THE STATE OF BIHAR v. SARSWATI DEVI

MADHESHWAR SINGH FA No.116 of 1997 STATE OF BIHAR Versus MADHESHWAR SINGH & ORS FA No.117 of 1997 STATE OF BIHAR Versus MADAN PRASAD SINHA & ANR FA No.119 of 1997 STATE OF BIHAR Versus KARAMDEO SINGH FA No.176 of 1997 STATE OF BIHAR Versus SRI GOPAL PRASAD SINGH ----------- P R E S E N T: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGMENT (28/4/2010) Dipak Misra, CJ In this batch of appeals preferred under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the challenge is to the award dated 4.1.1994 passed by the Sub Judge I, Aurangabad in LA Case no.58 of 1990 and other connected matters.

#2. The facts which are necessary to be stated for adjudication of this batch of appeals are that a 8 notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) was issued for acquisition of land situate in mauza Jasoiya in the district of Aurangabad. As is evident from the material brought on record, the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Collector under the Act awarded compensation of Rs.2,00500/- per acre in respect of land situate in mauza Jasoiya and the Reference Court enhanced the valuation to Rs.4,56,300/- per acre.

#3. The notification issued in the year 1987 was for the purpose of acquiring land admeasuring

233.62 acres falling in three villages, namely, Majurhi, Jasoiya and Dhaboul for construction of Aurangabad Development Centre under the Scheme for the benefit of the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Patna (for short, ‘the BIADA’).

#4. It is worth noting, the Reference Court has passed two awards, one in LA. Case no.33 of 1990 and another in LA Case no.60 of 1990. LA. Case no.33 of 1990 relates to mauza Dhaboul and LA Case no.60 of 1990 pertains to mauza Jasoiya. Be it noted, the said land acquisition cases were disposed of by a common order and the main order was passed in LA Case no.1 of 1990. 9

#5. It is worth noting, the said authority, namely, the BIADA submitted an application in this appeal and was arrayed as a co-appellant along with the State.

#6. Though initially a submission was canvassed by Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned senior counsel appearing for the BIADA, that the matter should be remitted to the Reference Court in view of the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in U.P.Awas Even Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi, (1995) 2 SCC 326, Abul Razzak v. Kerala Water Authority, (2002) 3 SCC 228, and the order passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal no.2780 of 1998, yet eventually a consensus was arrived at that the matter should be heard on merits inasmuch as in some cases the matter was earlier remanded and the Reference Court has reiterated the award. Thus, I proceed to deal with the appeal on merits.

#7. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, GP XIV, Mr. Harendra Pd. Singh, GA VI, Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, GA II, Mr. P. Tekriwal, GA 1, Mr. Narmedeshwar Jha, AAG VII, and Mr. Ram Bilash Mahto, AAG VIII, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned senior counsel, along with Mr. Mukul Prasad, learned counsel for the 10 BIADA, and Mr. D.K.Sinha, learned senior counsel, along with Mr. Anirudha Kumar Verma, and Mr. Virendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the claimant – respondents.

#8. On a scrutiny of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, it is evident that he passed the award of compensation approximately Rs.2,00500/- per acre. The reference Court enhanced it to Rs.4,56,300/-. Be it noted, the Land Acquisition Case no.60 of 1990 pertains to Jasoiya. Ext. 1 is the registered sale deed of the year 1982 which mentions the consideration money of Rs.4,200/- per decimal. Ext.1/a is the registered sale deed dated 14.6.1982 and consideration money is Rs.4000/- per kattha. Ext. 1/b is the registered sale deed for the area 6 ¼ decimals and consideration money is Rs.6400/- per decimal. Ext.2 is the report of the Circle Officer who valued the price at Rs.6400/- per decimal. Ext.C is the sale chart.

#9. In the case at hand the claimants brought on record the documents that the land in question situate within the Aurangabad Municipality areas beside the G.T. Road and Aurangabad road. The Reference Court has taken the mean between Exts. 1/a, 1/b & c as pointed out by Ext. 1/a and determined Rs.1280/- per decimal. Ext. 1/b as 11 has been indicated earlier the land admeasuring 6.25 decimals was sold for consideration of Rs.49000/-. Serial no.34 of the sale statement indicates that the rate is Rs.6956/- per decimal. The Reference Court has taken note of serial no.34 of the sale chart. It is worth noting the notification with respect to both the villages, namely, Jasoiya and Dhaboul is dated 30th June, 1987.

#10. Ten witnesses on behalf of the claimants, three witnesses on behalf of the State and three witnesses on behalf of the BIADA were examined. It is not in dispute that 78 acres of land of village Jasoiya was acquired by the BIADA for the industrial purpose.

#11. The submission of learned counsel appearing for the BIADA is that since both the villages, namely, Jasoiya and Dhaboul are contiguous, the valuation of land of both the villages should be the same.

#12. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Reference Court has taken into consideration the situation of the land as well as the sale chart which was tendered in evidence by the State Government and thereafter, as is manifested, has fixed Rs.4,56,300/- per acre. 12

#13. Considering the prevailing conditions of the land at the time of notification, the sale deeds, the future potentiality of the land and the surrounding areas, I am of the opinion that a prudent purchaser would not hesitate to purchase the land at Rs.3 lacs per acre. Thus, I am disposed to think that one acre of land is not less than Rs.3 lacs and thereby the price of the land is determined at Rs.3 lacs per acre.

#14. In the result, the appeals preferred by the appellants are allowed in part. The claimants shall be entitled to all statutory dues including the interest on solatium as per the decision rendered in Sunder Vs. Union of India, AIR 2001 SC 3516.

#15. As the price is reduced, the cross – appeals preferred by the claimants have to pave the path of dismissal and, accordingly, it is so directed.

#16. Resultantly, the appeals preferred by the appellants are allowed in part and the cross – appeals are dismissed. The parties shall bear their respective costs. Neyaz/ ( Dipak Misra, CJ.)