LexAHSANUL HODA versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013] 8 S.C.R. 312 AHSANUL HODA v. STATE OF BIHAR (Civil Appeal No.5311 of 2012) JULY 1, 2013 [G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Acquisition of land - C Compensation - High Court reduced compensation awarded to claimant-appellant, by fixing lower market rate of the land and set aside the part of the order passed by the Reference Court granting Rs.10,0001- towards damages of standing crops- Justification - Held: On facts, not justified - D Determination of market value by High Court was not based on any evidence but on mere presumption and surmises - High Court set aside compensation towards damages of standing crops by wrongly placing reliance on the statement of an Officer of the State (OP-W-1 ), who was posted elsewhere E at the time of acquisition of the land - Order passed by the High Court set aside and the award passed by the Reference Court restored. The High Court, vide the impugned order, reduced the compensation awarded to the claimant-appellant, by F fixing lower market rate of the land and set aside the part of the order passed by the Reference Court granting Rs.10,000/- towards damages of standing crops. The appellant challenged the judgment passed by G the High Court on the grounds: (i) determination of market value was not based on any evidence but on mere presumption and surmises; and (ii) that the High Court wrongly relied on the statement of OP-W-1, who was posted elsewhere at the time of acquisition of the land. H 312 AHSANUL HODA v. STATE OF BIHAR 313 Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. This Court in number of cases has taken judicial notice of the fact that there is a steady increase in the market value of the land and has also adopted the procedure for determining the increased market value and relied upon the transaction at a given rate per year. [Para 16] [319-C] General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. Rameshbhai Jilvanbhai Patel and Another (2008) A B 14 SCC 745: 2008 (11) SCR 927; SardarJoginderSingh vs. C State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2008) 17 SCC 133 - relied on 2. Mere reliance made by a Court on sale deeds of smaller residential area for determination of market value 0 of larger agricultural area will not render the determination illegal until and unless it is shown that the determination was not proper. [Para 19] [320-D-EJ Haridwar Development Authority vs. Raghubir singh and Others (2010)11 SCC 581: 2010 (2) SCR 201 - relied on. E 3. In the instant case, as the sale-deeds relied upon by the Reference Court (Ext.1 and Ext.11b) were in relation to smaller plots, deduction of 37% was made by the Reference Court and thereafter, by allowing appropriate 10% increase in the value of the land from the date of the sale deeds upto the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Act, the Reference Court arrived F at a figure of Rs.250/- per decimal. The High Court while arriving at figure of Rs. 100/- per decimal considered only G the fact that the sale deeds relied upon were in relation to smaller plots and those sale deeds(Ext.1 and Ext.1/b) were related to homestead land and hence fixed Rs. 10,0001- per acre as compensation. It completely failed to consider the increase in price of land and the deduction H 314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 8 S.C.R. A made by the High Court is nearly 75% which is not in accordance with law. As Ext.1 and Ext.1/b which were related to smaller area, were the only sale deeds available for comparison, the same were relied upon by the Reference Court, but the High Court erred completely in s disregarding the said sale-deeds and thus arrived at a finding of Rs.100/- per decimal as market value on mere presumption and surmises. The High Court also committed error in holding that the sale deeds (Ext.1 and Ext.1/b) relate to homestead land. No citation was found c in Ext.1 showing the land as homestead land. On the other hand Ext.1/b specifically cites that the land is an agricultural land for which the annual revenue rent of Rs.25 is payable. [Paras 20, 21] [320-F-H; 321-A-B, D-E] 4. The High Court disregarded the evidence adduced D by the claimants in its entirety without any reason; however, it relied on evidence of an officer of the State (OP-W-1) and set aside the compensation in relation to the standing crops. The Reference Court has clearly recorded in its order that the said State Office
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.