Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jang Singh @ Jang Ram And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 1 April, 1999
Equivalent citations: (1999)122PLR687
Author: Swatanter Kumar
Bench: Swatanter Kumar
JUDGMENT Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. By this common judgment I propose to dispose of nearly 30 Regular First Appeals arising from the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, dated 19.11.1993 vide which he disposed of 16 references made by the Land Acquisition Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. As all the references were disposed of by a common judgment by the learned Additional District Judge, it is but necessary for this Court to deal with the appeals preferred either by claimants for Union of India against the same judgment together.
2. The facts as they appear on the record are that Union of India issued a notification dated 14.3.1989 under Section 4 of the Act published on 24.3.1989 intending to acquire 72.9375 acres of land in the revenue estate of village Bir Kheri Gujran, District Patiala. In furtherance thereto notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 19.7.1989 and the same land was taken possession of by the Union of India. The Land Acquisition Collector having heard the objections of the parties vide its award dated 13.8.1991 awarded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre to the claimants whose land had been acquired. Dis-satisfied by the extent of the amount awarded the claimants had made a prayer for making a reference under Section 18 of the Act. As already noticed, all the 16 references were answered by the learned Additional District Judge vide his award dated 19.11.1993 by awarding a sum of Rs. 187/- per square yard i.e. 9,05,000/- per acre.
3. The Union of India has filed 16 appeals against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge while challenging the enhancement of amount of compensation awarded to the claimants. The grievance of the Union of India is that the sale deeds Ex.P.24 to P.32 and P.35 have been made the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land erroneously and contrary to the settled principles of law. In support of this contention the learned counsel has relied upon the various judgments of this court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
4. The learned counsel for the claimants have not been able to authenticatedly rebut these arguments. The sale instances relied upon by the learned Additional District Judge in paragraph No. 53 of the judgment are as under:-
Sr. Exhibit Sales Dates Value Cost of Net Value No. No. Rs. Construction Rs. 1. P.24 881 27.04.89 1,00,000/- - - 1,60,000/- 2. P.25 892 28.04.89 0,80,000/- - - 0,80,000/ 3. P.26 1807 22.05.89 0,85,000/- - - 0,85,000/- 4. P.27 787 2.06.89 1,25,000/- 65,000/- 0,60,000/- 5. P.28 6592 01.10.89 1,95,000/- - - 1,95,000/ 6. P.29 6144 09.10.89 1,46,000/- - - 1,46,000/ 7. P.30 6265 13.10.89 1,95,000/- - - 1,95,000/ 8. P.31 4955 19.08.89 1,20,000/- 28,000/- 0,92,000/- 9. P.32 9800 30.09.89 0,78,000/- - - 0,78,000/- 10. P.35 9809 30.09.89 1,17,000/- - - 1,17,000/-
5. From the facts on record it is clear that all the above sale instances relate to a period subsequent to the date of notification. The earliest sale instance is of 27.4.1989 while the date of notification under Section 4 is 14.3.1989. As such these sale instances are post notification and cannot be validly relied upon by the Court for determining the market value of the land in question. By the time a notification under Section 4 of the Act is published it becomes a known fact that the Government is intending or has planned to acquire the land and as such the evidence of a higher market value can be created and would be normally created to demand higher compensation from the acquiring authority. This would defeat the very purpose of the scheme of acquisition and would adversely affect the larger public interest. In this regard reference can be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of M.V.K. Gundarao v. Revenue Divisional Officer (LAO), 1996(3) S.C.C. 129 and V.G. Kulkarni v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, 1996(8) S.C.C. 301.
6. Second reason why these sale instances cannot be looked into is that admittedly no vendor or vendee was examined to prove the sale instances as well as extent of sale consideration received thereunder. It is also an admitted position that nobody was examined from the Registrar's Office to prove the authenticity of these sale deeds. In view of these two reasons I have not hesitation in accepting the contention of Union of India that the market value of the acquired land arrived at by the learned Additional District Judge on the basis of Ex.P 24 to Ex.P.32 and P.35 is not sustainable. I hold that Ex.P.24 to Ex.P.32 could not be looked into and form the basis for awarding of requisite compensation to the land owners.
7. Another factor which has been considered by the learned Additional District Judge in determining the market value of the acquired land at the relevant time is the minimum rate fixed by the Collector vide Ex.PE, Ex.PF and Ex.PG. They relate to the period 1988 onwards. In these exhibits the Collector had fixed the minimum rate of the land for the purposes of registration of sale deeds under the provisions of Section 47-A of the India Registration Act at Rs. 150/- to Rs. 3007- per square yard. The learned Judge, however, has calculated a sum of Rs.152/- per square yard. This approach of the learned trial Court is not sustainable in law because the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the list of minimum rates prepared by the Collector in exercise of the power under Section 47-A of the Registration Act is not relevant for determining the market value of the acquired land at the relevant time. Reference can be made to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of K.S. Shivadevamma and Land Acquisition Officer and Anr., (1996)2 Supreme Court 62, wherein it was held as under:-
"Though the appellants have relied upon the government circular determining the value of the lands for the purpose of fixing stamp duty and registration fee and also the Commissioner's report regarding the valuation assessed by him, the High court rightly has not accepted them. This Court also had held that the circulars issued by the Government under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act for fixation of stamp duty and the registration fee would not form basis to determine the compensation unless evidence is adduced as regards the prevailing market value of the land in the locality possessed of similar advantageous features. Even the Commissioner's assessment is his "best judgment assessment". Therefore, it cannot form the basis to determine the market value."
8. Resultantly even this approach adopted by the learned Additional District Judge for determining the market value cannot be affirmed in appeal.
9. The learned Additional District Judge has relied upon Ex.PA to calculate the market value of the land and to finally brought the average of the prices arrived at by these three methods. Ex.PA is stated to be an admission on the part of the State where in paragraph XIV of the plaint value of the land has been shown as Rs. 400/- per sq. yard. The learned Judge has finally taken average of the price arrived at on the basis of Ex.P.24 to Ex.P.32 and Ex.P.35, value arrived at on the basis of the minimum value fixed by the Collector for registration purposes and the value reflected in Ex.PA to finally determine on average of these three values and awarded a sum of Rs. 187/- per square yard to the claimants.
10. I have already shown that first two methods and their very foundation is not sustainable in law. In relation to Ex.PA it must be stated that it is not an admission of the state. The plaint Ex. PA was filed by the Deputy Commissioner on behalf of State of Punjab so it cannot he construed as an admission of Union of India in relation to value of the land. Secondly, Ex. PA was filed in the Court in the year 1991 and related to the alleged market value for the year 1990. The Court cannot ignore the circumstances in which Ex.PA was filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction. It was a dispute between a Dera and exchange of land by the authorities in relation thereto. It was intended to be shown that the exchange was unfair as amongst other reasons, lower rate of value had been shown then prevalent in the market. Thus, it cannot be construed as an admission to bind Union of India under any circumstances. Further more the area involved in Ex.PA was located in the Municipal Limits of Patiala. As such it could not form basis of a comparable instance to the present case. Hence, I have no hesitation even in rejecting this contention of the claimants that Ex.PA should form the sole basis for determination of the market value of the acquired land. On the contrary, Ex.PA itself being post-notification, is irrelevant.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that Ex.PA is also supported by the statement of PW 6 who is a Government approval valuer. Having held that Ex.PA is not a relevant piece of evidence I also have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that statement of PW 6 Jarnail Singh cannot form the basis of determining the market value of the land. He is a valuer engaged by the claimants and the likelihood of his speaking in favour of the claimants cannot be ruled out. Thus, it would not be safe to totally rely upon the statement of this witness. Therefore, the report Ex. PK prepared by PW 6 by itself cannot constitute a valid piece of evidence and more particularly when other material and more relevant evidence is available on record.
Ex.P.21 to Ex.P23 are certainly the relevant sale deeds which have been totally ignored by the learned Additional District Judge. No reasons, whatsoever, have been stated in the judgment as to why these sale instances are not referable or cannot be relied upon for determination of the controversy in issue. I would prefer to discuss the relevancy of three exhibits in order to arrive at a fair determination of the market value of the acquired land.
There is no dispute to the fact that Ex.P.21 to P.23 are the sale instances of the land adjoining the acquired land. Ex.P.21 is a sale dated 8.4.1988 of 350 square yards of land for a sum of Rs. 42,000/-, thus, giving a rate of Rs. 120/- per square yard. The land is located in the revenue estate of village Bir Kheri Gujran. Ex.P.22 is the sale dated 18.11.1988 of the land measuring about 550 square yards (11 bishwas) for a sum of Rs. 77,000/-, thus, giving a rate of Rs. 138/- per square yard. Ex.P.23 is a sale instance of 25.11.1988 where land measuring about 300 square yards (nearly Six Biswas) was sold for Rs. 1,25,000/-, thus, giving a rate of Rs. 396/- per square yard. All these sale instances are comparable instances and cannot be over-looked. They are relevant in point of time because the date of notification under Section 4 is 24.3.1989, while these sale instances are from April, 1988 to November, 1988. However, reliance cannot be placed on Ex.P.23 because this is a sale of a constructed house and there is no evidence on record which could help the Court to decipher the cost of land and cost of house. The sale-deed does not indicate anything in this regard. Therefore, to rely upon Ex.P.23 would not be safe because the land acquired is stated to be an agricultural land.
The sale deed Ex.P.21 describes the land in question as agricultural land while Ex.P.22 describes it as open piece of plot. Thus, Ex.P.21 and Ex.P.22 can safely be formed the basis for computing the market value of the land in question. While considering Ex.P.21 and Ex.P.22 as the basis for computing fair market value of the land in question at the relevant time, I would adopt the following calculations:-
Ex. Date of Area of land Sale Price
sale-deed Sold consideration P. Sq.Yd.
P.21 08.04.1988 350 Sq. Yards Rs. 42,000/- Rs. 119.00
P.22 18.11.1988 550 Sq. Yards R Rs. 77,000/- Rs. 138.00
Total of Ex.P.21 and P.22 Rs. 257.00
Average price per square yard Rs. 128.50
Location, potentiality and extent of applicability of the principle of deduction:-
Location and potentiality of the land is one of the basic ingredients which has to be considered by the Court before it financially determines the fair market value of the acquired land in a given case. It is contended by the learned counsel for the claimants that the land in question is located adjacent to the developed areas and has a great commercial and residential potential. As such the claimants are entitled to a higher amount of Compensation on the one hand, while on the other, they state that no element of cut be applied.
12. However, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India contended that location of this land is totally isolated and is along the Nullah. He also contended that land is not adjacent to the developed areas. So he pleaded that the compensation awarded is liable to be reduced and heavy element of cut should be applied to the present case.
13. The relevant evidence in this regard is the statements of PW4, PW7, PW8, PW9 and PW10. Ex. PH, the site plan shows that the acquired land is just adjacent to Golf Course in Sector 34. This exhibit also shows that around the acquired land there are developed areas. The sale instances including Ex.P.21 to Ex.P.23 are stated to be at a distance of 20 killas or less. The land in question as well as the land acquired under the other notifications around this area have been acquired for a common purpose and utilisation i.e. for developing the defence area by Union of India. The land has been acquired in piece-meals and thus, to say that this land has no residential or commercial potential would not be fair. The learned Court below after discussing the above evidence held as under:-
"The land now acquired is situated between Golf Course and the residential area of Patiala towards West of the City and is at a distance of hardly 3 Kms. from the Phawara Chowk i.e., Phul Cinema and is between Phul Cinema and village Bir Kheri there are numerous residential colonies."
"Ex. PL is the copy of Aksh Latha of Kheri Gurjan and Bir Kheri Gujran in which acquired land has been shown as well as the instances of sale Ex.P1 to Ex. P.36 has been marked by the Patwari Halqa. This shows that the sale transaction placed on record are not more than 20 killas from the acquired land. Manjit colony, lay out of which was done in 1982 forms the part of the acquired land and Ex. PN is the copy of the plan. Dera Mahant Addi Ram adjoins the acquired land as per Ex.PL. This the Dera regarding which the plaint Ex.PA has been filed by the Collector. So it can safely be said that the acquired land has residential potential value as the residential colonies and city was developing towards it."
14. The statement of the valuer as well as of the draftsman i.e. Rajinder Singh, Rajinder Jain, Mahesh Gupta, Jaswant Singh and Bhopal Singh could be relied upon though with due caution keeping in mind that these were the private witnesses of the claimants. The cumulative effect of the entire evidence on record clearly shows that the land in question is surrounded by partially or fully developed areas and has a great potential. The learned counsel appearing for the Union of India in fact did not raise a very serious issue in this regard primarily for the reasons that the respondents have hardly led any evidence to show that the land in question is not well located and has no potential for residential or commercial area. The mere fact that it is near the Nullah would not seriously affect the potential of the land.
15. The lands in question were acquired by the Central Government for the use of defence services of the Union. On one side it is surrounded by the land possessed by Union of India. The acquisition is for a public purpose and which subsequently has to be developed by the Union of India. According to the learned counsel appearing for the State there should be deduction of minimum 53% while according to the learned counsel for the claimants there should be no deductions on any count whatsoever.
16. It is a settled principle of law that normally some element of deduction or cut has to be applied ultimately to give a fair market value to the claimants. At this stage I may refer to a recent decision of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Dr. Balbir Singh, (1999-2)122 P.LR. 613 wherein it has been held as under:- .
"Haphazard development would be of some consequence, but could no way be equated to a fully developed area. The purpose for which the land is acquired, the relevant records declaring the entire land as agricultural land and the fact that the sale deeds relate to comparatively small pieces of land would fully justify the application of the element of cut to the afore-said amount. It has been held above that 20 per cent cut on uniform basis would be a fair determination of the market value of the land in question.
17. In the present case the land is not a fully developed land or part of a fully developed area which may be having all the requisite amenities and facilities. As such the claimants cannot claim full benefit of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwathula Samanna v. Special Tehsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, 1992(1) Recent Revenue Reports 257.
18. Having pondered over the matter at some length and keeping in mind the location and potentiality of the land and the fact that this land has to be developed by the Union of India for a definite public purpose, I would consider it fair that a deduction of 20% be made from the above assessed value. The court cannot loose sight of the fact that it is because of activities of the State that the value of these lands has enhanced to the extent afore-stated. Consequently, applying the 20% deduction, the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 105.80 per square yard (Rs.128.50, 20% of which is Rs. 25.70. Therefore, Rs. 128.50 Rs.25.70 = Rs. 105.80). The present acquisition is not a very huge acquisition. Only 72.9375 acres have been acquired by the Union of India. In the facts and circumstances of the case grant of compensation per square yard would no way be un-justified or unfair to either of the parties. Reference can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.S. Shivadevamma and Ors. v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer and Anr., (1996)2 Supreme Court Cases 62.
19. As a result of the above detailed discussion, I am of the considered view that appeals of the Union of India are liable to be partly accepted, but those of the claimants for enhancement are liable to be rejected. Consequently, I hold that the claimants are entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 105.80 per square yard as compensation for acquisition of their respective lands. They would obviously be entitled to the statutory benefits of Section 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. All these appeals are, accordingly, disposed of, however, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.