[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Aditya Cement vs Usman Khan And Anr (2026:Rj-Jd:8433) on 13 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:8433]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 591/2004
Aditya Cement
----Appellant
Versus
Usman Khan And Anr
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Aaman Khan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Shisodia, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Deepesh Birla
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
13/02/2026
1. The present civil miscellaneous appeal under Section 54 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been filed challenging the
judgment and decree dated 09.03.2004 passed by the District
Judge, Pratapgarh, in Civil Reference Case No. 85/2002 (Usman
Khan vs. Aditya Cement), whereby the claim for enhancement of
the compensation was allowed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the land in question
comprised in Khasra Nos.2322 & 2323 of Village Sawa, District
Chhitorgarh, ad-measuring 0.18 hectare and 0.13 hectare,
respectively. The land was already in the names of Tulsi Ram, Baje
Ram & Purbia Gadri, each having separate portions. Subsequently,
a notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 was issued on
19.01.1993 for acquisition of land for the purpose of utilization by
the appellant. Post enquiry, a notification under Section 6 of the
Act of 1894 was issued on 17.01.1994. Thereafter, when notices
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 03:28:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8433] (2 of 7) [CMA-591/2004]
were issued, the respondent appeared before the Land Acquisition
Officer and informed that he had purchased the land by way of a
sale deed dated 30.09.1993. On the application of the
respondents, Usman Khan was substituted in place of Khatedars,
and the possession of the land in question was taken from the
respondent No.1 on 09.05.1997. The Land Acquisition Officer
proceeded to pass the award on 13.07.1995, wherein the
compensation for the land in question was paid while calculating
the value of land at the rate of Rs.1,388/- per acre, and the total
compensation of Rs.50,345/- was directed to be paid to the
respondent.
3. Being aggrieved against the same, the respondent initiated
reference proceedings under Section 18 of the Act of 1894. The
respondent claimed that the land was purchased by him on
30.09.1993 and at the relevant time, including the stamp duty
paid, the rate of land was Rs.70,000/- per bigha. He further
submitted that identical land situated nearby was also acquired by
resorting to the provisions of Section 89 of the Rajasthan Land
Revenue Act, 1956, wherein adjacent land situated in the same
village was acquired for a much higher rate, i.e. around
1,50,000/- per bigha. He, therefore, prayed for enhancement of
the amount of compensation.
4. The appellant filed a reply in the proceedings under Section
18 of the Act of 1894 and asserted that the award dated
13.07.1995 has rightly been passed after considering the DLC rate
of the land in question and there was no occasion for
enhancement of compensation. The learned District Judge,
Pratapgarh, thereafter proceeded to adjudicate the proceedings
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 03:28:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8433] (3 of 7) [CMA-591/2004]
under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 and, vide its judgment dated
09.03.2004, enhanced the compensation by calculating the value
of the land at the rate of Rs.70,000/- per bigha and amended the
solatium and interest amount accordingly. Thus, a total sum of
Rs.1,14,500/- was directed to be received as compensation
including solatium and interest by the respondent. Being
aggrieved against the same, the present appeal has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant asserts that the very basis
of passing of the judgment dated 09.03.2004 was the sale deed in
favour of the respondent, which admittedly was executed post
issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894.
Therefore, the document in question could not have been relied
upon. He further asserts that the burden was upon the
respondent-claimant to establish that the calculation of the
prevalent market price was not done correctly and he was further
under obligation to disclose the correct market price at the
relevant date, which the respondent has failed to do in the present
case. Thus, there was no occasion available before the learned
District Judge to enhance the amount of compensation on the
basis of the said sale deed.
6. To buttress his submission, learned counsel for the appellant
has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of "M.V.K. Gundarao vs. Revenue Divisional Officer"
(1996) 3 SCC 129, wherein it has been held that burden lies upon
the claimant to prove the prevailing market value as on the date
of the notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1984.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, while
supporting the impugned judgment has stated that simply
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 03:28:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8433] (4 of 7) [CMA-591/2004]
because the land was purchased after issuance of notification
under Section 4, would make no difference whatsoever, as the
amount determined by the Registering Officer was the amount to
which the original Khatedars were entitled. He submits that the
respondent has simply stepped into the shoes of the original
Khatedars, and that by itself would make no difference
whatsoever as far as the determination of the amount of
compensation is concerned, more particularly, when the sale deed
executed in his favour is not under challenge.
8. He further asserts that no such ground challenging the sale
deed or the objection with regard to the sale deed being
undertaken post issuance of the notification, has ever been taken
by the appellant before both the authorities concerned. He further
asserts that while enhancing the compensation, learned District
Judge has considered the other documents submitted by the
respondent qua the adjacent land, wherein proceedings under
Section 89 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act were initiated for
acquisition, however, the amount of compensation paid was at the
rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per bigha. He further asserts that the
documents in this regard have been exhibited by the respondent
during the course of his evidence before the learned District
Judge.
9. On the contrary, no documentary evidence has been placed
on record by the appellant to oppose the submissions made by the
respondent-claimant. He further asserts that the Land Acquisition
Officer has calculated the award based upon the DLC rate, while
being totally oblivious of the actual market rate of the land in
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 03:28:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8433] (5 of 7) [CMA-591/2004]
question. He further asserts that the DLC rate cannot be a
determining factor and the market rate has to be determined.
10. To buttress his submission, learned counsel placed reliance
upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of "Jaw Ajee Nagnatham vs. Revenue Divisional Officer,
Adilabad & Ors." reported in (1994) 4 SCC 595, wherein it has
been held that the DLC rate is not the determining factor and
cannot form the basis for determining the market value of the
land.
11. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.
12. Heard the counsels for both the sides and perused the
record.
13. As far as the ground raised by the appellant with regard to
the sale deed being executed post issuance of notification under
Section 4 is concerned, the sale deed has nowhere been
challenged, neither any such ground was taken by the appellant
before both the authorities concerned, whether before the Land
Acquisition Officer or in the reference proceedings. Furthermore,
the sale deed can certainly be considered for the purpose of
determining the DLC rate of the land in question as irrespective of
the acquisition notification under Section 4, considering the
proximity of the notification and the date of execution of the sale
deed, no significant difference would arise as far as the price of
the land for the purpose of calculating the DLC rate is concerned.
Thus, the sale deed can be considered for that aspect which has
rightly been done by the learned Court below. This coupled with
the fact that for the adjacent land situated in the same village, the
appellant itself has paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- per bigha which is
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 03:28:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8433] (6 of 7) [CMA-591/2004]
fortified by the order passed by the Additional Collector, Land
Acquisition, Chittorgarh dated 20.01.2001, wherein not only a
portion of land belonged to the same Khasra number, but also
nearby land was acquired in consonance with Section 89 of the
Rajasthan Land Revenue Act wherein the compensation awarded
to the claimant was Rs.1,51,300/- per bigha.
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Jaw Ajee
Nagnatham vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad & Ors."
reported in (1994) 4 SCC 595, wherein the criterion for
determining the market price has already been specified as under:
(i) Opinion of the expert.
(ii) Price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide
transaction of purchase of lands qua lands acquired or lands
adjacent to the land acquired and possessing similar
advantages.
(iii) Number of years purchase of the actual or immediately
perspective profits of the land acquired.
15. The abovementioned criteria as well as the ratio laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court leaves no iota of doubt that the DLC rate
or the basic valuation registered rate noting by the Registering
Authority cannot be sole criterion for determining the market price
and for determining the market price the other criteria have to be
considered (as specified supra).
16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case,
the learned District Judge has rightly considered the market price
of the land in question based upon the sale deed as well as the
award passed for adjacent land. The appellant has failed to point
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 03:28:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8433] (7 of 7) [CMA-591/2004]
out any error in passing the judgment and decree dated
09.03.2004.
17. The appeal, being bereft of merit, is dismissed accordingly.
18. The record of the case be sent back forthwith.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J
1-Love/-
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 03:28:54 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
