Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tara Devi vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 27 October, 2006
Equivalent citations: (2007)147PLR234
Author: Viney Mittal
Bench: Viney Mittal
JUDGMENT Viney Mittal, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of a batch of Regular First Appeals, as all the appeals have arisen out of a common award passed by the learned Additional District Judge. Whereas the claimant-landowners have filed the appeals for enhancement of compensation, the State of Haryana has approached this court for reduction of the market value as assessed by the reference Court.
2. Vide a notification dated May 4, 1995, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" land measuring 214.42 acres situated in villages Jhuriwala and Bana Madanpur in Tehsil Panchkula was notified for acquisition for a public purpose i.e. for development and utilization of land as residential, commercial and institutional area in Urban Estate, Panchkula for development of Sectors 22 and 23 at Panchkula. The Land Acquisition Collector, pronounced the award dated March 9, 1988 and categorized the land into various categories. The market value of the Chahi land was assessed at the rate of Rs. 2 lacs per acre; Barani/Gair Mumkin land was assessed at the rate of Rs. 1,05,000/- per acre in village Jhuriwalal; and for the acquired land in village Bana Madanpur, Ghair Mumkin land was assessed at the rate of Rs. 2,81,000/- per acre. The claimants remained dissatisfied and accordingly claimed references. The matter was accordingly referred under Section 18 of the Act.
3. Before the reference Court the parties lad oral as well as documentary evidence. After taking into consideration the aforesaid evidence, the learned reference Court held that the acquired land was about 1 kilometer away from Majri Chowk and was to be developed as Sectors 22/23 of Urban Estate, Panchkula. It was also observed that there was evidence on the record to show that the adjoining Sectors 25 to 28 had already been developed at the time of the present acquisition. It was further observed that Sectors 25 to 28 are farther away from Majri Chowk as compared to Sectors 22 and 23. The reference Court also took into consideration various sale instances relied upon by the parties but ruled them out by holding that the same did not reflect the correct market value of the acquired land.
4. The claimants had also relied upon two earlier awards of the reference Court with regard to earlier acquisition in village Maheshpur as well as in village Bana Madanpur itself. Those awards were produced on record as Ex.P.53 and Ex.P51 respectively. The said awards were also ruled out of consideration by the reference Court by observing that so far as the award Ex.P53 was concerned, the same pertained to assessment of market value of the acquired land in village Maheshpur and there was no comparability of the aforesaid land of the said village vis-a-vis the acquired land. The other award Ex.P51 pertaining to assessment of acquired land in village Bana Madanpur was also ruled out of consideration by observing that in the aforesaid award no reasons had been given to assess the market value at the rate of Rs. 250/- per square yard. As a matter of fact, the reference Court relied upon the award which was stated to be pertaining to the land of village Bana Madanpur pertaining to some notification dated June 25, 1990, which was shown to be taken on record as Ex.C1, vide which 1100 acres of land in village Bana Madanpur and village Ramgarh had been acquired and the market value had been assessed at the rate of Rs. 3,50,000/- per acre. Consequently, keeping in view the date of the present notification dated May 4, 1995, an increase of 12% per annum was granted by the reference Court and consequently the market value of the acquired land in the present proceedings was assessed at the rate of Rs. 5,60,000/- per acre. Additionally, the claimants were also held entitled to statutory benefits as well. It is in these circumstances that the claimants-landlowners and State of Haryana have approached this Court through the present appeals.
5. At the outset it may be noticed that this batch of appeals had been disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated May 31, 2005. The claimants were held entitled to a compensation of Rs. 430/- per square yard for the present acquired land. While making the aforesaid assessment, this Court had placed reliance on two earlier assessment made through awards Ex.P51 and Ex.P53. Primarily the assessment was made on the basis of the award Ex.P51. However, while disposing of the appeals, it was noticed that the award Ex.P51 had attained finality. Taking the aforesaid award Ex.P51 as final, the increase of 12% per year for the time gap between the two notification was awarded and consequently, the landowners were held entitled to a compensation of Rs. 430/- per square yard.
6. Later on the State of Haryana filed review applications in the present appeals. Through the aforesaid review application, it was brought to my notice that the earlier award Ex.P.51 had not attained finality inasmuch as, various appeals were pending in this Court against the aforesaid award. As a matter of fact, the aforesaid appeals against the award Ex.P51 also came to be listed on the regular Board of this Court subsequently. Taking note of the aforesaid fact, which was not even disputed by the claimants, vide an order dated October 11, 2006, the judgment and order dated May 31, 2005, passed in R.F.A. No. 2574 of 2002 and all other connected matters were called. The main appeals were restored back to their original number.
7. It is in these circumstances that the main appeals have been posted for hearing before this Court for rehearing, after restoration.
8. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the claimant-landowners and Shri H.S.Hooda, learned Advocate General, Haryana and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case.
9. At the outset, it may be noticed that a batch of appeals arising out of the earlier award Ex.P51, have been disposed of by this Court through a separate judgment of the even date. The aforesaid awards have been set aside and the matters have been remitted back to the reference Court for fresh determination of the market value (the main appeal being R.F.A. No. 1281 of 1999, Gurdev Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana). While issuing the aforesaid directions it has been noticed that the reference Court while adjudicating the market value with regard to the aforesaid proceedings arising out of notification dated June 26, 1989, had not taken into consideration the entire evidence available on the record and had failed to return relevant findings.
10. During the course of hearing in the present appeals, also the learned Counsel appearing for the parties have addressed similar arguments, as have been addressed in Gurdev Singh's case (supra).
11. From a perusal of the award passed by the reference Court, I find that the parties in the present proceedings have also led substantial evidence in support of their respective pleas. Reliance has also been placed by the claimants-landowners on various sale instances, pertaining to the sale of land in various villages in and around village Bana Madahpur and Jhuriwala. Various earlier awards rendered in the reference proceedings have also been relied upon.
12. However, keeping in view the fact that the matter has been remanded for fresh determination of the market value in Gurdev Singh's case and other connected matters, it would be appropriate if a similar course is adopted in the present appeals as well. This course would not only help in adopting a uniform principle for assessment of the market value of the land, the same would also be required for doing substantial justice between the parties. Since the assessment of the market value with regard to the acquisition of 1989 has not yet attained finality and since various other findings are also required to be given, as directed in Gurdev Singh's case (supra), it would be appropriate that for the detailed reasons given in Gurdev Singh's case the present appeals are also remitted back to the reference Court for fresh determination.
13. As a consequence of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeals are allowed. The award dated April 5, 2002 rendered by 'the reference Court is set aside. The matter is remanded back to me reference Court for determination of the market value afresh.
14. Since the matter is being remanded back to the reference Court for fresh determination, the parties to the dispute shall be at liberty to lead such further evidence, as may be desired by them, in accordance with law.
15. It is also directed that if any enhanced compensation, in pursuance to the award rendered by the reference Court or in pursuance to the earlier judgment dated May 31, 2005 by this Court, has been paid to the claimant-landowners, then the same shall not be recovered from them till the matter is finally adjudicated by the reference Court and such payment shall abide by the final assessment of the market value by the reference Court.
16. The parties through their learned Counsel are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Panchkula on December 11, 2006. Learned District Judge may either keep the reference petition with himself or may allocate the same to a Court of competent jurisdiction for determination of the market value.
17. Office is also directed to send back the lower Court record forthwith.
A copy of the order be given Dasti on payment of charges for urgent copy.