Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prem And Others vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 27 April, 2009
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
RFA No. 2815 of 2008 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: April 27 ,2009
1. R.F.A. No. 2815 of 2008 (O&M)
Prem and others .. Appellants
v.
The State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
2. R.F.A. No. 399 of 2008 (O&M) Jagphul and others .. Appellants v.
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
3. R.F.A. No. 4179 of 2006 (O&M) Charan Singh .. Appellant v.
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
4. R.F.A. No. 4180 of 2006 (O&M) Shakuntla and others .. Appellants v.
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
5. R.F.A. No. 4181 of 2006 (O&M) Raj Singh and others .. Appellants v.
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
6. R.F.A. No. 4182 of 2006 (O&M) Ram Mehar and others .. Appellants v.
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents RFA No. 2815 of 2008 [2]
7. R.F.A. No. 4183 of 2006 (O&M) Same Singh and others .. Appellants v.
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
8. R.F.A. No. 4184 of 2006 (O&M) Om Parkash and others .. Appellants v.
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 9. R.F.A. No. 166 of 2007 (O&M) Sardara .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 10. R.F.A. No. 167 of 2007 (O&M) Kidar Singh .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 11. R.F.A. No. 168 of 2007 (O&M) Ranbir Singh .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 12. R.F.A. No. 169 of 2007 (O&M) Umrao Singh .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 13. R.F.A. No. 170 of 2007 (O&M) Umrao Singh .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents RFA No. 2815 of 2008 [3] 14. R.F.A. No. 171 of 2007 (O&M) Om Parkash and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 15. R.F.A. No. 172 of 2007 (O&M) Devi Singh .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 16. R.F.A. No. 173 of 2007 (O&M) Ram Mehar .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 17. R.F.A. No. 174 of 2007 (O&M) Hari Singh alias Chandan .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 18. R.F.A. No. 175 of 2007 (O&M) Jai Bhagwan and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 19. R.F.A. No. 176 of 2007 (O&M) Suraj Mal and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 20. R.F.A. No. 195 of 2007 (O&M) Ranjit .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents RFA No. 2815 of 2008 [4] 21. R.F.A. No. 354 of 2007 (O&M) Sukhbir and another .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 22. R.F.A. No. 372 of 2007 (O&M) Shanti and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 23. R.F.A. No. 675 of 2007 (O&M) Nav Rattan and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 24. R.F.A. No. 1730 of 2007 (O&M) Shanti and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 25. R.F.A. No. 1838 of 2007 (O&M) Ramesh and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 26. R.F.A. No. 3686 of 2007 (O&M) Karan and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 27. R.F.A. No. 3701 of 2007 (O&M) Saroj and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 28. R.F.A. No. 3702 of 2007 (O&M) Ram Dhan .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents RFA No. 2815 of 2008 [5] 29. R.F.A. No. 3703 of 2007 (O&M) Karan Singh and another .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 30. R.F.A. No. 3704 of 2007 (O&M) Jagdish .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 31. R.F.A. No. 3705 of 2007 (O&M) Lachhman and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 32. R.F.A. No. 3706 of 2007 (O&M) Jai Bhagwan .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 33. R.F.A. No. 3897 of 2007 (O&M) Anand and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 34. R.F.A. No. 3898 of 2007 (O&M) Ram Kishan and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 35. R.F.A. No. 3899 of 2007 (O&M) Surja and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents RFA No. 2815 of 2008 [6] 36. R.F.A. No. 3900 of 2007 (O&M) Randhir and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 37. R.F.A. No. 3901 of 2007 (O&M) Smt. Dhanpati and others .. Appellants v. The State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 38. R.F.A. No. 3902 of 2007 (O&M) Smt. Vidya Devi and others .. Appellants v. The State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 39. R.F.A. No. 3903 of 2007 (O&M) Chander .. Appellant v. The State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 40. R.F.A. No. 3904 of 2007 (O&M) Surat Singh .. Appellant v. The State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 41. R.F.A. No. 3905 of 2007 (O&M) Ram Niwas and another .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 42. R.F.A. No. 3906 of 2007 (O&M) Ramesh Chander .. Appellants v. The State of Haryana and others .. Respondents RFA No. 2815 of 2008 [7] 43. R.F.A. No. 3907 of 2007 (O&M) Mukhtiar Singh .. Appellant v. The State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 44. R.F.A. No. 4095 of 2007 (O&M) Shanti and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 45. R.F.A. No. 4157 of 2007 (O&M) Daya Singh .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 46. R.F.A. No. 249 of 2008 (O&M) Satbir .. Appellant v. The State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 47. R.F.A. No. 400 of 2008 (O&M) Rajbir Singh and another .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 48. R.F.A. No. 537 of 2008 (O&M) Rajesh alias Pushpender and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 49. R.F.A. No. 538 of 2008 (O&M) Smt. Rukman and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 50. R.F.A. No. 619 of 2008 (O&M) Sandeep and another .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents RFA No. 2815 of 2008 [8] 51. R.F.A. No. 620 of 2008 (O&M) Dhanpatti and others .... Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 52. R.F.A. No. 621 of 2008 (O&M) Hukam Chand and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 53. R.F.A. No. 622 of 2008 (O&M) Mohinder Singh .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 54. R.F.A. No. 623 of 2008 (O&M) Tara Chand .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 55. R.F.A. No. 624 of 2008 (O&M) Ranbir Singh .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 56. R.F.A. No. 626 of 2008 (O&M) Maman Singh and another .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 57. R.F.A. No. 627 of 2008 (O&M) Suraj Kaur and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents RFA No. 2815 of 2008 [9] 58. R.F.A. No. 628 of 2008 (O&M) Om Parkash and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 59. R.F.A. No. 629 of 2008 (O&M) Ranbir .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 60. R.F.A. No. 630 of 2008 (O&M) Bhim Singh and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 61. R.F.A. No. 631 of 2008 (O&M) Jagbir Singh .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 62. R.F.A. No. 632 of 2008 (O&M) Mohinder Singh .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 63. R.F.A. No. 633 of 2008 (O&M) Rakesh and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 64. R.F.A. No. 634 of 2008 (O&M) Bhim Singh .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents RFA No. 2815 of 2008 [10] 65. R.F.A. No. 635 of 2008 (O&M) Sukhbir Singh .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 66. R.F.A. No. 714 of 2008 (O&M) Daya Singh .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 67. R.F.A. No. 715 of 2008 (O&M) Narinder Singh .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 68. R.F.A. No. 960 of 2008 (O&M) Karan Singh and another .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 69. R.F.A. No. 961 of 2008 (O&M) Mahender Singh and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 70. R.F.A. No. 962 of 2008 (O&M) Ram Naresh and another .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 71. R.F.A. No. 963 of 2008 (O&M) Jage Ram and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 72. R.F.A. No. 997 of 2008 (O&M) Smt. Sona Dei and others .. Appellants v. Land Acquisition Collector and others .. Respondents RFA No. 2815 of 2008 [11] 73. R.F.A. No. 998 of 2008 (O&M) Rajbir Singh and others .. Appellants v. Land Acquisition Collector and others .. Respondents 74. R.F.A. No. 1014 of 2008 (O&M) Inder Singh and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 75. R.F.A. No. 1018 of 2008 (O&M) Karan Singh .. Appellant v. The State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 76. R.F.A. No. 1019 of 2008 (O&M) Hawa Singh and others .. Appellants v. Land Acquisition Collector and others .. Respondents 77. R.F.A. No. 1020 of 2008 (O&M) Ramesh Chander and others .. Appellants v. The State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 78. R.F.A. No. 1021 of 2008 (O&M) Chander Bhan and another .. Appellants v. The Land Acquisition Collector and others .. Respondents 79. R.F.A. No. 1022 of 2008 (O&M) Jai Bhagwan and others .. Appellants v. The State of Haryana and others .. Respondents RFA No. 2815 of 2008 [12] 80. R.F.A. No. 1189 of 2008 (O&M) Suraj Bhan and another .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 81. R.F.A. No. 1716 of 2008 (O&M) Sh. Dharambir .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 82. R.F.A. No. 1717 of 2008 (O&M) Bhim Singh .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 83. R.F.A. No. 1732 of 2008 (O&M) Smt. Chand Kaur and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 84. R.F.A. No. 1809 of 2008 (O&M) Raj Singh and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 85. R.F.A. No. 1868 of 2008 (O&M) Harpal and another .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 86. R.F.A. No. 1869 of 2008 (O&M) Raj Singh and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and another .. Respondents RFA No. 2815 of 2008 [13] 87. R.F.A. No. 1870 of 2008 (O&M) M/s Shiv Udyog .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 88. R.F.A. No. 1871 of 2008 (O&M) Chander Singh and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and another .. Respondents 89. R.F.A. No. 1883 of 2008 (O&M) Nasib Singh and another .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 90. R.F.A. No. 1885 of 2008 (O&M) Naresh Kumar and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 91. R.F.A. No. 1957 of 2008 (O&M) Raj Singh and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 92. R.F.A. No. 2608 of 2008 (O&M) Chander and others .. Appellants v. The State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 93. R.F.A. No. 2609 of 2008 (O&M) Thambu and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents RFA No. 2815 of 2008 [14] 94. R.F.A. No. 2610 of 2008 (O&M) Daya Nand and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 95. R.F.A. No. 2611 of 2008 (O&M) Ganeshi .. Appellant v.
The Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department and others .. Respondents
96. R.F.A. No. 2612 of 2008 (O&M) Ganeshi .. Appellant v.
The Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department and others .. Respondents
97. R.F.A. No. 2630 of 2008 (O&M) Badle .. Appellant v.
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
98. R.F.A. No. 2631 of 2008 (O&M) Ashok Kumar and others .. Appellants v.
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
99. R.F.A. No. 2653 of 2008 (O&M) Anand Khatri and others .. Appellants v.
The State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
100. R.F.A. No. 2824 of 2008 (O&M) Ranbir and others .. Appellants v.
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents RFA No. 2815 of 2008 [15]
101. R.F.A. No. 2825 of 2008 (O&M) Ram Karan and others .. Appellants v.
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Mr. Gourav Mohunta, Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Mr. Ravinder Malik, Mr. Ravinder Hooda and Mr. Gobind Dhanda, Advocates for the land owners.
Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the State.
Rajesh Bindal J.
This order will dispose of a bunch of above mentioned 101 appeals, as common questions of law and facts are involved.
The land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. The State being satisfied with the award did not file any appeal.
As the acquired land pertained to different villages, the individual facts thereof are noticed below:
Regarding acquisition of land of village Mehlana Land measuring 22.02 acres situated in village Mehlana, Hadbast No. 193, Tehsil and District Sonepat, was acquired by the Government of Haryana vide notification dated 16.8.2002 and 3.10.2002, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for the purpose of construction of Career Lined Channel. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre. The land owners feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Collector, filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value @ Rs. 7,40,000/- per acre for the land which was abutting to the village abadi and Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre for the remaining land.
Regarding acquisition of land of village Barwasni Vide another notification dated 16.8.2002 and 3.10.2002 issued under Section 4 of the Act, Government of Haryana acquired 27.94 acres of land in village Barwasni, Tehsil and District Sonepat for the same purpose. The Collector RFA No. 2815 of 2008 [16] assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre. The land owners feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Collector, filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below upheld the award of the Collector.
Regarding acquisition of land of village Mahra Vide notifications dated 26.8.2002 and 29.10.2002, issued under Section 4 of the Act, the State acquired 10.45 acres of land situated in village Mahra, Hadbast No. 157, Tehsil and District Sonepat. for the same purpose. The Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below upheld the award of the Collector.
Regarding acquisition of land of village Mehmudpur Majra By another notification dated 16.8.2002 and 3.10.2002 issued under Section 4 of the Act, the State acquired 20.43 acres of land, situated in village Mehmudpur Majra, Hadbast No. 129, Tehsil, Ganaur, District Sonepat for the same purpose. The Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 2,40,000/- per acre for Nehri land; Rs. 1,80,000/- per acre for Barani land and Rs. 1,60,000/- per acre for Banjar/Gair Mumkin kind of land. Feeling dissatisfied, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the leaned court below, who keeping in view the material placed on record by both the parties, upheld the award of the Collector.
Regarding acquisition of land of village Kailana Vide notifications dated 16.8.2002 and 3.10.2002, issued under Section 4 of the Act, the State Government acquired 20.29 acres of land situated in village Kailana Hadbast No. 143, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonepat for the same purpose. The Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 2,10,000/- per acre. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below upheld the award of the Collector.
Regarding acquisition of land of village Hulaheri Vide notification dated 16.8.2002, issued under Section 4 of the Act, the Government of Haryana acquired 16.26 acres of land situated in village Hulaheri Hadbast No. 201, Tehsil and District Sonepat for the same purpose. The Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 4,00,000/- per acre.
Regarding acquisition of land of village Sitawali Vide notification dated 16.8.2002, issued under Section 4 of the Act, RFA No. 2815 of 2008 [17] the Government of Haryana acquired 37.13 acres of land situated in village Sitawali Hadbast No. 115, Tehsil and District Sonepat for the same purpose. The Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 2,00,000/- . On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value @ Rs. 3,20,000/- per acre for the land abutting the village abadi and for the remaining land, it upheld the award of the Collector.
Regarding acquisition of land in village Kakroi Vide notification dated 16.8.2002 and 3.10.2002 issued under Section 4 of the Act, the Government of Haryana acquired 26.06 acres of land situated in village Kakroi Hadbast No. 192, Tehsil and District Sonepat for the same purpose. The Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 4,00,000/- per acre.
Discussions Regarding acquisition of land in village Mehlana Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the evidence produced by them on record pertaining to sale of land of village Mehlana, which is located close to the acquired land, has not been considered. The sale deeds produced on record clearly established that the value of land in the area was increasing at a very fast pace. Even though the court below had relied upon sale deed Ex. P9, however, still inspite of the fact that it was mentioned in the impugned award that cut of 40% was sought to be applied, the value, as was arrived at after application of cut, was not correct. In fact, that value comes in case 60% is reduced from the value shown in sale deed Ex. P9. Accordingly, even on account of calculation also, the amount of compensation, which the land owners are entitled to, deserves to be increased. It was further submitted that the acquisition was for the purpose of construction of Career Lined Channel. The land of the land owners has been bifurcated into two parts and on that account, they are entitled to damages on account of severance as well, which should be atleast to the extent of 50% of the value of the acquired land. It was further submitted that the value of the acquired land is to be assessed considering the fact that it is a part of National Capital Region and next to village abadi. Even for acquisition carried out vide notification dated 6.3.2006 in the vicinity, i.e. just 4 years later, even the State had awarded compensation @ Rs. 12,50,000/- per acre. It was further submitted that if any cut was required to be applied, the same should not have been more than 1/3rd and the application of 40% was not correct.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the RFA No. 2815 of 2008 [18] compensation, as assessed by the learned court below, is much more than the land owners deserved. Error in calculation of the amount was not disputed, however, it was submitted that in fact the court wanted to apply 60% cut but it was inadvertently mentioned as 40%. In fact, the sale deeds produced by the State had been wrongly ignored.
It may be noticed here that the State is not in appeal against the impugned award challenging any of the finding recorded therein, namely, either reliance upon the sale deeds produced by the land owners or rejection of the sale deeds produced by the State.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record.
Considering the evidence produced on record by the land owners, in my opinion, value of the acquired land, as assessed by the learned court below deserves some re-shuffling. It is a case where the State is not aggrieved against the impugned award and has not challenged any of the finding recorded in favour of the land owners or against the State. Accordingly, all what has to be considered is as to whether there is justification for the award of compensation to the land owners at the rate, which has been granted or the same deserves any further increase or it is to be recalculated properly. There are 5 sale deeds produced on record by the land owners. The court below, though initially opined that two sale deeds (Ex. P4 and Ex. P9) which were registered quite close to the acquisition and the location thereof is merely 6-7 acres from the acquired land are relevant which deserve consideration for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land. However, finally the court merely relied upon sale deed (Ex. P9) and directed for application of cut of 40% therein to assess the compensation payable for the acquired land which, in my opinion, was not the correct approach. Once the court had opined that relevant sale deeds are Ex. P4 and Ex. P9, both should have been taken into consideration. All what the court was required to do so was to grant increase in the average value shown in the sale deeds, considering the time gap till the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued. Sale deed (Ex.P4) was registered on 26.7.2001 at an average price of Rs. 12,11,428/- per acre. There being gap of one year, after granting increase @ 12% per annum, the value, which is to be considered, comes out to Rs. 13,56,800/-. The average value per acre paid vide sale deed (Ex. P9) registered on 8.1.2002 was Rs. 15,95,000/-. Considering the time gap of 7 months, if increase @ 12% per annum is granted thereon, the average value comes out to Rs. 18,13,650/-. Considering the fact that both the sale deeds pertained to merely 7 marlas and 16 marlas of land and the acquisition being RFA No. 2815 of 2008 [19] for 22 acres, in my opinion, cut of 50% would be reasonable and applying the same, the value of the acquired land would come out to Rs. 7,92,612/-, which is rounded off to Rs. 7,92,600/- per acre.
Accordingly, the compensation, as was assessed by the learned court below at Rs. 7,40,000/- per acre is enhanced to Rs. 7,92,600/- per acre. As the value of the land, which is at a distance from the village abadi was assessed by approximation at Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre, considering the increase in the value of other land, corresponding increase in the value of the land which was assessed at Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre is also required. Accordingly, the same is determined at Rs. 5,35,000/- per acre. The land owners shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available under the Act.
Regarding acquisition of land in village Barwasni Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the evidence in the form of sale deed (Ex. PZ) which was registered prior to the acquisition has not been considered at all by the learned court below, whereby 9 marlas of plot was sold for a sum of Rs. 51,000/- at an average price of Rs. 9,06,666/- per acre. The same was registered on 3.7.2000. The land owners were even entitled to increase thereon atleast @ 12% per annum, considering the fact that acquisition in the present case was made 2 years thereafter. Another submission made was that even in the project report prepared for laying down Career Lined Channel, the land cost in Haryana Territory was shown as Rs. 4,50,000/- per acre. Further reference was made to acquisition of land in the vicinity in the year 2006, for which the value was assessed even by the Collector @ Rs. 12,50,000/- per acre. It was further submitted that it has come on record in the form of oral evidence led by the land owners that the land in question is located quite close to the municipal limits of Sonepat. It was merely 5-6 kilometers from Court Complex, Sonepat. It had great potential for being urbanised.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that in fact, it was a case of no evidence. The land owners produced two sale deeds (Ex. PY and Ex. PZ). Sale deed (Ex. PY) was registered on 7.1.2005, which has no relevance, having been registered much after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act on 16.8.2002. Sale deed (Ex.PZ) though was registered on 3.7.2000, but the location thereof is not pointed out on site plan produced by the land owners on record. In the absence thereof, the same cannot be said to be relevant piece of evidence for determination of fair value of the acquired land. As against this, reference was made to sale deed Ex. R1 produced by the State vide which 4 kanals and 16 marlas of land of village Barwasni was sold at an average RFA No. 2815 of 2008 [20] price of Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre on 30.5.20002 and the location thereof is evident in site plan (Ex. R2), i.e., merely 4 acres away from the acquired land. Considering this fact, he submitted that the Collector was quite generous having awarded compensation @ Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre to the land owners.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record.
The evidence referred to by learned counsel for the land owners is sale deed (Ex. PZ), award for the acquisition carried out in the year 2006 and project report where some estimate has been mentioned as cost of acquisition for the land situated within the State of Haryana. As far as sale deed (Ex. PZ) is concerned, though the same pertained to the revenue estate of village Barwasni, but in the absence of any plan on record to show exact location thereof, it would not be safe to place reliance thereupon for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land. Similar is the position with regard to the project report, where some estimated cost of the land has been mentioned, which cannot be said to be a piece of relevant evidence to determine the fair value of the acquired land. Learned counsel for the land owners had not cited any judicial precedent in support thereof.
As far as reliance on award pertaining to the acquisition carried out in the year 2006 is concerned, the same also cannot be considered to be relevant piece of evidence for determination of fair value of the land acquired in August, 2002. As against this, sale deed (Ex. R1) clearly established that value of the land in the area was not more than the award of the Collector as the consideration money paid for land measuring 4 kanals and 16 marlas was at an average price of Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre, whereas the award of the Collector is for Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre.
Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award.
Regarding acquisition of land in village Mahra A perusal of the impugned award shows that the land owners in the present case had practically produced no evidence which could enable the Court to reach to a conclusion that the amount of compensation, as has been determined to be payable to the land owners for the acquired land, was not just and fair. Besides oral evidence claiming that the value of the land on the date of acquisition was Rs. 10,00,000/- per acre, only project report prepared for the construction of Career Lined Channel was produced, in terms of which it was sought to be argued that the estimated value of the land shown therein was more than the amount paid by the RFA No. 2815 of 2008 [21] Collector. The plea that such an estimate should be relied upon for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land, was not supported by any judicial precedent. Even otherwise, in my considered opinion, mere showing of estimated cost in a project report prepared, for which the land was acquired, does not in any way show that the value of the acquired land is to be determined in terms thereof.
Accordingly, I do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned award. The same is upheld.
Regarding acquisition of land in village Mehmudpur Majra A perusal of the impugned award shows that the land owners had relied upon three sale deeds (Ex. P2, Ex. P3 and Ex. P4) in the form of documentary evidence to claim that value of the acquired land, as was determined by the Collector, deserved further increase. In addition to this, oral evidence was led to state that for the portion of land acquired for the purpose of construction of the same channel, which fell in Delhi State, the compensation was granted at much more rate. Further reference was made to the fact that for the acquisition of land carried out in the year 2006, the government itself was awarding compensation @ Rs. 12,50,000/- per acre.
The State had also produced evidence rebutting the claim of the land owners. As far as sale deed (Ex. P4) is concerned, the same was for 10 marlas of land, which was registered on 23.12.2003, i.e., much after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case, which was 16.8.2002. Accordingly, the same cannot be relied upon. Even otherwise it was pertaining to the land of village Mehmudpur Majra. As far as sale deeds (Ex. P2 and Ex. P3) are concerned, both were registered much prior to the acquisition, i.e., 12.12.1996 and 18.9.2000 respectively. Further the same pertained to the land of village Kailana. There is no site plan on record to show as to where the land pertaining to these sale deeds of small plots was located. Unless the land owners are able to show by leading positive evidence that the sale instances, which are sought to be relied upon by them for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land, are of the land which is comparative in location and advantages attached therewith, the same cannot possibly be considered.
Keeping the aforesaid facts in view, all what can be opined is that it is a case of no evidence, consequently no fault can be found with the award of the learned court below, which is upheld.
Regarding acquisition of land in village Kailana A perusal of the impugned award shows that the land owners produced three sale deeds (Ex. P1 to Ex. P3) and site plan (Ex. P4). As against RFA No. 2815 of 2008 [22] this, the respondent-State produced site plan (Ex. R1) and five sale deeds (Ex. R2 to Ex. R6). As far as the evidence led by the land owners is concerned, a perusal of sale deed (Ex. P3) shows that it was registered on 4.6.2003, whereas the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 16.8.2002, the same being after the issuance of notification is not relevant. As far as sale deed (Ex. P1) is concerned, the same was registered on 12.12.1996 pertaining to 15 marlas of land at an average price of Rs. 4,00,000/- per acre. Sale deed (Ex. P2) was registered on 18.9.2000 for 5 marlas of land at an average price of Rs. 6,72,000/- per acre. Paragraph 21 of the impugned award shows that the evidentiary value of sale deeds (Ex. P1 and Ex. P2) was considered threadbare by the learned court below and considering their location vis-a-vis the acquired land, the same were not found to be worth consideration. In my opinion, the finding so recorded cannot possibly be faulted. Another factor, which has been referred to is that even after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, a small portion of land measuring 1 kanal and 16 marlas of land was sold on 4.6.2003 vide sale deed (Ex. P3) at an average price of Rs. 2,31,111/- per acre, which shows that the value of land in the area even after the acquisition was in the same range, as was the award of the Collector. Paragraph 21 of the impugned award is extracted below:
"Petitioners have relied upon three sale instances, all of which have also been reflected in site plan Ex. P4. It is to be noted that on the eastern side of the acquired land, there exist village abadi. There is a Firni (circumference) of the village around the abadi. A small portion of the village Firni on the western side is at a distance of 2-3 acres from the suit land; whereas major portion of western side of the Firni is at a distance of five acres away from the acquired suit land. The eastern Firni of the village is at a distance ranging from 8 to 11 killas from the suit land. The land covered by sale instances Ex. P1 to Ex. P3 relied on by the petitioners is near the eastern Firni of the village and not near the western Firni, which is closer to the suit land. Not only this, perusal of sale instance Ex. P1 would reveal that a very small piece of land measuring 15 M only was sold in December, 1996 at the rate of Rs. 4 lacs per acre. Even smaller portion measuring 5 Marlas only was sold in September, 2000 at the rate of Rs. 6.72 lacs per acre, as per sale instance Ex. P2. Perusal of these sale instances would clearly reveal that the land covered by these instances were residential plots, on the two sides of which exist passage. The land covered by sale instance Ex. P3 is just nearby the RFA No. 2815 of 2008 [23] land covered by Ex. P1 and Ex. P2 and when it was sold in June, 2003 i.e. after about 3 years of the execution of Ex. P2, it was sold at much lower rate of Rs. 2,31,111/- per acre. It is important to notice that as the area of sold land is decreased, the sale consideration increased. In the face of these circumstances, when these sale instances Ex. P1 to Ex. P3 are not in respect of the similar kind of land, as the acquired suit land is purely agricultural in nature and considering the very small area of these sale instances comparing to large area of suit land, I am of the considered view that none of them is helpful to determine the market value of the acquired suit land."
The oral evidence led by the land owners to show that value of the land was much more than what was assessed by the Collector has no substance in the absence of corroboration by any documentary evidence.
With regard to the claim for enhancement of compensation on account of tubewell, well, trees or super structure existing on the acquired land also, the land owners had not been able to lead any documentary evidence to justify their claim and in the absence thereof, the learned court below did not have any option but to uphold the award of the Collector on that ground.
Accordingly, no case for interference with the impugned award is made out.
Regarding acquisition of land in village Hulaheri Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the evidence in the form of sale deed (Ex. P3) which was registered prior to the acquisition has not been considered at all by the learned court below, whereby 2 marlas of plot was sold for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- at an average price of Rs. 4,00,000/- per acre. The same was registered on 14.5.1991. The land owners were even entitled to increase thereon atleast @ 12% per annum, considering the fact that acquisition in the present case was made 9 years thereafter. Another submission made was that even in the project report prepared for laying down Career Lined Channel, the land cost in Haryana Territory was shown as Rs. 4,50,000/- per acre and for Delhi land, it was Rs. 23,00,000/- per acre.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that in fact, it was a case of no evidence. The land owners produced one sale deed (Ex. P3), but the location thereof is not pointed out on site plan produced by the land owners. In the absence thereof, the same cannot be said to be relevant piece of evidence for determination of fair value of the acquired land. As against this, reference was made to sale deeds (Ex. R1 and Ex. R2) produced by the State. Vide RFA No. 2815 of 2008 [24] sale deed dated 20.12.2001 (Ex. R1), 6 kanals and 9 marlas of land was sold for Rs. 1,21,000/- at an average price of Rs. 1,50,077/- per acre. Vide sale deed dated 22.11.2001 (Ex. R2), 7 kanals and 2 marlas of land was sold for Rs. 1,35,500/- at an average price of Rs. 1,50,422/- per acre. Considering this fact, he submitted that the Collector was quite generous having awarded compensation @ Rs. 4,00,000/- per acre to the land owners.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record.
Whatever evidence has been led by the land owners or the principle, which has been applied by the learned court below for determination of fair value of the acquired land has not been disputed by the State as no appeal challenging the impugned award has been filed. Accordingly, this Court is to consider as to whether while relying upon the evidence led by the land owners fair amount of compensation has been assessed by the court below or not.
A bare perusal of the impugned award shows that while relying upon sale deed (Ex. P3), which was registered way back 11 years prior to the date of notification, the learned court below after granting increase @ 10% per annum thereon, determined the value thereof at Rs. 8,40,000/- per acre and by applying a cut of 53%, determined the value of the acquired land at Rs. 4,00,000/- per acre. The only factor which, in my opinion, deserves to be corrected in the process of assessment, which is not disputed by the State, is that as against cut of 53% applied by the learned court below, it should have been at the rate of 50%, as has been applied in other cases arising out of acquisition for the same purpose pertaining to land of different villages.
Accordingly, the value of the acquired land would come out to Rs. 4,20,000/- per acre. The land owners shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available under the Act.
Regarding acquisition of land in village Sitawali A bare perusal of the impugned award shows that the learned court below had relied upon sale deed (Ex.P5) dated 8.5.1997, whereby 150 square yards of land was sold for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- at an average price of Rs. 4,84,000/- per acre. As far as consideration thereof as a relevant piece of evidence is concerned, the State has not disputed the same by filing any appeal against the impugned award. While determining the value of the acquired land, the learned court below considering the same to be a small piece of land, directed for application of 40% cut and thereafter granted increase for the intervening period from the date of registration of sale deed till the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act RFA No. 2815 of 2008 [25] and determined the fair value of the acquired land at Rs. 3,20,000/- per acre. The learned court below has noticed that on the value shown in sale deed (Ex. P5) after application of cut of 40%, the same will come out to Rs. 1,93,600/- per acre. However, if on Rs. 4,84,000/-, a cut of 40% is applied, the value would come out to Rs. 2,90,400/-. Meaning thereby there is mathematical error in the calculation of value. Once the principle, which has been applied by the learned court below, for determination of fair value of the acquired land is not disputed by the State, the error certainly deserves correction by application of settled principles and also the principles which have been applied by this Court for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land for the same purpose pertaining to other villages. If the value, as is shown in sale deed (Ex. P5) is considered and for the time gap of about 5 years and 4 months, increase @ 12% per annum is granted, the value thereof will come out to Rs. 7,93,760/- per acre. Cut @ 50% has been applied in all other cases pertaining to the same acquisition, considering the fact that sale instances were pertaining to small pieces of land.
Accordingly, by applying cut of 50%, the value comes out to Rs. 3,96,880/-, which is rounded off to Rs. 3,97,000/- per acre, which shall be the amount of compensation payable to the land owners on account of acquisition of land. They shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available under the Act.
Regarding acquisition of land of village Kakroi A bare perusal of the impugned award shows that the learned court below had relied upon sale deed (Ex.P1) dated 21.1.2000, whereby 8 marlas of land was sold for a sum of Rs. 38,000/- at an average price of Rs. 7,76,000/- per acre. In the site plan produced on record, the same is shown to be between abadi of the village and the acquired land. As far as consideration thereof as a relevant piece of evidence is concerned, the State has not disputed the same by filing any appeal against the impugned award. While determining the value of the acquired land, the learned court below considering the same to be a small piece of land, directed for application of 40% cut and thereafter granted increase for the intervening period from the date of registration of sale deed till the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and determined the fair value of the acquired land at Rs. 4,00,000/- per acre. The learned court below has noticed that on the value shown in sale deed (Ex. P1) after application of cut of 40%, the same will come out to Rs. 3,04,000/- per acre. However, if on Rs. 7,76,000/-, a cut of 40% is applied, the value would come out to Rs. 4,65,600/-. Meaning thereby there is mathematical error in the calculation of value. Once the principle, which has been applied by the learned court below, for determination of fair value of the RFA No. 2815 of 2008 [26] acquired land is not disputed by the State, the error certainly deserves correction by application of settled principles and also the principles which have been applied by this Court for the purpose of determination of fair value of the land acquired for the same purpose pertaining to the same acquisition. If the value, as is shown in sale deed (Ex. P1) is considered and for the time gap of about 2-1/2 years increase @ 12% per annum is granted, the value thereof will come out to Rs. 10,08,800/- per acre. Cut @ 50% is being applied, as was done in all other cases pertaining to the same acquisition, considering the fact that sale instances were pertaining to small pieces of land.
Accordingly, by applying cut of 50%, the same comes out to Rs. 5,04,400/- per acre, which shall be the amount of compensation payable to the land owners on account of acquisition of land. The land owners shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available under the Act.
Regarding severance As far as claim regarding severance is concerned, a perusal of the record shows that the same is totally misconceived as the acquisition in the present case is for a small strip of land adjoining the already existing Western Yamuna Canal. The same did not bifurcate the land of the land owners. For this reason, only, no such claim was made either in the petitions filed by some of the land owners nor any evidence was led by them.
Accordingly, the claim on that account is rejected.
RFA No. 1021 of 2008Additional claim was made with regard to the value of orchard. As is evident, the Collector had assessed the same at Rs. 6,51,338/-. As is noticed in the impugned award, the land owners did not produce any documentary evidence to substantiate their plea that estimation of compensation was not just and fair. In the absence thereof, in my opinion, no illegality was committed by the learned court below in upholding the award of the Collector qua that.
RFA No. 1870 of 2008Additional claim was made with regard to super structure. The Collector did not award any compensation. As there was no evidence led by the land owners in the form of documentary evidence of valuation of the alleged super structure, the learned court below did not grant any compensation therefor which cannot be faulted with due to lack of evidence.
RFA No. 2815 of 2008 [27]The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge April 27, 2009 mk