THE STATE OF BIHARversusMADHESHWAR PRASAD

                         THE STATE OF BIHAR                                         A
                                 v.
                        MADHESHWAR PRASAD

                              AUGUST 8, 1996

            (K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]                                  B

      Land Acquisition Act, 1894:

        Ss.23(.7), 23(1-A}, 23(2), 28--Acquisition of ag1icultural land-Com-
pensation-Detennination of-Reliance on sale deeds-3 acres and 17                    C
decimals of land acquired in pursuance of Notification ll/s. 4( 1) published in
 1981-Award by Land Acquisition Officer in 1985 g1wtting compensation at
the rate of Rs. 14,445 per acre-Reference cowt enhanced compensation to
Rs. 15,055 per acre-On appeal, High Cowt, relying upon sale deeds awarded
compensation at the rate of Rs. 45,000 per acre and awarded Rr. 20,000 as
vallle of well-Though ce1tified copies of sale deeds filed and clei* of             D
 Sub-Registrar was exa111ined, neither vendor nor vendee was exaniined-Held,
clerk of Sub-Registrar has proved the mate1ial as secondmy evidence bltt other
factors had to be established showing that sale deeds offered comparable
value for detennining the co111pe11satio1t--Ho1vever, as the land is near nation-
al highway and 4 km. away from Jamshedpltr city, reasonable compensatio11           E
 wollld be Rs. 22,000 per acre--Claimants are not e11titled to value of well
 separately as the well was being ltsed for inigation of the la11d-Claima11ts
elllitled to be11efits of Amendment Act 68 of 1984.

       R. Ram Reddy & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban
Developme11t Allth01ity, Hyderabad & Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 305 and 0.                  F
Ja11ardha11 Reddy & Ors. v. Sp!. Dy. Collector, LA. Unit-IV, LMD Ka1im-
11agar, A.P. & Ors., (1994) 6 SCC 456, relied on.

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 10915-
10916 of 1996.
                                                                                    G
      From the Judgment and Order dated 1.6.92 of the Patna High Court
in F.A. Nos. 105 and 93 of 1987.

      H.L. Agarwal, R.P. Singh and B.B. Singh for the Appellant.

      S.B. Sanyal and S.B. Upadhyay for the Respondent.                             H
                                 415
    416                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A         The following Order of the Court was delivered :

          Leave granted.

          Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
    {for short the 'Act') was published on September 16, 1981 acquiring 3 acres
B   17 decimals of land for Suvarnarekha Project. The Land Acquisition
    Officer by his award dated September 3, 1985 granted compensation at Rs.
    14,445 per acre. On reference, the Subordinate Judge enhanced it to Rs.
    15,055 per acre. Both the State as well as the claimants filed the appeals
    in the High Court. The High Court in the impugned judgment in FA No.
C   105 and 93 of 1987 dated June. 1, 1993 enhanced the compensation to Rs.
    45,000 per acre treating the acquired land in Don-I as cultivable land. It
    also granted Rs. 20,000 towards the well and statutory solatium and inter-
    est. Thus, these appeals by special leave.

           The question that arises for consideration is : whether the High
D   Court was justified in enhancing the compensation to Rs. 45,000 per acre?
    The High Court has relied upon the sale deed Ext. 3/A dated March 16,
    1981 pertaining to lead of an extent of 25 decimals of Don-II lands .and 14
    decimals of Don-I lands sold for consideration of Rs. 16,000. It also relied
    upon another sale deed of the year 1983 with value of Rs. 1,10,000 per
E   decimal; in other words, Rs. 45,000 per acre. Unfortunately, neither the
    vendor nor the vendee has been examined in proof of passing of the
    consideration under the sale deed etc. Only a clerk of the Sub-registrar
    was called as witnesses to prove the sale deeds which are the certified
    copies of the sale deeds. No doubt, under Section 51-A of the Act, the
    certified copy of the sale deed is admissible as evidence to get over the
F   difficulties of the owner of the document would not produce the original
    title deeds. The clerk of the Sub-registrar has proved that material as
    secondary evidence but other factors aliunde has to be established that the
    sale deed offers comparabJe value for determining the c:ompensation at Rs.
    45,000 per acre.
G          This Court had elaborately considered and laid this principle of law
    in a cat<Jlta of decisions, the latest being R. Ram Reddy & Ors. v. Land
    Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Autlwrity, Hyderabad &
    Ors., [1995] 2 SCC 305. Therefore, it needs no reiteration.

H         But, the fact is that the lands are situated very :near to the national
                   STA1Ev. MADHESHWARPRASAD                             417

highway but 4 km. away from the Jamshedpur city. Under circumstances, A
taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, we are of the view
that the reasonable compensation would be Rs. 22,000 per acre. The
claimants are not entitled to the value of the well i.e. Rs. 20,000 since the
well was being used for irrigation of the land. For the reason, it cannot be
separately valued as held by this Court in 0. Janardhan Reddy & Ors. v.
                                                                              B
Sp/. Dy. Collector, LA. Unit-IV, LMD, Karinmagar, A.P. & Ors., (1994] 6
sec 456.
       The appeals are accordingly partly allowed. The market value of
lands is determined at 22,000 per acre with solatium and interest and also
additional amount as per Section 23(2) @ 30% on the enhanced compen'.          C
sation, interest under Section 28 for the first year at 9% and thereafter at
15% on the enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession till
date of deposit. They are also entitled to the additional amount at 12% p.a.
under Section 23(1-A) of the Act from date of notification under section
4(1) till date of award or taking possession whichever is earlier. No costs.
                                                                               D
R.P.                                               Appeals partly allowed.