In the State of Bihar Vs. Parmanand Rai (2024), Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey's judgement endorsed the judgement and order of Special Land Acquisition Judge-II on enhanced compensation of the acquired land on June 20, 2024. The appeal was filed and registered on March 9, 1989. The appellant, the State of Bihar, preferred the appeal (First Appeal No.102 of 1989) being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 31.08.1988, passed by the Special Land Acquisition Judge-III, Patna in L.A.Case No. 7 of 1985, whereby the court below enhanced the compensation of the land acquired, after the case was referred by the Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Sheela Sharma was the counsel for the respondent. There were four respondents. The case was listed over 30 times since February 2011 till February 2024 before different judges.
In its order the Court recorded that State of Bihar withdrew the appeal as the valuation of the first appeal is less than Rs.3,00,000. The permission of withdrawal was accorded by the High Court. vide order dated February 13, 2015 and the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, but as the respondents had already filed cross-objection and it was admitted, the cross-objection was registered for hearing at the prayer of both the parties.
Notably, Supreme Court has held in Hari Shankar Rastogi Vs. Sham Manohar (2005) that cross objection is in the nature of an Appeal", the cross-objection survives even when the Appeal is withdrawn. The cross objections have all the trappings of a regular appeal.
Cross-objection is nothing but an appeal, a cross-appeal at that. It may be that the respondent wanted to give quietus to whole litigation by his accepting the judgment and decree or order even if it was partly against his interest. When, however, the other party challenged the same by filing an appeal statute gave the respondent a second chance to file an appeal by way of cross-objection if he/she is still feel aggrieved by the judgment and decree or order.
The fact of the case is that the raiyati land of a number of raiyats of village Garhochak and Samaspur, P.S. Fatwah, District Patna, were acquired vide notification dated August 16, 1980 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. A notification of declaration as per Section 6 of the Act was issued on July 16, 1982 on determining the compensation of the land at the rate of Rs. 26,666/- per acre for Grade-1 land and Rs. 15,484/- for Grade-2 land. The awardees were not satisfied with the awarded amount of compensation and they made objection before the Collector. The Collector referred the matter for adjudication of adequate compensation to the court below under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The claim of the awardees was that the immediate market value of the land, at the time of acquisition, was Rs. 20,000/- per katha as the acquired land was suitable for residential as well as commercial purpose due to its location at Patna-Ranchi Road. The Land Acquisition Officer in his report had opined that the lands of Garhochak and Samaspur are similar in nature in respect of the site and situation and, as such, determined the compensation of land, under acquisition, of Garhochak and Samaspur at the rate of Rs.26,666/- per acre for Grade-1 land and Rs. 15,484/- for Grad-2 land. The land Acquisition Officer had based his assessment on Ext.A, which is the sale statement obtained from the Registry Office on the basis of the sale deed dated March 31, 1980 with respect to plot no. 286, area 3.75 decimals sold for Rs.1000/- as mentioned in Schedule-II of the sale statement.
The main contention raised on behalf of the cross objectors is that the Collector committed illegality in assessing the quantum of compensation on the basis of sale statement obtained from the Registry Office. As per the submission of the counsel for the cross-objector, the sale statement cannot be relied upon, as per the observation of the Supreme court in the case of The Collector, Raigarh Vs. Dr. Hrisingh Thakur and another, reported in AIR 1979 SC, page 472. It was also submitted that a number of exemplar sale deeds were given in evidence by the awardees to show that the value of the land, at the time of acquisition, was much higher than the awarded amount. It was argued that, although the court below did not agree with the rate of the amount awarded by the Collector and the court below enhanced the compensation on the basis of Ext.1/C, which is also an exemplar sale deed, the court below should have taken into the account Ext.1/D which is also an exemplar sale deed dated May 1, 1981 executed by Ghamandi Paswan in favour of Awadh Prasad in respect of plot no. 20, area 0.6 decimals for Rs. 20,000/-. The counsel submitted further that as per the decision of the Supreme Court reported in the case of Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa and another (2010 13 SCC 710), the exemplar sale deed of the highest value should be taken into consideration, as such, the compensation should have been determined on the basis of Ext.1/D, as it was for the highest consideration money.
The counsel for the State of Bihar submitted that the awarded amount was exorbitant and it is liable to be decreased, but this appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on technical ground.
The High Court's judgement records: "12 reference cases under Section 18 of the (Land Acquisition) Act were disposed of by the impugned judgment and award."
So far as the submission of the counsel for the cross-objectors that the exemplar sale deed Ext. 1/D should have been taken into account for ascertaining the compensation amount, as the amount mentioned in Ext. 1/D was the highest, but the learned court below found that the land appertaining to Ext. 1/D was situated in better location and due to this reason he declined to take into account the Ext. 1/D for determining the quantum of compensation. The High Court's judgement reads: "In my view also, Ext. 1/D should not be taken into consideration for determination of the compensation as it was subsequent to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 16.08.1980, whereas the sale deed (Ext.1/D) is of 05.01.1981." It noted that the court below determined the compensation of the land on the basis of exemplar sale deed Ext. 1/C filed on behalf of the awardees. The High Court concluded that the court below "has rightly determined the compensation of the acquired land on the basis of exemplar sale deed Ext.1/C given by the awardees in evidence, as the location of the acquired land was similar to the land appertaining to Ext.1/C. I do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment and order of the learned court below dated 31.08.1988, passed by the Special Land Acquisition Judge-III, Patna in L.A.Case No. 7 of 1985. The cross-objection is accordingly dismissed."
No comments:
Post a Comment