TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (9) TMI 977
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i and Chak Maida Patti in Tehsil Chail, District Allahabad were acquired for construction of a Mandi Samiti. Out of these 22 First Appeals, three First Appeals have been filed by the claimants for enhancement of the market rate determined by the Reference Court while the remaining 19 First Appeals have been filed by the Mandi Samiti for reduction of the market rate. The particulars of all the First Appeals are contained in the Schedule to this judgment. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act for acquisition of land situated in these three villages was issued on 12th January, 1977 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 26th January, 1977. The Special Land Acquisition Officer gave the award under Section 11 of the Act in respect of the land acquired in village Mundera on 11th June, 1980 and for the land acquired in villages Neem Sarai and Chak Maida Patti on 10th July, 1981. The Special Land Acquisition Officer determined the market rate of the land for villages Mundera and Chak Maida Patti at a uniform rate @ ₹ 2400/- per bigha while for the land acquired in village Neem Sarai, the Special Land Acquisition Officer adopted the belting system. The ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bigha 30% 9/15% 13. FA 35/83 Moti Lal Vs. State of U.P. 8/82 Chak Maida Patti 10.7.1981 12.10.82 Rs.20,000/- Per Bigha 15% 6% 14. FA 73/83 K.U.M.S. Vs. Moti Lal 8/82 Chak Maida Patti 10.7.1981 12.10.82 Rs.20,000/- Per Bigha 15% 6% 15. FA 74/83 K.U.M.S. Vs. Moti Lal 9/82 Chak Maida Patti 10.7.1981 12.10.82 ₹ 20,000/- Per Bigha 15% 6% 16. FA 383/83 K.U.M.S. Vs. Khursheeda Bibi 11/82 Chak Maida Patti 10.7.1981 8.4.1983 ₹ 20,000/- Per Bigha 15% 6% 17. FA 389/83 K.U.M.S. Vs. Sharifunnisa 14/82 Chak Maida Patti 10.7.1981 8.4.1983 ₹ 20,000/- Per Bigha 15% 6% 18. FA 390/83 K.U.M.S. Vs. Amina Bibi 13/82 Chak Maida Patti 10.7.1981 8.4.1983 ₹ 20,000/- Per Bigha 15% 6% 19. FA 393/83 K.U.M.S. Vs. Munni Lal 16/82 Chak Maida Patti 10.7.1981 20.5.1983 ₹ 15,000/- Per Bigha 15% 6% 20. FA 178/84 K.U.M.S. Vs. Sri Ram & Ors. 15/82 Chak Maida Patti 10.7.1981 20.5.1983 ₹ 20,000/- Per Bigha 15% 6% 21. FA 179/84 K.U.M.S. Vs. Aisha Bibi & Ors. 23/82 Chak Maida Patti 10.7.1981 8.4.1983 ₹ 20,000/- Per Bigha 15% 6% 22. FA (138)/91 K.U.M.S. Vs. State of U.P. & Ram Narain Yada....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bigha. However, even after having so determined the market rate of the land, it rejected the Reference by the award dated 19th April, 1983 under the mistaken impression that the Land Acquisition Officer had also awarded ₹ 4000/- per bigha whereas in fact the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded ₹ 2400 per bigha. Accordingly, an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC was filed by the claimant which was registered as Misc. Case No.11 of 1984 and ultimately the award dated 19th April, 1983 was modified to the extent that the claimant was held entitled to market rate of the land @ ₹ 4000/- per bigha. In First Appeal No.392 of 1983 which arises out of Land Acquisition Reference No.20 of 1981 and First Appeal No.391 of 1983 which arises out of Land Acquisition Reference No.22 of 1981, the Reference Court determined the market rate of the land situated in village Mundera by the award dated 31st May, 1983 @ ₹ 40/- per sq. meter solely on the basis of the circle rate determined by the Collector under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act read with Rules 340 and 341 of the Stamp Act Rules. It needs to be mentioned that the circle rate had been fixed by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the first belt was determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer @ ₹ 20,338.98 per bigha, for the second belt @ ₹ 13,559.32 per bigha and for the third belt @ ₹ 10,169.49 per bigha. The Reference Court, however, awarded a uniform rate @ ₹ 20,338/- for the land situated in village Neem Sarai since in its opinion there was no necessity of adopting the belting system after having made a deduction of 25% on account of the largeness of the land acquired viz-a-viz the land covered by the examplar sale deeds. This market rate of land has been determined by the Reference Court in the awards giving rise to all the First Appeals except the award giving rise to First Appeal No.212 of 1996. In First Appeal No.212 of 1996, which arises out of LA Case No.169 of 1982, the Reference Court determined the market rate of the land by the award dated 18th March, 1988 @ ₹ 10/- per sq. yard. Before the Reference Court, the claimant had placed reliance upon the award given earlier by the Reference Court in respect of the same acquisition on 31st May, 1983 in LA Case No.22 of 1981 wherein the market rate was determined for the land situated in village Mundera @ ₹ ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t October, 1983 on the basis of the same award of the Reference Court in LA Case No.8 of 1982 but because of the location of the plots under consideration determined the market rate of land at ₹ 10,000/- per bigha. I have heard Sri B.D. Mandhyan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Mandi Samiti and Sri O.P. Srivastava, Sri M. Islam, Sri K.K. Dubey and Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the claimants. Sri B.D. Mandhyan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Mandi Samiti has submitted that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Avas & Vikas Parishad Vs. Gyan Devi, AIR 1995 SC 725 and Agra Development Authority Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors., JT 2001 (2) SC 489, the determination of the market rate by the Reference Court under the awards cannot be sustained as the acquiring body namely Mandi Samiti had not been impleaded as a party before the Reference Court and consequently had no opportunity of leading evidence but at the same time he submitted that since the award made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was binding upon the Mandi Samiti and the acquisition was very old relating to the year 1977, the Mandi Samiti would be satisfied if th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t were to uniformly fix the market rate of the land at ₹ 20,338.98/- per bigha because the Special Land Acquisition Officer himself had offered this market rate for the land situated in the first belt but had erroneously adopted the belting system thereafter. He has, therefore, very fairly stated that the Mandi Samiti would have no objection if this rate is determined in the First Appeals filed by the claimants as well as in First Appeal No. 392 of 1983, First Appeal No. 391 of 1983 and First Appeal No. 212 of 1996 filed by the Mandi Samiti since if the matter is remanded to the Reference Court it would take a lot of time even though 30 years have already lapsed and further delay would not be in the interest of either of the party. It is his submission that in the awards giving rise to these three First Appeals filed by the Mandi Samiti, the Reference Court committed an error in determining the market rate of the land solely on the basis of the circle rate of the land determined by the Collector under the Stamp Act. On the other hand, in the three First Appeals filed by the claimants for enhancement of market rate, the learned counsel for the claimants have placed reliance u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....NJHA-I'. It may be mentioned here that the land in dispute was acquired in the year 1977. According to the learned counsel for the claimant the value of the land in dispute has been fixed by the Government at the rate of ₹ 40/-, ₹ 50/- per. sq. meter, and compensation should also be awarded at this rate. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has argued that compensation cannot be awarded at this rate because this is not the market value of the property in dispute. The contention of the learned counsel for the State cannot be accepted. U.P. Government has framed Stamps Rules in the year 1942, under Indian Stamp Act, Chapter XV of the Rules deals with rules for determining the market value of certain instruments. Rule 340 provides that certain particulars are to be furnished in an instrument of conveyance etc, relating to immovable property. Section 341, provides that for the purposes of payment of Stamp Duty the minimum of market value of immovable property forming subject of an instrument of conveyance etc, referred to in Section 47-A(1) of the Stamp Act, shall be deemed to be not less than that as arrived on the basis of multiples given below. The c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hereunder. It would be seen that the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 provides for payment of stamp duty on "market value" on certain instruments. So far the State of U.P. is concerned, Section 47-A was inserted in the Stamp Act by the UP Legislature in the year 1969. It permits the Stamp Authorities to investigate the market value stated in such instruments to check evasion of stamp duty. Section 47-A also empowers the framing of rules for fixation of minimum market value. In exercise of such powers, the UP Government added Rule, 340-A in the UP Stamp Rules, 1942. Subsequently, after repealing this Rule 340-A, the UP Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 have been brought into force. The relevance of the minimum market value (i.e. circle rates) fixed by the Collector under S. 47-A of the Stamp Act read with the Rules for the purposes of determination of market value under the Act has been considered in a catena of decisions and it has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that the rate determined by the Collector under the Stamp Act and the Rules framed thereunder for the purposes of collecting stamp duty cannot form the foundation for determining the market rate of the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce has been brought to our notice in support thereof.................. It is, therefore, clear that the Basic Valuation Register prepared and maintained for the purpose of collecting stamp duty has no statutory base or force. It cannot form a foundation to determine the market value mentioned thereunder in instrument brought for registration. Equally it would not be a basis to determine the market value under Section 23 of the Act, of the lands acquired in that area or town or the locality or the taluk etc. Evidence of bona fide sales between willing prudent vendor and prudent vendee of the lands acquired or situated near about that land possessing same or similar advantageous features would furnish basis to determine market value. ...................... Accordingly we hold that the basic value of registration has no statutory lands under Section 23 of the Act. The burden of proof is always on the claimant to prove, in each case the prevailing market value as on the date of notification published in the State Gazette under Section 4(1) of the Act with reference to the sale deeds of the same lands or neighbour's lands possessed of same or similar advantages and features execut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....05 SC 3467 held that the notification issued by the Union of India, fixing circle rates, is inadmissible in evidence. In the aforesaid two L.A. Case No. 20 of 1981 and L.A. Case No. 22 of 1981, as seen above, the Reference Court has placed reliance upon the circle rate determined by the Collector under the provisions of the Stamp Act and the Rules framed thereunder. These rates could not have been taken into consideration for determination of the market rate in view of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court. Sri K.K. Dubey learned counsel appearing for the claimants, however, made a submission that the rate of ₹ 40/- per square metre has been determined by the Reference Court not only on the basis of the circle rate fixed by the Collector under the Stamp Act but also on the basis of other evidence on record. This submission cannot be accepted as a perusal of the awards leaves no manner of doubt that the market rate of the land was determined by the Reference Court only on the basis of the circle rate determined by the Collector. The sale deeds which were filed by the claimants before the Reference Court were not taken into consideration by the Reference Court for the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t value is the comparable sales method. Therefore, when there are several comparable sales or awards pertaining to different lands, the Court is required to choose that sale or award relating to a land which closely or nearly compares with the land under acquisition and to take the price of land of such sale or award as the basis for determining the market value. However it has to be seen whether the sale instance of one revenue village would have relevance for the land of other revenue village if the two lands are similarly situated and possess similar location and building potentiality. In Union of India Vs. Harinder Pal Singh, (2005) 12 SCC 564 uniform rate for five villages was upheld by the Supreme Court: "............. took a pragmatic approach in fixing the market value of the lands forming the subject-matter of the acquisition proceedings at a uniform rate. From the sketch plan of the area in question, it appears to us that while the lands in question are situated in five different villages, they can be consolidated into one single unit with little to choose between one stretch of land an another. The entire area is in a stage of development and the different village....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e No. 169 of 1982 determined by the Reference Court @ ₹ 10/- per square yard should also be reduced to ₹ 20,338.98/- per bigha since the said determination by the Reference Court is based solely on the circle rate under the Stamp Act. In First Appeal No. 35 of 1983 relating to village Chak Maida Patti the Reference Court has awarded ₹ 20,000/- per bigha. Though this rate has been determined by the Reference Court in a number of cases but only one claimant has filed the Appeal under Section 54 of the Act for enhancement of the claim. In view of the fact that a uniform rate should be awarded for the land situated in all the three villages, the market rate of the land should be enhanced to ₹ 20,338.98/- per bigha in this First Appeal. The only remaining First Appeal filed by the claimant is First Appeal No. 219 of 1988. Strong emphasis was placed by Sri M. Islam learned counsel for the claimant that the market rate should be determined @ ₹ 40/- per square metre as was determined in L.A. Case No. 20 of 1981 and L.A. Case No. 22 of 1981. In the First Appeals filed by the Mandi Samiti for reduction of this market rate, as noticed hereinabove, the market ra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. 28. Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess compensation:- If the sum which, in the opinion of the Court, the Collector ought to have awarded as compensation is in excess of the sum which the Collector did not award as compensation, the award of the Court may direct that the Collector shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of nine per centum per annum from the date on which he took possession of the of land to the date of payment of such excess into Court: Provided that the award of the Court may also direct that where such excess or any part thereof is paid into Court after the date of expiry of a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into Court before the date of such expiry. Section 30 of Amendment Act No.68 of 1984 contains the Transitional provisions and is as follows:- 30. Transitional Provisions (1) The provisions of sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 of the principal Act, as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dates or to an appellate order of the High Court or of the Supreme Court which arises out of an award of the Collector or the Court made between the said two dates. The word ''or' is used with reference to the stage at which the proceeding rests at the time when the benefit under S. 30(2) is sought to be extended. If the proceeding has terminated with the award of the Collector or of the Court made between the aforesaid two dates, the benefit of S. 30(2) will be applied to such award made between the aforesaid two dates. If the proceeding has passed to the stage of appeal before the High Court or the Supreme Court, it is at that stage when the benefit of S. 30(2) will be applied. But in every case, the award of the Collector or of the Court must have been made between 30 April, 1982 and 24 September, 1984."(emphasis supplied) The Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner, Godaj Sub-Division, Godaj Vs. Mahapathi Bas Ovannewwa & Ors. AIR 1995 SC 2492 observed that the object of introducing Section 23(1-A) in the Act is to mitigate the hardship caused to the owner of the land who has been deprived of the enjoyment of the land by taking possession from him and using it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en in the pending reference made before 30-4-1982, if the civil court makes an award between 30-4-1982 and 24-9-1984, Section 30(2) gets attracted and thereby the enhanced solatium was available to the claimants. Since Section 30(2) deals with both the amendments to Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the Principal Act by Section 15(b) and Section 18, respectively, of the Amendment Act by parity of the reasoning the same ratio applies to the awards made by the civil court between those dates. The conflict of decisions as to whether Section 23(2) as amended by Section 15(b) of the Amendment Act through Section 30(2) of the transitory provisions would be applicable to the pending appeals in the High Court and the Supreme Court was resolved in Raghubir Singh case by the Constitution Bench holding that the award of the Collector or the court made between 13-4-1982 and 24-9-1984 would alone get attracted to Section 30(2) of the transitory provision. The restricted interpretation should not be understood to mean that Section 23(2) would not apply to the award of the civil court pending at the time when the Act came into force or thereafter. In this case, admittedly the award of the civil cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....9.1984. It has been clearly stated in the last line of para 34 that every case "must" have been decided between the aforesaid terminus. In Paripurnan II's case (supra) at para 4 it was observed that restrictive interpretation should not be given. With great respect we are unable to subscribe to the view. As a matter of fact a three Judge Bench was trying to give an interpretation different from what was specifically given by the Constitution Bench." The larger Bench has not decided the matter and so the earlier decisions will govern these Appeals. In First Appeal No. 207 of 1996, the Reference Court has given the statutory benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act even though the award of the Collector was made prior to 30th April, 1982. Such a benefit could not have been given in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in K.S. Paripoornan (supra). It is noticed that in some of the First Appeals filed by the Mandi Samiti the Reference Court has not granted the benefit of the Amending Act 68 of 1984 in so far as the enhanced amount of solatium and interest are concerned even in cases where the award of the Reference Court was made after 30th April, 1982. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of solatium in the grounds of appeal before the High Court while claiming enhanced compensation, and yet the High Court felt that it was under the statutory duty to grant solatium on the amount enhanced by it. The High Court did not shut out the claim of the appellant on the ground that he had not asked for it specifically in the grounds of appeal. If that is so, the legal error which was otherwise patent needed to be rectified by the High Court in favour of the appellant; more so when there was a cross appeal of the Nagar Mahapalika before it and resort could be had to the provisions of Order 41 Rule 33 C.P.C. ............" This Court in Nagar Mahapalika, Agra Vs. Kalawati Devi, AIR 1976 All. 40 also observed that the claim of solatium is a statutory right and the Court can grant the same even if the claimant has not filed Appeal or Cross-Objection. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits under the amended Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the Act in the First Appeals filed by the Mandi Samiti in cases where the award of the Reference Court was made after 30th April, 1982 and the claimants have not filed First Appeals or Cross-Objections. In view of ....