Manipur High Court
The State Of Manipur Represented ... vs Mr. Zamlianlal Haokip on 10 January, 2023
SHOUGRA by
Digitally signed [1]
KPAM SHOUGRAKPAM
DEVANANDA
DEVANAN SINGH
DA SINGH Date: 2023.01.10
13:54:33 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
L.A. Appeal No. 2 of 2018
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner/
Revenue, Government of Manipur, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal
West District, Manipur, Pin No. 795001.
2. The Collector (LA), Churachandpur District, P.O. & P.S.
Churachandpur, Manipur, Pin No. 795128.
...Appellants
-Versus -
1. Mr. Zamlianlal Haokip, S/o L.K. Haokip, Songpi Village, P.O. &
P.S. Churachandpur, Manipur, Pin No. 795128.
.... Respondent
2. The Union of India represented by the Secretary (Home),
Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, Central Secretariat, New
Delhi - 110001.
3. The Officer-in-Charge (Estate), Director General, Assam Rifles
(Estate Branch), Shillong, Pin No. 793010.
4. The Commandant, 25th Assam Rifles, Churachandpur District,
P.O. & P.S. Churachandpur, Manipur, Pin No. 795128.
... Proforma Respondents
-AND-
IN THE MATTER OF:
In O.S. (L.A.) No. 1 of 2018
Mr. Zamlianlal Haokip, S/o L.K. Haokip, Songpi Village,
Churachandpu, Manipur.
...Applicant/ Claimant
-Versus-
The Collector (Land Acquisition), Churachandpur District,
Manipur.
....Respondent
[2]
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
For the Appellants : Mr. R.K. Umakanta, Govt. Advocate
For the respondents : Mr. Ashish Deep Verma, Advocate asstd.
by Mr. Tapan Sharma, Advocate &
Mr. Kh. Samarjit, DSGI
Date of Hearing : 10-08-2022
Date of Judgment & Order : 10-01-2023
JUDGMENT & ORDER
[1] Heard Mr. R.K. Umakanta, learned Government Advocate
appearing for the appellants, Mr. Ashish Deep Verma, learned counsel
assisted by Mr. Tapan Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No. 1 and Mr. Kh. Samarjit, learned DSGI appearing for the
respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
[2] The core issue involved in the present appeal is about the
valuation of the land under acquisition. The Collector of the land
acquisition fixed the valuation of the land at Rs. 20/- per square feet,
however, on a reference being made, the reference court enhanced the
valuation of the land under acquisition at Rs. 35/- square feet under its
judgment dated 19-09-2018 passed in Original (Land Acquisition) Case
No. 1 of 2018. The present appeal is filed by the appellants challenging
the said judgment passed by the reference court with the prayer for setting
aside the same.
[3] The Commissioner (Revenue), Government of Manipur issued a
Notification dated 10-05-2017 under Section 11(1) read with Section
40(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Acquisition Act', for short) notifying that land measuring
[3]
100 acres at Songpi Village, Churachandpur District, Manipur, as
described in the schedule of the said notification, was likely to be needed
urgently for the purpose of construction of Key Location Plant of
Sector Headquarter and one Assam Rifles Battalion for maintenance of
law and order and national security. In the said notification, it is also
mentioned that since the land was required for the project falling within
the purview of Section 40(2) of the said Acquisition Act, it was decided
not to carry out the social impact assessment study in terms of Section 9
of the Acquisition Act.
[4] After receiving a detailed report as mandated under Section 12
of the Acquisition Act, the Collector made a report to the Commissioner
(Revenue), Government of Manipur on 27-05-2017 as mandated under
Section 15 of the Acquisition Act. In the said report, it was, inter alia,
stated that the proposed land area to be acquired is a vacant un-surveyed
hill land owned by Shri Zamlianlal Haokip of Songpi Village,
Churachandpur District (Respondent No. 1 herein) and that no other
persons were affected except the land owner and hence rehabilitation and
resettlement scheme is not applicable in the proposed acquisition. It was
also stated that no public utilities, Government buildings and
infrastructural facilities existed within the proposed land area and that no
objection was received from any interested persons to the proposed
acquisition.
Along with the said report, the Collector submitted an
approximate cost of the proposed land acquisition to be given as
compensation for the land to the land owner i.e., the respondent No. 1
herein as required under Section 15(2) of the Acquisition Act. The total
[4]
amount of compensation as proposed by the Collector was Rs.
47,97,89,107/- (Rupees Forty Seven Crores Ninety Seven Lakhs Eighty
Nine Thousand One Hundred and Seven) only. In the aforesaid proposed
compensation award, the Collector calculated the market value of the
land at Rs. 20/- per square feet on the basis of the Minimum Guidance
Value of land issued by the Secretariat, Revenue Department,
Government of Manipur, in its order dated 20-03-2012. The proposed
compensation award also included the additional compensation of 75
percent of the total compensation amount as provided under Section
40(5) of the Acquisition Act, since urgency clause was invoked while
acquiring the land.
[5] On receiving the aforesaid report submitted by the Collector
under Section 15(2) of the Acquisition Act, the Deputy Secretary
(Revenue), Government of Manipur wrote a letter dated 21-07-2017 to
the concerned officials of the requiring authority informing the latter about
the process of the land acquisition proceeding and Government's
approval of the rate of compensation i.e., Rs. 20/- per square feet
assessed by the Collector and requesting to deposit the proposed
compensation amount of Rs. 47,97,89,107/- (Rupees Forty Seven Crores
Ninety Seven Lakhs Eighty Nine Thousand One Hundred and Seven)
only in the account of the Collector (LA), Churachandpur District in full or
part so that declaration notification as provided under Section 19(1) of the
Acquisition Act can be issued.
On receiving the aforesaid letter, the concerned officials of the
requiring authority wrote a letter dated 02-08-2017 addressed to the
Deputy Secretary (Revenue), Government of Manipur, requesting the
[5]
latter to remove the "urgency" clause from the present land acquisition
proceeding and to submit fresh calculated amount under the normal land
acquisition proceeding. Subsequently, the respondent No. 1/ Claimant
submitted a written undertaking dated 14-08-2017 under cover of a letter
dated 18-08-2017 to the effect that the additional compensation of 75
percent of the total compensation amount as provided under Section
40(5) of the Acquisition Act will not be claimed by him to expedite the
acquisition proceeding and in the interest of maintenance of law and order
and strategic interest of the State.
[6] On receiving the aforesaid letter from the officials of the requiring
authority for dropping the urgency clause from the land acquisition
proceeding and for recalculation of the compensation amount as well as
the undertaking given by the respondent No. 1/ Claimant for not claiming
the additional compensation of 75 percent as provided under Section
40(5) of the Acquisition Act, the Collector recalculated and fixed the total
compensation amount as Rs. 48,83,29,533/- (Rupees Forty Eight Crores
Eighty Three Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty
Three) only and while recalculating the total compensation amount, the
Collector determined the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 28/-
per square feet. After recalculation of the compensation amount, the
Collector submitted a report dated 21-08-2017 to the Commissioner
(Revenue), Government of Manipur. Thereafter, the Collector wrote
another letter dated 11-09-2017 addressed to the concerned officer of the
requiring authority informing the latter about the assessment of the total
compensation amount and requesting to deposit the compensation
amount in the account of the Collector (LA), Churachandpur so that
[6]
declaration notification under Section 19(1) of the Acquisition Act can be
issued for further process of land acquisition. Subsequently, the Collector
wrote a letter dated 27-03-2017 to the Secretary (Revenue), Government
of Manipur informing the latter that the requiring authority had deposited
the total compensation amount of Rs. 48,83,29,533/- (Rupees Forty Eight
Crores Eighty Three Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand Five Hundred and
Thirty Three) only on 27-03-2018 and requested for issuing a declaration
as required under Section 19(1) of the Acquisition Act. In pursuance of
the letter to the Collector dated 27-03-2018 and as required under Section
19(1) of the Acquisition Act, the Secretary (Revenue), Government of
Manipur, issued a notification dated 09-05-2018. On the same date of
issuing the said notification, the Under Secretary (Revenue), Government
of Manipur, wrote a letter dated 09-05-2018 to the Deputy Commissioner/
Collector (LA), Churachandpur informing the latter that the market value
of the land at the rate of Rs. 28/- per square feet as proposed by him in
place of the earlier approved rate of Rs. 20/- per square feet was not
approved by the Government and that as the land owner had submitted
an undertaking that he will not claim the additional 75 percent of the total
compensation amount, the total compensation amount payable to the
land owner was Rs. 34,89,37,532/- (Rupees Thirty Four Crores Eighty
Nine Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty Two) only.
Accordingly, the Collector was requested to prepare the award at the
Government approved rate and the excess amount deposited earlier
should be returned to the requiring department after adjusting the
advertisement fees and other miscellaneous charges.
[7]
[7] The Collector (LA) issued public notice dated 11-05-2018 as
required under Section 21(1) of the Acquisition Act calling upon all
persons having interests in the said land to appear personally or by agent
or Advocate before the Collector to state in writing the nature of their
respective interest in the land, the amount and particulars of their claim to
compensation for such interest, their claims to rehabilitation and
resettlement and their objections, if any to the measurement made and
marked on the referred area. Thereafter, as there was no claim or
objection from any person, the Collector issued the order for award of
compensation dated 11-06-2018 awarding for payment of total
compensation amount of Rs. 34,89,37,532/- (Rupees Thirty Four Crores
Eighty Nine Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty Two)
only to the respondent No. 1/ Claimant for acquisition of 100 acres of land.
In the said award, the Collector fixed the market value of the acquired
land at the rate of Rs. 20/- per square feet. The respondent No. 1/
Claimant received the said compensation amount under protest. He also
submitted an application dated 15-06-2018 to the Collector (LA),
Churachandpur objecting to the fixation of market value of the acquired
land at the rate of Rs. 20/- per square feet and claiming that he is entitled
to receive the remaining amount of Rs. 13,93,92,001/- (Rupees Thirteen
Crores Ninety Three Lakhs Ninety Two Thousand and One) only against
the total amount of Rs. 48,83,29,533 (Rupees Forty Eight Crores Eighty
Three Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty Three). On
receiving the said application the Collector (LA) referred the claim of the
respondent No. 1/Claimant to the District Judge, Churachandpur as
provided under Section 64 of the Acquisition Act for deciding the same by
issuing an Office Memorandum dated 13-07-2018. The District Judge,
[8]
Churachandpur registered the reference made by the collector as Original
(LA) Case No. 1 of 2018 and decided the same by passing the judgment
dated 19-09-2018, which is being impugned herein. In the said judgment,
the reference court determined the market value of the acquired land at
Rs. 35/- per square feet in place of Rs. 20/- per square feet for the whole
area of acquired land measuring 100 acres. The reference court also
directed the Collector to recalculate the award of compensation in terms
of the findings made in the judgment and to pay the enhanced
compensation award to the Claimant within a period of three months and
that on default of such payment, the respondents shall be liable to pay
interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum. The reference court further
directed the Collector to release the remaining sum of
Rs. 13,93,92,001/- (Rupees Thirteen Crores Ninety Three Lakhs Ninety
Two Thousand and One) only of the Claimant within three days from the
date of the said judgment.
[8] Mr. R.K. Umakanta, the learned Government Advocate
appearing for the appellants draw the attention of this court at para No.
29 and 30 of the impugned judgment and submitted that the reference
court enhanced the market value of the acquired land from Rs. 20/- to
Rs. 35/- by relying on three documents produced by the respondent
No. 1/ Claimant. Para 29 and 30 of the said judgment are reproduced
herein for ready reference:-
"29. From perusal and analysis I have come to the conclusion that the
Collector, Land Acquisition, Churachanpur District erred and had not
adopted and complied with the mandatory provision under Section
26 of RECTLARR Act 2013 whereby relying on the Minimum
Guidance Value of Land which is not the criteria in assessing and
determining the market value of the land. The claimant has indeed
exhibited a registered deed dated 31st October, 2015 of the
[9]
surrounding area which is at the rate of Rs. 31/- (Rupees Thirty-one
only) per square feet. The Chairman, HAC, Manipur Legislative
Assembly requesting review of land at Rs. 100/- per square feet and
the Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur proposal for market
value for homestead in the periphery at Rs. 30/- per square feet
clearly indicates that the market value fixed by the Collector, Land
Acquisition, Churachandpur at Rs. 20/- per square feet is
comparatively very low.
30. I have applied my mind keeping in view all the relevant factors
coupled with the law laid down under the Act. Taking into
consideration all the relevant factors emerging from the evidence
and the findings regarding the location of the acquired land, its
surroundings, nature, potentiality, the purpose of acquisition, etc.,
this Court is of the considered opinion that just, fair and proper
market value of the acquired land in question on the date of issuance
of Section 11 noification is determined at Rs. 35/- (Rupees Thirty-
five only) per square feet in place of Rs. 20/- (Rupees Twenty only)
per square feet. Hence, the claimant is awarded/ entitled to the
enhanced compensation on the acquired land to the extent of
Rs. 35/- (Rupees Thirty-five only) per square feet measuring an area
of 100 acres (see section 70 of the Act). In other words, the applicant
is held entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land as
described hereunder:
Class of Land Awarded Amount
a) All that un-surveyed hill land measuring Rs. 35/- (Rupees Thirty-
100 acres having schedule of land as: five) only per square feet
East : Jongtaphai Paddy Fields
West : Old PWD road and Kelving
Khenthang Hatland
(un-surveyed land).
North : STC BSF Land catching
Jongtaphai.
South : Road from Lingsiphai to
Songpi (Semthong Road)
[9] It has been submitted by the learned Government Advocate that
the registered Sale Deed dated 31-10-2015 relied on by the respondent
[10]
No. 1/Claimant is in respect of a well-developed and a small house plot
measuring an area of only 1505 square feet or 35 feet x 43 feet. As per
the said Sale Deed, the price of the small house plot is Rs. 47,250/-
(Rupees Forty Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty) only, which is at
the rate of Rs. 31/- per square feet. The learned Government Advocate
vehemently submitted that the market value of the well-developed small
house plot cannot be compared or taken as an instance for determining
the market value of a large undeveloped and un-surveyed vacant hill land
measuring 100 acres and that even if the said Sale Deed is considered
as an instance for determining the market value of the land under
acquisition, certain percentage ranging between 50 to 70 percent is to be
deducted as developmental charges while determining the market value
of the acquired land. It has been submitted that the reference court has
not taken into consideration this aspect and totally ignored the well settled
principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard in a
catena of its judgment and enhanced the market value of the acquired
land at the rate of Rs. 35/- per square feet, which is much more than the
value of the small house plot as mentioned in the Sale Deed and
accordingly, the enhanced rate of compensation is not sustainable.
[10] In support of his contention, the learned Government Advocate
relied on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
"Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Poona & anr." reported in (1988) 3 SCC 751 (para. 4), Deputy
Collector, Land Acquisition, Gujarat & anr. Vs. Madhubi Gobarbhai
& anr., reported in (2002) 15 SCC 128 (paras 18 to 20, 46 to 48) and
[11]
judgment dated 06-04-2022 passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal
No. 176-177 of 2022 (para 5, 6, 6.1)
[11] With regard to the two other documents produced by the
respondent No. 1/ Claimant and relied on by the reference court, it has
been submitted by Mr. R. K. Umakanta that both the documents dated
12-03-2013 and 08-08-2017 are mere proposals made by the Deputy
Commissioner, Churachandpur and Chairman (Hill Area Committee),
Manipur Legislative Assembly respectively of the value of land of
Churachandpur District in connection with the Minimum Guidance Value
of different categories of land in the State of Manipur determined by the
Government in its order dated 20-03-2012 and that the said proposals are
not yet approved by the Government. The learned Government Advocate
further submitted that since the said two proposals are not yet approved
by the Government, determination of the market value of the acquired
land by the reference court by placing reliance on the said two documents
is unreasonable, illegal and without any application of mind, hence the
enhanced rate of market value of the acquired land as determined by the
reference court is not sustainable and liable to be interfered with by
quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment.
[12] It has also been submitted by the learned Government Advocate
that Section 26 of the Acquisition Act deals with determination of market
value of land by the Collector and that under Section 26(3) of the said Act,
it is, inter alia, provided that where the market value of the acquired land
cannot be determined under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section
26, the State Government shall specify the floor price or minimum price
per unit area of the said land based on the price calculated in the manner
[12]
specified in sub-section (1) in respect of similar types of land situated in
the immediate adjoining areas. The learned Government Advocate
submitted that the Secretariat, Revenue Department, Government of
Manipur issued an order dated 20-03-2012 fixing the Minimum Guidance
Value of different categories of land in the State of Manipur and that in
the said order, the minimum value of land in Churachandpur Town area
had been fixed at the rate of Rs. 20/- per square feet. It has also been
submitted that as the Collector cannot determine the market value of the
acquired land as provided under Section 26(1) and (2), the Collector
determined the market value of the acquired land on the basis of the
Minimum Guidance Value of the land in Churachandpur District as
prescribed by the Government in its order dated 20-03-2012 in terms of
the provisions under Section 26(3) of the Acquisition Act and accordingly,
the Collector did not commit any illegality in fixing the market value of the
acquired land at the rate of Rs. 20/- per square feet. According to the
learned Government Advocate, the reference court also failed to consider
this point of fact and law and that the conclusion arrived at by the
reference court under the impugned judgment that the Collector (LA),
Churachandpur had erred in assessing and determining the market value
of the acquired land by relying on the Minimum Guidance Value of the
land and did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 26 of
the Acquisition Act is misconceive and not sustainable.
[13] Mr. Ashish Deep Verma, learned counsel for the respondent
No. 1/Claimant submitted that the Collector (LA), Churachandpur, in view
of the request of the requiring authority for removing the urgency clause
in the acquisition proceeding and for fresh calculation of the
[13]
compensation amount under normal acquisition proceeding and keeping
in view the undertaking given by the respondent No. 1/Claimant for not
claiming the additional compensation of 75 percent of the total
compensation amount as provided under section 40(5) of the Acquisition
Act, recalculated the total compensation amount at Rs. 48,83,29,533/-
(Rupees Forty Eight Crores Eighty Three Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand
Five Hundred and Thirty Three) only by determining the market value of
the acquired land at Rs. 28/- per square feet. It has been submitted by
the learned counsel that the total recalculated compensation amount was
accepted by the requiring authority and the total amount of compensation
as fixed by the Collector was deposited into the account of the Collector
on 27-03-2018. However, the State Government wrote a letter dated
09-05-2018 to the Collector informing him that the market value of the
land which was proposed by him at the rate of Rs. 28/- per square feet in
place of the earlier approved rate of Rs. 20/- per square feet was
not approved by the Government and accordingly, the Collector was
requested to prepare the award at the Government approved rate of Rs.
20/- per square feet. According to the learned counsel, the Government
has no power and authority under the Acquisition Act to issue such
direction or request and that since the Collector is the sole authority under
the statute to assess or determine the market value of the acquired land,
the respondent No. 1/Claimant is entitled to receive the compensation
amount at the enhanced rate fixed by the Collector.
[14] By relying on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of "Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Nemichand
Damodardas & anr.", reported in 2022 SCC online SC 815, it has been
[14]
argued by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1/
Claimant that the Minimum Guidance Value as fixed by the Government
in its order dated 20-03-2012 cannot be the basis for determination of the
market value of the acquired land. According to the learned counsel, the
said Minimum Guidance Value had been fixed with a view to curb and
prevent the practice of undervaluation of land in land transaction in the
State of Manipur and that the issue as to whether the prices mentioned in
such Minimum Guidance Value can be the basis for determining the
compensation of the lands acquired under the land Acquisition Act had
already been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It has also been
submitted that in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (supra), the
Hon'ble Apex Court has, by relying in two of its earlier judgments, held
that the prices mentioned in the ready reckoner for the purpose of
calculation of the stamp duty, which were fixed for entire area, cannot be
the basis for determination of the compensation under the Land
Acquisition Act and that the said judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court
squarely covers the issue raised in the present appeal. The learned
counsel, accordingly, submitted that the compensation amount fixed by
the Collector on the basis of the Minimum Guidance Value is not
sustainable and that the respondent No. 1/ Claimant is entitled to receive
the higher compensation amount determined by the reference court.
[15] The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/ Claimant also
submitted that the reference court, after taking into consideration the gap
in the time factor between the execution of the Sale Deed produced by
the respondent No. 1/ Claimant and the issuance of the notification under
Section 11 of the Acquisition Act, enhanced the market value of the lands
[15]
under acquisition and that the reference court can award a higher
compensation than the amount claimed by the Claimant. It has also been
argued by the learned counsel that the grounds raised by the learned
Government Advocate in his argument are not pleaded by the appellants
in the memorandum of appeal and accordingly, the arguments advanced
by the learned Government Advocate should be rejected.
[16] I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for
the parties at length and carefully examined the materials available on
record. There is nothing on record to show that when the Collector issued
notice dated 11-05-2018 calling upon all persons having interests in the
acquired land to appear personally and to state in writing the nature of their
interest in the acquired land, the amount and particulars of their claim to
compensation, etc. as provided under Section 21(1) of the Acquisition Act,
no one including the respondent No 1/Claimant submitted in writing any
claim with regard to the amount of compensation for the acquired land. As
the Collector cannot determine the market value of the acquired land as
provided under sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 26 of the Acquisition Act,
the Collector determined the market value of the land on the basis of the
Minimum Guidance Value of Churachandpur District fixed by the
Government under the aforesaid Minimum Guidance Value.
[17] The arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No 1/Claimant is that the Minimum Guidance Value as fixed by
the Government in its order dated 20-03-2012 cannot be the basis for
determination of the market value of the acquired land and that the question
as to whether the minimum value of land as prescribed in the said Minimum
Guidance Value can be the basis for determining the compensation of lands
[16]
acquired under the Land Acquisition Act had already been decided by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat sanchar Nigam Limited (supra).
On careful perusal of the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (supra), this court is of the considered
view that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case is
not applicable in the present case. The Hon'ble Apex Court rendered the said
judgement on the basis of the statutory provisions provided under the old
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, more particularly Section 23 of the said Act,
which relates to the determination of the market value/ compensation of the
acquired land. In the present case, the acquisition proceeding was under the
new Acquisition Act of 2013. The criteria to be followed in assessing and
determining the market value of the land to be acquired as provided under
Section 23 and 24 of the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the criteria to
be followed in assessing and determining the market value of the land to be
acquired as provided under Section 26 of the new Acquisition Act of 2013
are totally different. Under Section 26 of the new Acquisition Act of 2013, the
Collector can determine the market value of the land not only on the basis of
the market value specified in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 but also on the
basis of the floor price or minimum price specified by the State Government
concerned. In view of the above, this court cannot agree with the
submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent
No 1/Claimant.
[18] Under Section 15(2) of the Acquisition Act, the Collector is required
to make a report to the appropriate Government in respect of the land to be
acquired containing his recommendation on the objections, together with the
record of the proceedings held by him along with a separate report giving
[17]
therein the approximate cost of land acquisition, particulars as to the number
of affected families likely to be resettled, for the decision of the Government.
Under Section 15(3) of the Acquisition Act, it is provided that the
decision of the appropriate Government on the objections made under sub-
section (2) shall be final. On a bear perusal of the aforesaid provisions under
Section 15(2) and (3) of the Acquisition Act, it is very clear that the
Government is the final authority to take decision with regard to the report
submitted by the Collector under the said provisions. In the present case, the
Collector submitted a report dated 27-05-2017 along with the approximate
cost of the proposed land acquisition to be given as compensation to the
land owner as mandated under Section 15(2) of the Acquisition Act. In the
aforesaid proposed compensation amount, the Collector calculated the
market value of the acquired land at Rs. 20/- per square feet and the
government approved the market value of the land fixed by the Collector and
accordingly, the matter has attained finality in terms of provisions of Section
15(3) of the Acquisition Act. It is to be pointed out that the compensation
amount as proposed by the Collector in terms of Section 15(2) of the
Acquisition Act cannot be taken as a final award of compensation for the
acquired land and that such an approximate compensation amount is
required to be given for the purpose of enabling the Government to issue a
declaration to the effect that the particular land is needed for the public
purpose, etc. as provided under Section 19(1) read with the second
proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the Acquisition Act. In the
present case, the Collector issued the final compensation award on
11-06-2018 by fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 20/- per
square feet. In view of the above facts and provisions of law, this court is
of the considered view that the arguments advanced by Mr. Ashish Deep
[18]
Verma that as the Collector re-determined the market value of the
acquired land at Rs. 28/- per square feet and as the requiring authorities
have accepted and deposited the re-calculated compensation amount
fixed by the Collector and as the Government has no power and authority
to direct the Collector, who is the sole authority to determine the market
value of the acquired land, to prepare the award at the Government
approved rate of Rs. 20/- per square feet, the respondent No. 1/ Claimant
is entitled to receive the compensation amount at the enhanced rate fixed
by the Collector, are mis-conceived and not sustainable in the eye of law.
[19] On careful perusal of the impugned judgment, this court also
agree with the submission advanced by the learned Government
Advocate that the reference court enhanced the market value of the
acquired land only on the basis of three documents produced by the
respondent No. 1/ Claimant. Out of the said three documents, two
documents dated 12-03-2013 and 08-08-2017 are mere proposals made
by the Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur and Chairman (Hill Area
Committee), Manipur Legislative Assembly respectively with regard to the
value of land in Churachandpur District in connection with the Minimum
Guidance Value issued by the Government under its order dated
20-03-2012. The said proposals are not yet accepted by the Government
till date. Accordingly, this court is of the considered view that the said two
documents have no legal value and that the reference court committed
an error in relying on the said two documents while enhancing the market
value of the acquired land from Rs. 20/- to Rs. 35/- per square feet.
[20] So far as the Sale Deed dated 31-10-2015 produced by the
respondent No. 1/ Claimant is concerned, it is to be pointed out that in the
[19]
schedule appended to the said Sale Deed, the said land is described as
a house plot measuring an area of only 1505 square feet or 35 feet x 43
feet and surrounded by village roads on the North, South and West and
by village reserved land in the East. From the description of the said land
under the said schedule, it an be reasonably presumed that the said
house plot is a well developed land and situated within the inhabited
village land surrounded on three sides by village roads and well-
developed enough be be described as a house plot fit for construction of
residential buildings. The said land is also a very small plot measuring
only 35 feet x 43 feet and the market value of the said land is Rs. 47,250/-
(Rupees Forty Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty), which is at the
rate of Rs. 31/- per square feet.
On the other hand, the land to be acquired is a vast area of
undeveloped and un-surveyed vacant hill land measuring an area of 100
acres. There is also no material on record that the land to be acquired is
situated near any town or inhabited village. On comparison of the said
two lands, this court is of the considered view that there is considerable
force in the arguments advanced by the learned Government Advocate
that the market value of the well-developed small house plot cannot be
compared or taken as an exemplar for determining the market value of a
large undeveloped and un-surveyed vacant hill land and that even if the
said Sale Deed is to be considered as an exemplar for determining the
market value of the land in acquisition, certain percentage have to be
deducted as developmental charges. In this connection, we can gainfully
rely on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its
[20]
judgment dated 06-04-2022 passed in Civil Appeals No. 176 -179 of 2022
wherein it has been held as under:-
"5. ..... As per the settled position of law, small plots/parcels of land
cannot offer the same market value as when a large tract of land is
purchased in an open market by a willing and prudent purchaser. As
per the settled position of law, generally the sale instances with
respect to small plots/parcels of land are not comparable to a large
extent of land for the purpose of determining the compensation. In
the case of Mahanti Devi v. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd., reported in
(2019) 5 SCC 163, after following the decision of this Court in the
case of Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat, reported in
(2005) 4 SCC 789, it is held that in case of acquisition of large tracts
of land and the exemplars are of small portion of land, there shall be
a suitable deduction towards development costs.
In the case of Manoj Kumar v. State of Haryana, reported in
(2018) 13 SCC 96, this Court had an occasion to consider the
deductions required to be made when considering transactions
pertaining to small developed plots, for determining compensation of
large areas and it is held that when a large area is acquired, two
kinds of deductions have to be made, i.e., (i) for development, and
(ii) in case of exemplar transaction is a small area, the deduction is
required to be made to arrive at the value of large tract."
"5.1 In the present case, the sale instance at Ex. 50 was with respect
to plot admeasuring 135 Square Meters. Similarly, the sale
instance at Ex. 51 was with respect to plot admeasuring 135
Square Meters. Even the sale instance at Ex. 27 was with respect
to 1500 sq. ft. It is also to be noted that even in respect of sale
instance at Ex. 50 dated 5.6.1987, the price determined was Rs.
10.34/- per square foot and so far as the sale instance at Ex. 51
dated 10.09.1987 is concerned, the price determined was at Rs.
3/- per square foot. In the present case, the land acquired is a large
area, i.e., 45 Hectares 89 R. Therefore, as rightly observed and
held by the Reference Court as well as the High Court, the sale
instances produced at Ex. 50, 51 & 27 are not comparable at all.
We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the
Reference Court as well as the High Court discarding Ex. 50, 51
& 27."
[21]
"6. Now the next issue is with respect to sale instances at Ex. 91 to
93 in respect of plots out of land bearing Survey No. 42, which can
be said to be comparable and/or nearer to comparable sale
instances as land bearing Survey No. 42 was adjacent to the
acquired land. As per the sale deeds, Ex. 91 to 93, the plots were
sold at Rs.7/- per square foot. However, considering the fact that
survey No. 42 was having direct access to main road and was
closer to Chandrapur - Nagpur N.H. 7 than the acquired land, the
Reference Court determined the market price at Rs. 6/- per square
foot and determined the compensation after deducting 25%
towards development charges. The High Court has enhanced the
deduction from 25 % to 1/3rd, i.e., 33.33%.
Thus, both, the Reference Court as well as the High Court
have heavily relied upon Ex. 91 to 93 with respect to plots out of
land bearing Survey No. 42 and determined the market price. It is
true that as a general rule, the compensation shall not be
determined on square foot basis (see Pitambar Hemlal Badgujar
(d) by Lrs. (supra)). However, at the same time, in a given case,
the Court may determine the compensation on square foot basis
after making a reasonable deduction towards development
charges, in case there are no other sale instances available."
"6.1 What should be reasonable deduction towards development
charges has been considered by this Court in the cases of Lal
Chand (supra) and Dyagala Devamma (supra).
As held by this Court in the case of Lal Chand (supra), the
percentage of "deduction for development" to be made to arrive at
the market value of large tracts of undeveloped agricultural land
(with potential for development), with reference to the sale price of
small developed plots, varies between 20% to 75% of the price of
such developed plots, the percentage depending upon the nature
of development of the layout in which the exemplar plots are
situated. The decision in the case of Lal Chand (supra) has been
subsequently followed by this Court in the case of Maya Devi
(Dead) through Lrs. V. State of Haryana, reported in (2018) 2 SCC
474 as well as in the case of Andhra Pradesh Housing Board v. K.
Manohar Reddy, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 707.
"6.2 In the case of Dyagala Devamma (supra), while quashing and
setting aside the judgment and order of the High Court making
[22]
deduction towards development charges at 25% in place of 50%
as was deducted by the Reference Court, in paragraphs 19 & 20,
it is observed and held as under:
"19. In addition to these principles, this Court in several cases have
laid down that while determining the true market value of the
acquired land especially when the acquired land is a large
chunk of undeveloped land, it is just and reasonable to make
appropriate deduction towards expenses for development of
acquired land. It has also been consistently held that at what
percentage the deduction should be made varies from 10% to
86% and, therefore, the deduction should be made keeping in
mind the nature of the land, area under acquisition, whether the
land is developed or not and, if so, to what extent, the purpose
of acquisition, etc. It has also been held that while determining
the market value of the large chunk of land, the value of smaller
pieces of land can be taken into consideration after making
proper deduction in the value of lands especially when sale
deeds of larger parcel of land are not available. This Court has
also laid down that the court should also take into consideration
the potentiality of the acquired land apart from other relevant
considerations. This Court has also recognised that the courts
can always apply reasonable amount of guesswork to balance
the equities in order to fix a just and fair market value in terms
of parameters specified under Section 23 of the Act. (See
Trishala Jain v. State of Uttaranchal [Trishala Jain v. State of
Uttaranchal, (2011) 6 SCC 47 : (2011) 3 SCC (Civ) 178] and
Vithal Rao v. LAO [Vithal Rao v. LAO, (2017) 8 SCC 558 :
(2017) 4 SCC (Civ) 155] .)"
"20. Keeping in mind the aforementioned principles, when we take
note of the facts of the case at hand, we find that firstly, the land
acquired in question is a large chunk of land (101 ac. approx.);
secondly, it is not fully developed; thirdly, the respondents
(landowners) have not filed any exemplar sale deed relating to
large pieces of land sold in acres to prove the market value of
the acquired land; fourthly, exemplar relied on by the
respondents, especially Ext. P-18 pertains to very small pieces
of land (19 guntas); fifthly, the three distinguishing features
noticed in the land in sale deed (Ext. P-18) are not present in
the acquired land."
[23]
"7. Applying the law laid down by this Court on the deduction to be
made towards development charges while determining the
compensation to the facts of the case on hand, it is required to be
noted that in the present case a large parcel of land admeasuring
46 Hectares 89 R has been acquired. The sale instances at Ex. 91
to 93 in respect of plots out of land bearing Survey No. 42 are with
respect to small pieces of land admeasuring 1200 sq. ft. which
were non-agricultural developed plots and even the market price
mentioned in the said sale deeds were on square foot basis. In the
present case, the acquired land is a barren agricultural land which
may have a non- agricultural potentiality. Therefore, considering
the fact that the sale exemplars/sale deeds produced at Ex. 91 to
93 are in respect of very small plots of land and were non-
agricultural developed plots and even the same were on the
highway and having the access to the main road, we are of the
opinion that there shall be at least 40% deduction towards
development charges."
[21] The purpose for acquisition of the land is for construction of Key
Location Plant of Sector Headquarters and one Assam Rifles Battalion.
Considering that the land area under acquisition is an isolated, large,
vacant, undeveloped and un-surveyed hill land, this court is of the
considered view that a large amount will be required for its development
to enable the requiring authority to utilize the same for the purpose for
which the land had been acquired. Moveover, since the acquired land is
a hill area and because of its topographical features, the requiring
authority cannot utilize all the 100 acres for the purpose it has been
acquired, at the most the requiring authority may be able to utilize only
about 50 to 60 acres and for the purpose of construction of buildings and
other structures, the requiring authority may be able to utilize only a small
portion of the acquired land. Despite this unfavourable conditions, the
requiring authority are compelled to make payment for the whole 100
[24]
acres of acquired land because of its topographical features and for
security or other reasons.
Keeping in view all these factors, this court is of the considered
view that atleast 40 to 50 percent will be required to be deducted while
calculating the compensation amount, if such calculation is based on the
market value of the land under the aforesaid Sale Deed relied on by the
respondent No. 1/ Claimant, which is at the rate of Rs. 31/- per square
feet. If 40 to 50 percent are to be deducted as developmental charges
while calculating the market value of the acquired land, this court is of the
considered view that the market value of the acquired land will be less
than Rs. 20/-.
While passing the impugned judgment, the reference court did
not take into consideration all these factors and the well-settled principles
of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and enhanced the market
value of the acquired land without any valid supporting documents and
without application of mind. Accordingly, this court is of the considered
view that the impugned judgment dated 19-09-2018 passed by the
reference court is not sustainable.
[22] As the whole compensation amount awarded by the Collector
had already been withdrawn by the respondent No. 1/ Claimant and as
this court is of the view that there was no illegality or unreasonableness
on the part of the Collector while determining the market value of the
acquired land at the rate of Rs. 20/- per square feet, this court is not
inclined to interfere or change the said compensation amount at this point
of time.
[25]
In the result, the present appeal is allowed by quashing and
setting aside the impugned judgment dated 19-09-2018 passed by the
Court of District Judge, Churachandpur in Original (Land Acquisition)
Case No. 1 of 2018. Parties are to bear their own cost.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Devananda
