SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER .versusMAHARANI BISWAL AND ORS.

                     [2011] 10 S.C.R. 609


             SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER .                       A
                               v.
               MAHARANI BISWAL AND ORS.
               (Civil Appeal No. 2672 of 2004)
                      AUGUST 24, 2011
                                                                   B
            [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND
                   ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.]

     Land Acquisition Act,. 1894:
                                                                   c
       Compensation - Determination of - Land measuring
 Ac. 4. 98 situated in village Lodhani in the District of
  Dhenkanal notified for acquisition - Land acquisition officer
  fixed compensation at Rs. 3100 - Reference court enhanced
 compensation to Rs. 10,000 per acre - High Court further          0
  enhanced compensation amount to Rs. 75,000 per acre - On
  appeal, held: Reference Court discussed entire evidence
  including the deposition of witnesses and on appreciation
  thereof came to a definite finding that the acquired land on
  the date of issuance of the notification uls. 4 could not be     E
  valued and assessed at more than Rs. 10,0001- per acre -
· Said amount was just and fair compensation for the land
  acquired - High Court failed to indicate as to how the said
  findings were unreasonable and unjustified and proceeded on
  wrong notion that the sale deeds of tiny pieces of land could
  be determining factor as the land acquired in the instant case   F
  was Ac. 4. 98 decimals as against the sale deeds relied upon
  by which not even 1 decimal of land was sold - Considering
  the entire facts and circumstances of the case, judgment
  passed by the High Court set aside - Matter remitted to High
  Coult for consideration afresh.                                  G

     Land measuring AC.4.98 situated in village Lodhani
in the district of Dhenkanal was notified for acquisition
on 18.2.1987. The land acquisition officer on 2.3.1988
                              609                                  H
    610     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2011) 10 S.C.R.


A   granted compensation for the acquired land @ Rs. 3100
    (Taila land) and Rs .. 5490 (Sarad land) per acre.
    Dissatisfied with the compensation amount, the land
    owners filed reference applications. The reference court
    determined the compensation @ Rs. 10,000 per acre. The
B   claimants and the land acquisition officer both filed
    appeals before the High Court. The High Court enhanced
    the compensation amount to Rs.75,000 per acre. The
    instant appeal was filed by the land acquisition officer
    challenging the order of the High Court.
c       Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to
    the High Court, the Court
       HELD: 1. The entire burden was placed on
  respondents to prove and establish that they were
D entitled to more than Rs. 3,100/- per acre which was
  determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. In order to
  prove the said fact, the respondents examined four
  witnesses and relied upon five sale deeds which were
  exhibited as Ext. 3 dated 14.9:1988, Ext. 4 dated 15.4.1985,
E Ext. 5 dated 25.5.1984, Ext. 6 dated 15.7.1985, whereas the
  respondents also relied on Ext. 7 to show the location of
  G.P. Office and Grain Gola Office. The respondents also
  filed on record a map as Ext. 8 which disclosed that a
  road runs in between the acquired land. However, there
F was no evidence to show that the said road, which ran
  in between the acquired land was a national highway. No
  such documentary evidence was placed on record to
  prove the said fact. The notification under Section 4 was
  issued on 18.2.1987 and, therefore, market value as
G existing near about the said date and near about the same
  land was to be determfoed and assessed. The Reference
  Court very elaborately and minutely discussed the entire
  evidence on record including the deposition of the
  witnesses and on appreciation thereof came to a .definite
  finding and conclusion that the acquired land on the date
H




                                                                 1
  SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. MAHARANI           611
              BISWAL AND ORS.
of issuance of the notification under Section 4 cannot be    A
valued and assessed at more than Rs. 10,000/- per acre.
Consequently, the said amount was determined by the
Reference Court as just and fair compensation for the
land acquired. As against the said findings giving cogent
reasons, the High Court failed to indicate as to how the     B
said findings were unreasonable and unjustified fixing the
compensation of the land at Rs. 10,000/- per acre. It was
necessary for the High Court to give reasons for its
disagreement with the findings of the Reference Court
but nothing of that nature was done by the High Court        c
and the High Court arrived at an abrupt decision raising
the compensation to Rs. 75,000/- per acre. [Para 10, 11)
[614-G-H; 615-A-G)
     2. Since the High Court did not consider the oral
 evidence and ·also did not properly analyse the D
"documentary evidence available on record, the judgment
 and order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained
 and has to be interfered with. This is also because of the
 fact that the High Court proceeded on a wrong notion
 that the sale deeds of tiny pieces of land could be the E
 determining factor. as the land acquired in the instant
 case was Ac. 4.98 decimals as against the sale deeds by
 which not even 1 decimal of land was sold. There was
 total misreading of the evidence on record and also
 misinterpretation of the legal proposition settled by this F
 Court. [Para 13) [617-B-C)
    3. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of
the case, the judgment and order passed by the High
Court is set aside. The High Court should discharge its
duty and responsibility of appreciating the entire evidence G
on record as it is the· 1ast court of appeal in view of the
provisions of Section 54 of the Act and thereafter give a
proper finding on the basis of both, oral and
documentary evidence by taking notice of the
observations made herein and thereafter decide all the H
    612      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 10 S.C.R.


A   issues that are raised before it by the parties. [Para 14)
    [617-D-F]

          Navanath and Others v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 14
    sec 480: 2009 (6) SCR 632 - relied on.
B                         Case Law Reference:
          2009 (6 ) SCR 632          relied on            Para 12
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    2672 of 2004.
c
        From the Judgment & Order dated 04.10.2001 of the High
    Court of Orissa at Cuttack in First Appeal No. 369 of 1990.

          Suresh Chandra Tripathy for the Appellant.
D       Janaranjan Das, Swetaketu Mishra, P.P. Nayak for the
    Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

E        ANIL R. DAVE, J. 1. The present appeal is filed against
    the judgment and order dated 04.10.2001 passed by the High
    Court of Orissa whereby the High Court, vide a common
    judgment, dismissed First Appeal No. 428 of 1990 filed by the
    Special Land Acquisition Officer and partly allowed First
F   Appeal No. 369 of 1990 filed by the Respondents herein.

         2. The issue that falls for consideration in the present
    appeal is whether the assessment and determination of
    compensation awarded to the respondents for acquisition of
    their land and increasing it from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 75,000/-
G   per acre is on the higher side and is a proper reflection of the
    market price of the land.

         3. The facts leading to the filing of the present case are
    that Land measuring Ac. 4.98 decimals appertaining to Plot
H   Nos. 6588/6861, 6567, 6576, 6565, 6561 to 6564, 6581, 5873,
  SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. MAHARANI               613
       BISWAL AND ORS. [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]

6566 and 6560 under Khata No. 88 situated in village Lodhani A
under Parajang Police Station in the District of Dhenkanal was
notified to be acquired for Parajang Distributory as per
Revenue Department declaration No. 9420 dated 18.02.1987.
The Land Acquisition Officer vide order dated 02.03.1988
granted compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. s
3100/- (Taila Land) and Rs. 5490/- (Sarad Land) per acre. The
owner-claimants received the compensation so determined
under protest and moved the Ld. Subordinate Judge by L.A.
Misc. No. 37/88 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the order of c
the Land Acquisition Officer dated 02.03.1988.

     4. The Ld. Subordinate Judge, after receiving evidence,
by an order dated 06.09.1990, determined the compensation
of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre.
                                                                D
    5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Ld. Subordinate
Judge dated 06.09.1990, the claimants filed First Appeal No.
369 of 1990 and the Land Acquisition Officer filed First Appeal
No. 428 of 1990 before the High Court of Orissa. The High
Court vide order dated 04.10.2001, by a common judgment, E
dismissed First Appeal No. 428 of 1990 filed by the Land
Acquisition Officer and partly allowed First Appeal No. 369 of
1990 filed by the claimants and thereby enhanced the
compensation of the said land from Rs. 10,000/- per acre to
Rs. 75,000/- per acre.                                          F

    6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 04.10.2001, the.
Land Acquisition Officer has filed this appeal, upon which, we
heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.      '

     7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant drew G
our attention to the impugned ·judgment and order passed by
the High Court and by making reference to the same, the
counsel submitted that despite clear findings recorded· by the
Reference Court determining compensation of the land
acquired at Rs. 10,000/- per acre on proper appreciation of the H
    614      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 10 S.C.R.


A   documentary as also of oral evidence on record, it was not
    justified for the High Court to enhance the compensation to Rs.
    75,000/- per acre without properly appreciating the documents
    on record.

         8. He also submitted that the High Court relied upon the
8
   sale deeds by which very small pieces of land were sold and
   transferred. He, therefore, submitted that the price at which
   such small pieces of lands were sold did not reflect the correct
   market value. Moreover, he submitted that the land was not
   much developed as there were hardly four or five houses in the
C vicinity. He drew our attention to the evidence led before the
   court to substantiate his claim. He also submitted that expenses
   were required to be incurred by the Government to make the
  ·acquired land fit for the purpose for which it was being acquired.
   It was submitted that in that regard, deduction was required to
D be made as certain lands were going to be lost for which
   deduction was called for as has been repeatedly held by this
   Court, but that was not done by the High Court in the present
   case and, therefore, the judgment und order is required to be
   set aside and quashed.
E
         9. Counsel appearing for the respondents however, refuted
   the aforesaid submissions while submitting that the aforesaid
   sale deeds relate to lands, which are located near the acquired
   land and so they were the best guide to determine the
F compensation and, therefore, the High Court was justified in
   relying on the said sale deeds and arriving at a just and fair
   compensation.

       10. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contentions of the
  counsel appearing for the parties, we have ourselves
G scrutinized the records. The entire burden is placed on
  respondent to prove and establish that they are entitled to more
  than Rs. 3,100/- per acre which was determined by the Land
  Acquisition Officer. In order to prove the said fact, the
  respondent examined four witnesses and relied upon five sale
H deeds which were exhibited as Ext. 3 which is dated
  SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. MAHARANI               615
       BISWAL AND ORS. [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]
14.9.1988, Ext. 4 dated 15.4.1985, Ext. 5 dated 25.5.1984, Ext. A
6 dated 15.7.1985, whereas the Respondents' claimants also
relied on Ext. 7 to show the location of G.P. Office and Grain
Gola Office. The respondents also filed on record a map as
Ext. 8 which discloses that a road runs in between the acquired
land. However, there is no evidence to show that the aforesaid s
road, which runs in between the acquired land is a national
highway. No such documentary evidence was placed on record
to prove the said fact. The notification under Section 4 in the
present case was issued on 18.2.1987 and, therefore, market
value as existing near about the said date and near about the C
same land is to be determined and assessed. The Reference
Court has very elaborately and minutely discussed the entire
evidence on record including the deposition of the witnesses
and on appreciation thereof has come to a definite finding and
conclusion that the accjuired land on the date of issuance of the D
notification under Section 4 cannot be valued and assessed
at more than Rs. 10,000/- per acre. Consequently, the said
amount was determined by the Referenee Court as just and fair
compensation for the land acquired.

    11. As against the aforesaid findings giving cogent E
reasons, the High Court, failed to indicate as to how the
aforesaid findings are unreasonable and unjustified fixing the
compensation of the land at Rs. 10,000/- per acre. The High
Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 75,000/- per acre
without any appreciation of the evidence on record and also F
without considering the findings of the learned Reference Court
and ultimately rejecting the same.Jt was necessary for the High
Court to give reasons for its disagreement with the findings of
the Reference Court but nothing of that nature was done by the
High Court and the High Court arrived at an abrupt decision G

                              - -
raising the compensation to Rs. 75,000/- per acre.
                             ,,              -

    12. In this regard, we may~refei to fh;judgment of this -
Court .m the case of Navanath and Others Vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in (2009) 14 SCC 480, in which this
Court while discarding the findings of the High Court, which H
      616      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2011) 10 S.C.R.


 A    were found to be based on surmises and conjecture, restored
      to the findings of the Reference Court which were based on
      detailed examination of materials brought on record held thus:-

           "31. .. ............... The Reference Judge had taken into
 B       - consideration the evidences adduced on behalf of both the
           parties not only with regard to the classification of the land
           but also the number of trees, their age, the quality, etc. We
           may notice that the learned Reference Judge determined
           the question in regard to the classification of land on the
           basis of the evidences adduced before it by individual
 c         landowners; by way of example, having regard to the fact
           that the claimants had failed to prove that the land had any
           irrigational facility, the learned Reference Judge classified
           the lands as jirayat lands. If the State was aggrieved
           thereby, it was bound to show that the findings arrived at
 D         by the Reference Court is not sustainable having regard
           to the materials brought on record.

            32. The finding of fact arrived at by the learned Reference
            Judge on the basis of the materials brought on record, in
 E          our opinion, could not have been interfered with by the High
            Court on the surmises and conje~tures .............. ."

            The Court further observed: -

            "46. . ................... A court of law must base its decision
 F          on appreciation of evidence brought on record by applying
            the correct legal principles. Surmises and conjectures
            alone cannot form the basis of a judgment."

           With regard to computation of the amount of compensation
 G    this Court held as follows: -

            "44\ndisputably, for the purpose of computation of amount
            of compensation a large number of factors have to be
            taken into consideration, namely, nature and quality of land,
            whether irrigated or unirrigated, facilities for irrigation like
· H         existence of well, etc. presence of fruit-bearing trees, the
  SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. MAHARANI                   617
       BISWAL AND ORS. [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]

       location of the land, closeness to any road or highway, the    A
       evenness thereof whether there exists any building or
       structure."

     13. Since the High Court has not considered the oral
evidence and also not properly analysed the documentary               8
evidence available on record, the judgment and order passed
by the High Court cannot be sustained and has to be interfered
with. This is also because of the fact that the High Court
proceeded on a wrong notion that the sale deeds of tiny pieces
of land could be the determining factor as the land acquired in       C
the present case is Ac. 4.98 decimals as against the sale
deeds by which not even 1 decimal of land was sold. There is
total misreading of the evidence on record and also
misinterpretation of the legal proposition settled by this Court.

     14. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the        D
case, we set aside the judgment and order passed by the High
Court and we are of the considered opinion that the High Court
should discharge its duty and responsibility of appreciating the
entire evidence on record as it is the last court of appeal in view
of the provisions of Section 54 of the Act. The High Court shall      E
appreciate the entire evidence on record and thereafter give a
proper finding on the basis of both, oral and documentary
evidence by taking notice of the observations made herein and
thereafter decide all the issues that are raised before it by the
~~.                                                                   F
     15. We also desire that this case requires early disposal
by the High Court and, therefore, we direct the parties to appear
before the High Court on 15th September, 2011 for obtaining
the dates in the appeal.
                                                                      G
      16. With the above observations and directions, this
appeal is disposed of as allowed but leaving the parties to bear
their own costs.

D.G.                                        Appeal disposed of.
                                                                      H