Punjab-Haryana High Court
Swaran Singh S/O Shri Randhir Singh vs State Of Haryana on 4 October, 2012
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
RFA No.1955 of 2005 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RFA No.1955 of 2005
Date of Decision.04.10.2012
Swaran Singh s/o Shri Randhir Singh, resident of village and P.O. Khera,
Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar
.....Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana, Home Department through Superintendent of Police,
Yamuna Nagar and another .....Respondents
2. RFA Nos.1754 to 1764 ,1953, 1954 and 1956, 2004, 2568 to 2570
and 3063 of 2005
Present: Mr. Sarwan Singh, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Ajay Aggarwal, Advocate
for the appellants in RFA Nos.1953, 1954 and 1956 of 2005.
Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate
for the appellants in RFA Nos.1642 and 2004 of 2005.
Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate
for the appellants in RFA Nos.2568 to 2570 and for
respondents in RFA Nos.1756 to 1758 of 2005.
Mr. Robin Dutt, Advocate
for the appellant in RFA No.3063 of 2005.
Mr. D.D. Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana
for the appellant in RFA Nos.1754 to 1764 of 2005
and for respondents In RFA Nos.1953, 1954 and 1956 of 2005
and 1642 and 2004 of 2005.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes
-.-
K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)
1. The appeals in RFA Nos.1642, 1953 to 1956, 2004, 2568 to 2570 and 3063 are at the instance of the land owners claiming enhancement of compensation and RFA Nos.1754 to 1764 are at the instance of the State seeking for reduction of compensation already assessed by the Reference Court.
2. The adjudication relates to the determination of RFA No.1955 of 2005 -2- compensation for acquisition of land of about 43 acres of land in Bhatauli and Khera villages now part of the Jagadhari municipal limits. The notification under Section 4 had been issued on 28.4.1999 for establishment of police lines and quarters for police staff posted in the police lines. The Land Acquisition Collector had by an award dated 22.04.2002 determined a compensation of Rs.6 lacs payable per acre. On a reference for enhancement made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Collector, the Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar through his award dated 02.02.2005 enhanced the compensation to ` 12,07,000/- per acre.
3. Before the Reference Court, the reliance had been on documents such as sale deeds and certain awards passed in relation to acquisition of property in the same town, but which were parts of different villages earlier. Referring to sale deeds P1, P4 and P6, the Reference Court rejected all of them stating that they were with reference to small parcels of land and they could not serve as appropriate exemplars. Ex.P3 and P5 were after the date of notification under Section 4 and therefore, as post notification sales, they were also left out of reckoning. Ex.P8 was an award passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No.3 of 2001 where the Court had determined a compensation of ` 750/- per square yard. This was also rejected since the Reference Court observed that they were farther away by more than 2 kms and therefore they were also fully developed already at the time of acquisition and therefore, they could not provide the proper basis for determination of compensation.
4. Having discarded the various transactions of sales and RFA No.1955 of 2005 -3- awards, the Reference Court referred to a document of sale instance exhibited as Ex.P2 dated 31.08.1982. The consideration recited in the document was ` 8,50,000/- and considering the fact that the notification issued was nearly 7 years later, it provided for 6% increase every year and escalated the same at 42% to arrive at the compensation of ` 12,07,000/- per acre.
5. The State is in appeals to point out that if Ex.P2 were to be taken as the basis, the provision for enhancement at 6% every year itself was high and a lesser escalation rate alone could have been appropriate. The land owners preferred the appeal by urging that the award, which was passed under Ex.P8 was with reference to a sale transaction dated 10.06.1997 in respect of property, which became a part of Sector 17, where the consideration had been with reference to the sale by HUDA in favour of a Corporation run by the State in an extent of about 800 square mtrs at ` 1.25 crores and odd @ ` 750/- per square yard. An application under Order 41 Rule 27 has been filed by the land owners in RFA No.1754 of 2005 to consider certain documents as additional evidence in appeal. The document is the judgment of the High Court in appeal against the award under Ex.P8 where the Court was relying on the sale transaction by HUDA to the Corporation and enhanced the compensation to ` 1560/- per sq. mtr. The respective counsel appearing on behalf of the land owners would argue that the location of the property in Sector 17 was in some way equi-distanced to the bus stand, the same way as the acquired land. Ex.P5 is the rough sketch and the additional document filed under Order 41 Rule 27 is a copy of the sketch prepared by the State that brings out graphically exact position of the RFA No.1955 of 2005 -4- property, which is acquired and property which was the subject of consideration under Ex.P8. The counsel would contend that Ex.P2 related to sale deed of the year 1982 and therefore, the more appropriate transaction must be only with reference to the property dealt with contemporaneously when there had been already an assessment made by an award of this Court.
6. Between a contemporaneous transaction and a transaction distanced by more than 5 years, the contemporaneous sale although in relation to property slightly at a distance of about 2 kms ought to take precedence. The learned counsel for the land owners would rely on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer and another Vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb (2011) 7 SCC 714 where the Court was holding that while taking up the criteria for applicability of an exemplar, while the value of the land which related to a sale of land 2 kms away from the acquired land would provide a better exemplar than references to sale deeds, which had occurred more than 5 years earlier prior to the acquisition. Countering the argument made by the land owners with reference to Ex.P8 and referring to the additional documents relied on by the land owners as additional evidence in appeal, the counsel for the State would urge that the only issue must be what is the extent of increase that could be provided to Ex.P2, for that relates to a property in the immediate vicinity of the property acquired and the property which was dealt with under Ex.P8 was with reference to lands situate in village Garimundo, Gobind Puri, Tehsil Gobind Puri. The counsel would contend that the acquisition was in respect of 700 acres of land and the purpose of acquisition was also different for RFA No.1955 of 2005 -5- development of land for residential and commercial purposes by HUDA. This, according to him, was totally irrelevant and rightly rejected by the Reference Court itself.
7. There has been fairly an elaborate consideration of the location of the property and the potentiality of the land at the time of acquisition of property. Ex.P5/A refers to the location of the property with reference to the existence of residential colonies and commercial establishment like M/s Yamuna Gases and Chemical Ltd., Janki Hospital, Bhakra Beas Management Board, Power House and residential quarters for employees on the western side of the acquired land. On the southern side, there was Hundewala Farm of Paper Mills, several factories and Sector 18 of the Housing Board, Jagadhari. On the eastern side was Mahrishi Vidya Public School, several factories and buildings. On the northern side of the highway there was a Gideon Hospital, Chawla Petrol Pump, Kumar Steel, Haryana Cold Storage, Satsang Vihar Colony and Government Warehouses.
8. There is no dispute about the fact that the property was within municipal limits and had immense potential for use of property for residential and commercial purposes. There had been an all-round development of the property and as the town was growing with greater demand for residential and commercial use, there was a State imperative for acquisition for an orderly development. It could also be seen that the National Highway running from Ambala-Jagadhari proceeds from west towards east and at the place where there is a curve down south there is a bus stand and Sector 17 is situate on the east of the highway. The property acquired is situate on the west of the highway RFA No.1955 of 2005 -6- preceding the bus stand. Bus stand in some way is equi-distanced between Sector 17 and the property which is acquired. Sector 18 lies west of the highway towards Saharanpur. Of the additional documents filed before the Court is a judgment of this Court in RFA No.476 of 2004 dated 03.09.2008 which was an appeal against the judgment in Annexure P-8. I have already referred to the fact that the Reference Court was rejecting this document as irrelevant because the property in Sector 17 was already in a developed colony while the acquired land was not so developed. I have not difficulty in accepting as a proposition that the Court is bound to prefer a sale instance or an award contemporaneous to the acquisition notification under consideration and not take as exemplar a transaction of more than 4 to 5 years. Even while prescribing the yardstick for appropriate exemplars, the Supreme Court had held earlier in ONGC VS. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (2008) 14 SCC 745 that where the documents relied on as exemplars and the notification are beyond a period of 4 to 5 years, it would be unsafe for the Court to provide for an escalation at 6 to 15% per year. The Supreme Court was laying down the law suggesting a mode of increase @ 6 to 10% for rural areas and 10 to 15% or urban areas while providing for escalation with reference to earlier transactions but cautioned that this formula ought not to be applied in transactions which are more than 4 to 5 years prior to the date of notification. I cannot, therefore, find any virtue about Ex.P2 as the most appropriate document for consideration. In small town developments, it is inevitable that some areas come about earlier and the town proliferates to larger landscape over a period of time and the relative value of the property in the same town may RFA No.1955 of 2005 -7- depend on the proximity to common areas like bus stand, markets etc. A proximity to bus stand or market itself would be relevant for the relative value of the property surrounding those areas. We notice from the application Ex.A5/A and also the additional documents filed in Court, which is a copy of the application by the State that make it clear that the property which dealt with under Ex.P8 is also on the main road but it is towards Saharanpur, while the property acquired is on the south of the highway towards the side of Ambala. The Reference Court had observed that property in Sector 17 was better developed as residential place while the property acquired was not. This aspect itself is not in controversy. Therefore, the property acquired which was the subject of award under Ex.P8 cannot be of the same value as the property acquired and the former was relatively superior to the property which is acquired. It must be noticed that the property which was the subject of Ex.P8 was with reference to acquisition notification made on 04.06.1997 while we are considering the acquisition notification on 28.04.1999. What would fall to be reduced by a relative superior value would be offset by the fact that we are considering a value of a property for a later period and therefore, there had to be a escalation at least 10 to 15% being an urban property. A parity in value ought to, therefore, obtain between the property dealt with under Ex.P8 and the property which is the subject of adjudication now.
9. The Court that determines compensation does not pull out of blue any data for valuation other than the documents which are brought for reckoning through evidence placed before the Court. Since I have held that Ex.P2 by itself cannot be the appropriate exemplar by RFA No.1955 of 2005 -8- the only fact that it is a transaction of more than 7 years prior to the date of notification and Ex.P8 was a transaction in relation to the very same town although formerly of a different village, since there is already a finding that the property in Section 17, which was covered under Ex.P8 was relatively more valuable being in a developed lay out, I am prepared to provide for a reduction at about 20% but considering that the property was for an acquisition of the year 1997, an escalation at about 10% per year would offset the reduction that it might require. The valuation would, therefore, be the valuation as taken under Ex.P8 as modified through the judgment of this Court in RFA No.476 of 2004.
10. The valuation taken through Ex.P8 was on the basis of sale deed by HUDA in favour of the Corporation Ex.P7 on 10.06.1997 where the property was reported to have been sold by HUDA without any further development charges at ` 750/- per square yard. The determination of compensation, which the Court had made, was on the basis of sale transaction between the Corporation, which ought to therefore mean that there was a certain transparency in the exercise of determination of price and there should not have been any scope for any stamp duty evasion to peg down prices and make artificial increase in price. The judicial pronouncements that set down proposition that the Courts would look for averaging of prices spread over a period of time has now swung in favour of highest price as the preferred norm in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (registered), Faridkot and others Vs. State of Punjab and others (2012) 5 SCC 432. This is, in some way, keeping the present atmosphere of public umbrage against indiscriminate acquisition by Government where the colonisers are seen as better RFA No.1955 of 2005 -9- beneficiaries than the land owners themselves. The most cherished sentiment for any individual is to hold on to property and if a compulsory acquisition is made through the State laws, it is only appropriate that the individual gets the best bargain. The determination of price, therefore, on the basis of Ex.P8 as modified by the judgment of this Court in relation to a property of the same town through a notification, which is made two years prior affords the best price that the land owners could depend on. I would accord to the land owners such benefit.
11. There was no argument advanced with reference to the valuation of structure in the property and therefore, the compensation as determined in that regard by the Reference Court is retained. There shall be enhancement of compensation @ ` 1560/- per square mtr payable to the land owners. The appeals by the State are, therefore, dismissed and all the appeals by the land owners stands allowed as above with all the statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 04, 2012 Pankaj*