per Sq. Meter.
19. The Court below has held that although the S.O.R. of P.W.D. is
Rs. 11,000/- per square meter, but generally when tenders are issued,
the bids are submitted below 20 to 30% of S.O.R. It was also held that
the S.O.R. of P.W.D. is generally 30 to 40% more than the actual cost
and if actual cost is taken to be 60% of the S.O.R., then it would come
to around Rs. 6,300 per sq. Meter and accordingly, it was held that
valuation of the constructed property @ of Rs. 6,300 per square meter
is appropriate.
20. It is really surprising then why the P.W.D. has fixed the S.O.R. at
an exorbitant rate? If the actual cost of construction is around Rs.
6,300/- per square Meter then what is the basis of fixing the S.O.R. @
of Rs. 11,000/- per square meter? Thus, either P.W.D. has fixed the
S.O.R. at an exorbitant rate having no nexus with the actual cost of
construction, or the Collector Guideline is not based on actual cost of
construction. Therefore, neither the S.O.R. of the P.W.D. nor the
Collector Guideline can be taken as an authentic parameter for fixing
the construction cost.
21. Rakesh Parashar (D.W.2) who had valued the property has stated
in para 4 of his cross examination that the construction was of good
quality, tiles were affixed and the house was finished with steel railings,
Wall putti and colour. Thus, it is clear that the house was not a Kachha
house but was well finished house of good quality. Neither the appellant
nor the respondents have led any evidence with regard to the actual cost
of the construction. For constructing a house, not only the raw material
is required but the construction cost includes the labour charges also. In
absence of any evidence to show the actual cost, this Court is of the
considered opinion, that an average cost has to be calculated on the
basis of S.O.R. issued by P.W.D. and the Collector Guideline. As per
the S.O.R. of the P.W.D., the construction cost is Rs. 11,000/- per Sq.
Meter whereas as per Collector Guideline it is Rs. 6,300/- per Sq.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3445
Meter. Therefore, the average construction cost can be taken as Rs.
8,650/- per Sq. Meter. Thus, the construction cost is enhanced to Rs.
8,650/- per Sq. Meter from Rs. 6,300/- per Sq. Meter.
22. No other arguments were advanced in respect of compensation
under other heads.
23. Therefore, the average market value of the land of village
Dantardakhurd and Bardhabujurg is fixed as Rs. 30 Lacs per hectares
and construction cost is fixed as Rs. 8,650/- per Sq. Meter,.
24. Ex-consequenti, the award dated 31-3-2023 passed by Principal
District Judge, Sheopur in MJC No. 21/2022 is hereby affirmed with
aforesaid modification.
25. The Executing Court is directed to calculate the Compensation
amount in the light of the enhanced market value of the land and
enhanced cost of construction.
26. Appeal succeeds and is allowed to the extent mentioned above.
No order as to cost.
3. In the present case, the only dispute is with regard to the Average Market
Value of Land situated in villages Dantardakhurd and Bardhabujurg. Since, the
present case is also duly covered by the judgment passed in the case of Babulal
Meena (Supra), therefore, this appeal is also allowed in the terms and conditions
of judgment passed in the case of Babulal Meena (Supra) and the average
market value of the land of village Dantardakhurd and Bardhabujurg is fixed as
Rs.30 Lacs per hectare.
4. Ex-consequenti, the award dated 27-12-2022 passed by Principal District
Judge, Sheopur in MJC No.42/2022 is hereby affirmed with aforesaid
modification.
5. The Executing Court is directed to calculate the Compensation amount in
the light of the enhanced market value of the land.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3445
6. Appeal succeeds and is allowed to the extent mentioned above. No order as
to cost.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
pd
