Punjab-Haryana High Court
Seth Hari Chand Sons Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Punjab And Another on 27 October, 2009
RFA No. 1736 of 1991
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RFA No. 1736 of 1991
Date of decision: 27.10.2009
Seth Hari Chand Sons Pvt. Ltd.
....Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and another
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Present: - Mr. N.S. Rapri, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Ms. Lisa Gill, Advocate,
for the respondents.
*****
VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL)
This order shall dispose of RFA No. 1736 of 1991 titled Seth Hari Chand Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and another and RFA No. 2574 of 1991 titled State of Punjab Vs. Seth Hari Chand Sons Pvt. Ltd., as common questions of law and facts are involved.
For brevity sake, facts are being taken from RFA No. 1736 of 1991.
This regular first appeal is directed against the order dated 11.5.1991 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, on reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act).
A notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 27.10.1988, to acquire the land measuring 23 kanals 7 marlas for public RFA No. 1736 of 1991 -2- purpose i.e. construction of 33 KV Sub Station, Nasrala.
M/s J.K.R. Transformer India Ltd., a company of the appellant, had purchased part of the acquired land i.e. 7 kanals 8 marlas by way of sale deed dated 21.9.1989 for a sum of Rs.1,94, 440/- per acre.
Learned Acquisition Collector assessed the market price of the land as under: -
1) Chahi Rs.48,928/- per acre
2) Barani Rs.44,488/- per acre
3) Banjar Qadim Rs.18,000/- per acre
The land owners were also granted statutory benefits under the Act i.e. solatium, interest etc. The appellant being dissatisfied with the award passed by the learned Land Acquisition Collector sought reference under Section 18 of the Act, seeking enhancement of the compensation by claiming, that the market value of the land was not less than Rs.2.00 (Rupees two lac only) per acre. They also sought compensation on account of severance of the land.
The reference was contested by the respondent-State on the plea that the compensation awarded was adequate and just and did not call for any enhancement.
On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Reference Court was pleased to frame the following issues: -
"1. What was the market value of the disputed property at the time of acquisition? OPA.
2. Relie."
In support of the case, the appellant-land owner examined AW-1 Edwin Kiran Narru, Accounts Officer of the appellant and RFA No. 1736 of 1991 -3- Gurmail Singh, Draftsman as AW-2. The appellant also relied upon sale deeds Ex. A-1, A-4 and A-5.
Whereas the respondents opposed the reference and in support produced Mohinder Singh, Patwari as RW-1 to prove the copy of the sale deeds Ex. R-2 to Ex. R-6. Site plan Ex. R-1 was also produced on record to prove the location of the acquired land and that of sale transactions.
Learned Reference Court keeping in view the timing of the sales, came to the conclusion that all the sale deeds were relevant, and calculated the average of the sale deeds which came to Rs.98,000/- (Rupees ninety thousand only) per acre to assess the market value. Thereafter, by applying reasonable cut to the average so arrived, the learned Reference Court assessed the market value of the land @ Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only) per acre, for the area near the road upto 40 karams and Rs.70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand only) per acre for the remaining land. The land owners were further held entitled to all the statutory benefits under the Act.
Mr. N.S. Rapri, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has challenged the award passed by the learned Reference Court primarily on the ground that principle followed by the learned reference Court in fixing the average of the sale prices and thereafter imposing cut, could not be upheld, as for the purpose of determining the market value Court should have taken note of the sale deed depicting the maximum price, unless sale was not genuine.
The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was, that once there was no doubt about the sale transaction, the learned Court RFA No. 1736 of 1991 -4- should have relied upon the transaction of sale Ex. A-5, which was the sale deed, on which the appellant itself purchased the property and was the best piece of evidence.
Ms. Lisa Gill, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the Punjab State Electricity Board, on the other hand, contended that, in fact, the appellant has been paid excess amount of compensation, which deserved to be reduced.
The contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Punjab State Electricity Board i.e. beneficiary was, that in the present case, the sale deeds relied upon by the State depicted the correct market value as the sale deeds were immediately prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The sale deeds were relevant and also were regarding substantial chunk of land, whereas the sale deeds relied upon by the appellant were with regard to small pieces of land, and were near the road, and could not be basis for assessing market value of the land.
It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, that in view of the positive evidence, the Court was not justified in fixing the market value of the land on the basis of average.
On consideration, I find force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, that the Court was to assess the market value on the basis of a genuine sale deed showing the maximum price. It is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the appellant was entitled to fixation of market value on the basis of sale deed Ex. A-5, being the price paid by the appellant for purchase of this land for setting up of an industry, for the reason that this RFA No. 1736 of 1991 -5- sale is post-notification and cannot, therefore, form the basis for calculation of the market value, specially in view of the availability of the sale deeds immediately prior to acquisition. The reliance can be placed on Ex. A-1 i.e. the sale deed dated 9.2.1988 that is few months prior to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Keeping in view the fact that the sale deed was for 10 marlas of land, cut of 1/3rd can be imposed on the price fixed to assess market value for large chunk of land. By imposing 1/3rd cut on Ex. A-1, the market value of acquired land is fixed at Rs.1,28,000/- (Rupees one lac twenty eight thousand only) per acre. The appellant shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits i.e. solatium, interest etc. on the enhanced compensation.
For the reasons stated, the appeal is allowed but with no order as to costs.
(Vinod K. Sharma) Judge October 27, 2009 R.S.