1. This appeal is filed by the original claimants who have challenged the judgment and award dated 17.04.2015 passed by the Reference Court in
Land Acquisition Reference Case No.9 of 2008.
2. Brief facts are as under:-
2.1 The appellants were the owners of nonagriculture land situated in Ward No.1, registration No.2886/A of Surat admeasuring 2825.95 sq.
mtrs., on which there was a superstructure used as a godown. Such land was acquired by the Government for Surat Municipal Corporation for
construction of a District Center. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for such purpose was published on 22.11.2004,
followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer passed his award on 29.03.2008, awarding compensation at the
rate of Rs.3,200/- per sq. mtr. The claimants, not satisfied with such compensation, sought reference before the Reference Court and claimed
compensation at much higher rate. Before the Reference Court, appellant No.2 was examined at Exh.13. In his deposition, he stated that the land
was situated in a developed area and was being used for commercial purpose since 60 years. Main reliance was placed on the Government ""jantri
rates published on 01.04.1999 and 01.04.2008 for the area in question. It was pointed out that for the land used for commercial purpose, under
the ""jantri"" rates published on 01.04.1999, the Government had prescribed rate of Rs.4,500/- per sq. mtr. These rates were, however, revised in
the ""jantri"" rates published on 01.04.2008 to Rs.28,500/- per sq. mtr. However, the claimants did not produce any sale instances of lands in the
vicinity of similar advantages where the sales might have taken place around the time Section 4(1) notification was published in the case. The
claimants also did not place reliance on any Court judgments or awards laying down the market value of lands in the neighbourhood. Thus, the sole
reliance of the claimants for enhancement of the compensation in the present case was on the two ""jantri"" rates published by the Government.
2.2 The Reference Court by the impugned judgment and award accepted the ""jantri"" rates published on 01.04.1999, discarding the ""jantri"" rates
dated 01.04.2008 on the basis that any development after the publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act would have to be ignored
and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per sq. mtr. for the acquired land without any escalation. This award the claimants have
challenged in the present appeal.
3. We have heard learned Advocates for the parties and have taken note of the judgments of the Supreme Court on the relevant issue. What
emerges from the decided cases by the Supreme Court is that the ""jantri"" rates or the Government circle rates as is referred to in some of the
States, are for entirely different purpose for publication and cannot be automatically adopted for the purpose of determining the market value of the
land under acquisition. Case may also arise where the comparison may be between the ""jantri"" rates to be for urban properties whereas the land
under acquisition may be in the outskirts of the city yet to be developed. All in all, the trend seems to be suggesting that the ""jantri"" rates may
provide for guidance and may not be discarded in entirety when there is evidence that the rates are for the same area and for the same nature of
land, however, market value of the land cannot be determined solely on the basis of such ""jantri"" rates. Reference in this respect can be made to
the decisions of the Supreme Court in cases of Thakur Kuldeep Singh (Dead) through LRS. & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2010)
3 SCC, 794, Ranvir Singh & Anr. Vs. Union of India, reported in (2005) 12 SCC, 59 and Lal Chand Vs. Union of India & Anr., reported in
(2009) 15 SCC, 769.
4. In the present case, as noted, the claimants have not brought on record any material other than the ""jantri"" rates for ascertaining the market value
of the land in question. Except for stating generally the location of the land, its commercial use and development around the region, no other
specific details have been provided. In particular, neither any sale instances or recent past nor any awards or judgments of acquisition of similar
lands during the same period have been brought on record. It was, therefore, not be safe to rely solely on the ""jantri"" rates for ascertaining the
correct market value of the land as on the date of Section 4(1) notification. At the same time, we are acutely conscious of the fact that the lands are
situated in a highly developed and fast growing city lime Surat. It was already situated in an area which was even otherwise developed when
notification for its acquisition was published. Long before such notification was published, the land was already used for commercial purpose. The
claimants-land owners must therefore receive adequate compensation for the loss they have suffered. We are informed that before the Land
Acquisition Officer, certain sale deeds were produced and relied upon. However, being a reference, as per the settled law, we cannot rely on such
sale instances unless the sale deeds are produced and proved before the Court. In the larger interest of justice, therefore, we propose remand the
proceedings before the Reference Court for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law, after enabling both sides to lead evidence.
We are informed that the Government had already deposited the entire amount of compensation with attendant benefits, out of which major
portion has been withdrawn by the respective claimants. A portion is not withdrawn because of internal dispute. Pending fresh consideration by the
Reference Court, this position shall continue.
5. The impugned award of the Reference Court is set aside. The proceedings are remanded to enable the Reference Court to pass fresh award.
First Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
R & P be transmitted to the concerned Reference Court.
