High Court
Case Details
LA.App. 9/2003 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) The appellant, whose tea garden land has been acquired by the Collector for public purpose, i.e. for laying down railway line by the Indian Railway, has filed these appeals challenging the common judgment dated 24.05.2002 passed by the learned District Judge, Sivasagar, in Misc.(LA) Case Nos.216/1988 and 220/19 88, whereby and whereunder the market value of the acquired land has been enhanc ed from Rs.1,050/- per bigha as awarded by the Collector to Rs.3,000/- per bigha and the value of the tea bushes and shed trees were assessed at Rs.10/- and Rs. 50/-, per tea bush and shed tree, respectively. 2. The relevant facts for disposal of the present appeals may be noticed as under:- I. Notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act) was issued by the Collector on 22.12.1983 for acqui sition of 63 bighas 1 katha 0 lecha of land and 32 bighas 3 kathas 0 lecha of la nd situated in Bandarjan Grant under Dupdor Mouza, for a public purpose i.e. for construction of MG railway line from Amguri to Tuli by the Indian Railway, for which L.A. Case No.15/83-84/RLY and L.A. Case No.11/83-84/RLY, respectively, wer e registered. In due course of time declarations under Section 6 were also made. The possession of the land was taken over by the Indian Railway from the appell ant on 25.01.1988. II. In L.A. Case No.11/83-84/RLY the Collector made the award on 27.08.1985. In L.A. Case No.15/83-84/RLY the Collector made the award on 22.08.1986.
Legal Reasoning
III. Since the appellant was not satisfied with the quantum of compensation a warded, applications under Section 18 of the Act were filed claiming land value of Rs.50,000/- per bigha, and Rs.100/- and Rs.500/- as the value of each tea bus h and shed tree, respectively, apart from claiming damages on account of bifurca tion/severance as well as the loss of production. IV. Pursuant to the applications filed references were made to the learned D istrict Judge by the Collector, based on which Misc.(LA) Case Nos.216/1988 (corr esponding to L.A. Case No.15/83-84/RLY) and 220/1988 (corresponding to L.A. Case No.11/83-84/RLY) were registered. The learned Judge based on the evidence adduc ed by the parties vide common judgment dated 24.05.2002 enhanced the land value of the acquired land from Rs.1,050/- to Rs.3,000/- per bigha and has fixed Rs.10 /- and Rs.50/- per tea bush and shed tree, respectively. Hence the present appea ls. 3.
Legal Reasoning
I have heard Mr. K. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant; Mr. B.J. Ghosh, the learned State counsel appearing for the Collector and Mr. U.K. Goswa mi, the learned counsel appearing for the Railway. 4. Mr. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, referring to the depositions of PWs-1, 2 and 3 recorded in Misc.(LA) Case No.216/1988 and also Exts.-27, 29 and 31 (there appears to be some anomaly in marking the exhibi ts as the seriality in numbers has not been maintained), has submitted that sinc e the appellant could prove that from the year 1988 up to the year 1992 the Coll ector has acquired land in the rural area, irrespective of a class of land, for a public purpose i.e. for the use by the Oil and Natural Gas Company, @Rs.55,000 /- per bigha, the learned Reference Judge ought not to have awarded only Rs.3,00 0/- as the land value per bigha, since Exts.-A, B and C sale instances as proved by the Collector are not the sale instances of comparable land. It has also bee n submitted that such sale instances (Exts.-A, B and C) being relating to the tr ansfer of homestead land and there being evidence on record that huge amount is required to be spent to make the land suitable for special cultivation i.e. tea, such sale instances in any case cannot be the basis for fixation of market valu e of the land at the relevant point of time. Mr. Goswami submits that in view of the same, the Reference Court ought to have assessed the market value of the la nd, based on Exts.-27, 29 and 31 by proportionately reducing the price fixed by the Collector for acquisition of the land for ONGC in the year 1988. 5. It has also been submitted by Mr. Goswami that the tea bushes as well as the shed trees grown over the acquired land being productive and yielding good quality of tea leaves, the learned Judge ought to have assessed the compensation per tea bush @Rs.100/- and per shed tree @Rs.500/-. 6. Mr. Ghosh, the learned State counsel, on the other hand, referring to th e judgment passed by the Reference Court, has submitted that in the absence of a ny evidence on record to demonstrate the price of the land at the relevant point of time, the Reference Court, in fact, ought not to have enhanced the amount of compensation by assessing the market value of the land at Rs.3,000/-. It has, h owever, been submitted that since the learned Judge while assessing the market v alue of the land, took into consideration the fact that certain amount is requir ed to be spent for making the land suitable for tea cultivation, the State did n ot prefer any appeal challenging such judgment. Mr. Ghosh further submits that t he learned Judge has rightly did not place reliance on Exts.-27, 29 and 31, as t he Collector has fixed the amount of compensation payable in respect of acquisit ion of the rural land, irrespective of the class, taking into account the sale i nstances of 1988 and also having regard to the close proximity of the rural land , proposed to be acquired for ONGC purpose, to the industrial town. The learned State counsel submits that it is being the case of the appellant that the market value of the land was much higher than the market value fixed by the Collector, they have to prove the sale instances of comparable land, which they have miser ably failed to do. 7. Relating to the claim for cost of tea bushes and shed trees, Mr. Ghosh s ubmits that though the appellant examined 3(three) witnesses in support of their claim, apart from the witness No.4, who has proved Exts.-27, 29 and 31, none of the witnesses have stated when those tea bushes and the shed trees were planted , meaning thereby their age. It has also been submitted that the appellant, whic h is a Public Limited Company, did not produce the records pertaining to the yea rs 1983 to 1988 to demonstrate the age of the tea bushes and the shed trees and also the annual yield, on the pretext that those records have been destroyed as eaten up by white ant, which stand is not believable, as has rightly been observ ed by the Reference Court in the judgment. Mr. Ghosh, therefore, submits that in the absence of any material placed before the Court, the learned Judge has righ tly fixed the cost of tea bushes and shed trees, which also does not require any interference in appeal. Mr. U.K. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing for the Railway, support 8. ing the arguments advanced by Mr. Ghosh, the learned State counsel, submits that since the burden lies on the appellant to prove that the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector is not adequate and as the appellant has failed to dis charge the burden, the Reference Court ought not to have enhanced the market val ue of the land, so also the cost of tea bushes as well as shed trees. The learne d counsel, however, has submitted that the Railway did not file any appeal again st the aforesaid common judgment dated 24.05.2002, whereby and whereunder the ma rket value of the land as well as the value of the tea bushes and the shed trees have been enhanced by the Reference Court. 9. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for th e parties and also perused the judgment and order dated 24.05.2002 passed by the Reference Court apart from the evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced by the parties. The facts narrated in paragraph 2 of this judgment are not in dispute. T 10. he appellant being not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Collector, filed applications under Section 18 of the Act for making reference of the disp ute to the Court and accordingly references were made, based on which aforesaid Misc.(LA) proceedings were registered before the learned District Judge. The ref erences being at the instance of the appellant, the burden lies on them to prove that the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector is inadequate and henc e required to be enhanced. 11. The appellant claims that the land value of the acquired land ought to b e assessed at Rs.50,000/- per bigha and not Rs.1,050/- per bigha, as awarded by the Collector. The only evidence, which was led by the appellant, in support of their contention that the land value should be Rs.50,000/- per bigha, is the min utes of the discussion held on 25.01.1988 in the office of the Deputy Commission er, Sivasagar for the purpose of fixation of market value of the land acquired o r to be acquired for the purpose of ONGC, which has been marked as Ext.-27. It a ppears from the said document that a decision was taken to assess the market val ue of the land in rural areas to be acquired for ONGC purpose, irrespective of t he class of land, @Rs.55,000/- per bigha, based on the sale instances at the rel evant point of time i.e. in and around 1988. It is also evident from the said do cument that the value of the land in the rural area has been fixed having regard to the fact that such rural area is in the proximity of industrial sites of sma ll towns. It also appears from Ext.-29, i.e. the communication dated 27.01.1988, that the said decision taken by the Collector was forwarded to the Govt. of Ass am in Revenue (LR) Department. From Ext.-31 i.e. the communication dated 25.07.1 984 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Revenue (LR) Departmen t to the Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar, who is the Collector, it appears that t he land value fixed in the proceeding dated 25.01.1988, in respect of the rural land, was accepted by the Government, which continued till 31.12.1982 and the sa id rate though was sought to be enhanced to Rs.67,500/-, the same has not been a greed to by the Govt. of Assam in Revenue Department and directed the Collector to re-examine the whole matter and submit a report to the Government, observing the anomalies found in the subsequent decision dated 30.03.1993 for enhancement of the value of the land in the rural area. The value of the land in the rural area irrespective of the class of lan 12. d having been fixed by the Collector in the proceeding dated 25.01.1988, based o n the sale instances of comparable land in and around 1988, the same cannot the basis for ascertaining the market value of the land, which has been acquired in the year 1983. 13. It, however, appears from the evidence adduced by the appellant, more pa rticularly the depositions of PWs-1, 2 and 3, that huge amount is required to be spent for the purpose of development of land and to make it suitable for tea cu ltivation. Admittedly tea bushes and the shed trees were grown over the land acq uired and hence the appellant must has spent considerable amount for making the ground ready for such cultivation. Exts.-A, B and C, are the sale instances in r espect of small areas of land. While ascertaining the market value of the land a nd also the industrial growth in Sivasagar district after setting up of ONGC in 1960s, and also that those sale instances are in respect of the homestead land, the market value of the land acquired has to be more than the value at which tra nsactions were made vide Exts.-A, B and C. Having regard to the evidence of PWs- 1, 2 and 3 relating to spending of considerable amount for development of the la nd, the land value can safely be assessed at Rs.4,000/- per bigha. 14. This leads to the question as to whether the appellant is entitled to fu rther enhancement of the cost of the tea bushes and the shed trees. PWs-1 and 2 in Misc.(LA) Case No.216/1988, who are the Managers of two different tea gardens , namely, Borbam Tea Estate and Amguri Tea Estate, belonging to the appellant, i n their depositions did not say as to the age of the tea bushes as well as of th e shed trees grown over the acquired land. PW-2, in fact, has admitted that he h as been serving as the Manager of the Amguri Tea Estate for last 22 years and he has not claimed that the tea bushes or shed trees were planted during his tenur e in Amguri Tea Estate. It is also in evidence that the Tea Estate of which the land was acquired is 50 years old. The appellant also did not produce any record before the Reference Court to demonstrate the year of plantation of the tea bus hes and shed trees, though it is in the evidence that they maintained such recor ds. The explanation given by the appellant for non-production of the record i.e. that the records were destroyed because those were eaten up by white ant, is no t believable, more so when the appellant is a private limited company, who is re quired to maintain the records. The appellant having raised the dispute relating to the quantum of compensation and the land acquisition proceedings being pendi ng before different authorities, they ought to have taken extra care for mainten ance of record, which they did not do. This gives an impression in the mind of t he Court that the appellant has withheld the records from the Court, as had the records been produced, it would have come out the exact year of plantation of te a bushes and shed trees. PWs-1, 2 and 3 in their evidence have also stated that though the life of the tea bush is 100 years, the best yield is between 3 to 20 years and thereafter it decreases and after 50 years it considerably decreases. PW-3 has also stated that the life of the shed tree is 50 years. In the absence of any evidence to prove the life of the tea bushes as well as the shed trees, I am of the view that the appellant is not entitled to any further enhancement to wards the compensation for tea bushes and the shed trees grown over the acquired land.
Decision
15. In view of the above, the judgment and order passed by the Reference Cou rt stands modified to the extent that the appellant would be entitled to market value of the acquired land @Rs.4,000/- per bigha along with the solatium and int erest under the provisions of the Act. The amount of compensation for the tea bu shes and the shed trees as assessed by the Reference Court is maintained. 16. sts. The appeals are accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No co 17. Registry is directed to send down the records.