Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jai Pal Singh & Anr vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 29 March, 2022
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
RFA-9727-2014 and -1-
other connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RFA-9727-2014 (O&M)
Date of decision: 29.03.2022
JAI PAL SINGH AND ANR. ....Appellants
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present- Mr. Aashish Chopra, Sr. Advocate
with Ms. Gurpreet Randhawa, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Pankaj Kaushik, Advocate
Mr. S.P. Chahar, Advocate
Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate
Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate
Mr. Sandeep Singal, Advocate
Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate
Ms. Anita Balyan, Advocate
Mr. Viresh Dahiya, Advocate
Mr. Deepak Girotra, Advocate
Mr. Govind Chauhan, Advocate
Mr. N.C. Kinra, Advocate
Mr. Harsh Kinra, Advocate
Mr. Pardeep Singh Poonia, Advocate
Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Ram Kumar Saini, Advocate
Mr. S.P. Khatri, Advocate
Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate
Mr. M.S. Rana, Advocate
Mr. M.S. Khillan, Advocate
Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate
Mr. Y.P. Malik, Advocate
Mr. Sudhir Hooda, Advocate
Mr. S.R. Hooda, Advocate
Mr. N.K. Malhotra, Advocate
Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate
Mr. Kamal Mor, Advocate
Mr. Saurabh Dalal, Advocate
for the landowners.
1 of 22
::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 12:42:02 :::
RFA-9727-2014 and -2-
other connected cases
Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, AAG, Haryana
and Ms. Vibha Tewari, AAG, Haryana.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. INTRODUCTION Through this batch of appeals (details whereof, are given at the foot of the judgment) filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') the landowners assail the correctness of the different awards passed by the Reference Court (hereinafter referred to as 'RC') on 10.03.2014, 14.08.2014, 05.09.2014 and 15.12.2016 respectively, while deciding the various reference applications filed u/s 18 of the 1894 Act. The notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act are common. The acquired land, in form of the compact block, is spread over 3 different revenue estates namely, Bohar, Bhaiyapur and Para. The land has been acquired for developing Sector 36, Rohtak. Through separate awards, the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'the LAC') has assessed the identical market value of the acquired land. The acquired land is surrounded as under:-
East Bypass road
North Railway Track
West Peripheral road 60 metres wide
South Sector 4
The evidence led by the parties is also more or less common. Most of the learned counsel representing the parties are not only common but are also ad idem that this batch of appeals can conveniently be disposed of by a single judgment.
2. FACTS 2.1 The relevant particulars are compiled as under:-
2 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 12:42:02 ::: RFA-9727-2014 and -3-
other connected cases 15.12.2006 Notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act was issued proposing to acquire land.
14.12.2007 Declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was issued. 09.12.2009 By three different awards no. 37, 38 and 39 with respect to Bhaiyyapur, (land measuring 48.23 acres), village Para (88.24 acres) and Bohar, (37.23 acres of land) was acquired. The LAC uniformly assessed the market value at the rate of Rs.20,00,000/- per acre with respect to the acquired land situated in all the three revenue estates. 10.03.2014 The Reference Court, while deciding the cases arising from village Bhaiyyapur dismissed the application under Section 18 of the 1894 Act.
14.08.2014 With respect to the acquired land located in Village Bohar, the RC dismissed the reference applications.
05.09.2014 With respect to the acquired land located in Village Para, the RC dismissed the reference applications.
15.12.2016 While deciding five reference applications with respect to the acquired land located in Village Bohar, the RC assessed the market value at the rate of Rs.23,33,000/-.
3. ORAL AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 3.1 EVIDENCE PRODUCED IN VILLAGE PARA:-
3.1.1 In the cases arising from the compulsory acquisition of the land in Village Para, the landowners examined PW-1 Abhishek Singh being the Authorized Representative of M/s Aparajita Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Besides the oral evidence, the following documents were placed on record; apart from the sale deeds, a tabulated compilation of which is provided in para No.3.4 of the judgment:-
Ex.P-7 Aks-sijra
Ex.P-8 Copy of Draft Development Plan/Master
Plan of Rohtak
3.1.2 The State of Haryana examined RW-1 Ram Niwas, Kanungo and
produced the following documents to prove their case apart from the sale deeds, a tabulated compilation of which is provided in para 3.4 of the judgment:-
3 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 12:42:02 ::: RFA-9727-2014 and -4-
other connected cases Ex.R-2 Copy of Notification under Section 4 of the Act Ex.R-3 Copy of Notification under Section 6 of the Act Ex.R-4 Copy of RR Policy Ex.R-5 Copy of Award No.38 dated 09.12.2009 Ex.R-12 Aks-sijra Plan Ex.R-13 Calculation sheet of sale deeds Ex.P-6 to Ex.P-11 3.2 EVIDENCE PRODUCED IN VILLAGE BOHAR 3.2.1 In Village Bohar, two separate awards were passed. In the file of award dated 14.08.2018, the landowners examined PW-1 Jaipal, whereas, the State of Haryana examined RW-1 Ram Niwas Kanungo and produced the following documentary evidence, apart from the sale deeds, a tabulated compilation of which is provided in para 3.4 of the judgment:-
Ex.R-1 Copy of Notification under Section 4 of the Act Ex.R-2 Copy of Notification under Section 6 of the Act Ex.R-3 Copy of Collector rate Ex.R-4 Copy of RR Policy Ex.R-5 Copy of Award No.39 dated 09.12.2009 3.2.2 In the record of award dated 15.12.2016, the landowners examined PW-1 Abhishek Singh son of Sh. Surender Singh and produced the following documents, on the other hand, the State of Haryana produced sale deeds, a tabulated compilation of which is provided in para 3.4 of the judgment:-
Ex.P1 Extracts of the minutes of meet of the Board of Directors of M/s Shivshambhu Constructions Ex.P7 Site Plan Ex.P8 Sajra Plan-cum-Sectoral Plan
4 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 12:42:02 ::: RFA-9727-2014 and -5- other connected cases 3.3 EVIDENCE PRODUCED IN VILLAGE BHAIYAPUR 3.3.1 In the cases arising from Village Bhaiyapur, the landowners examined PW-1 Sunil Kumar and produced three sale deeds, details whereof are extracted in para 3.4 of the judgment apart from a layout plan. The list of documents produced in Village Bhaiyapur is extracted as under:-
Ex.P-4 Copy of site plan The State of Haryana examined Ram Niwas Kanungo as RW-1 and produced the following documents, apart from the sale deeds, a tabulated compilation of which is provided in para 3.4 of the judgment:-
Ex.R-1 Copy of Notification
Ex.R-2 Copy of Notification
Ex.R-3 Copy of Collector Rate
Ex.R-4 Copy of Award
Ex.R-5 Copy of Oustees Policy
Ex.R-10 Copy of Aks-sijra
3.3.2 A tabulated compilation of the sale deeds produced by the
respective parties in the various villages namely: Para, Bohar and Bhaiyapur, has been compiled as under:-
VILLAGE: PARA (ROHTAK) Sr. Exhibit Sale Deed Total Area Price/Price pre acre Village No. Nos. Numbers/Date
1. P-2 171/10.04.2006 16K 71,00,000/35,50,000 Para P-6
2. P-6 1498/19.05.2006 4K-17M 24,25,000/40,00,000 Para P-3
3. P-1 1395/17.05.2006 10K-6.66M 54,89,600/42,50,150 Para
4. P-2 1803/29.05.2006 5K-6.6M 28,19,500/42,31,894 Para
5. P-3 1285/15.05.2006 17K-8.75M 92,63,671/42,49,999 Para 5 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 12:42:02 ::: RFA-9727-2014 and -6-
other connected cases
6. R-11 692/26.04.2005 123.33 sq. 55,500/21,78,058 Para yards
7. R-10 4358/18.08.2006 3K-13M 6,85,000/15,01,369 Para
8. R-7 8507/07.11.2005 12K-16M 8,00,000/5,00,000 Para
9. R-8 9017/18.11.2005 17M 53,500/5,03,529 Para
10. R-6 12990/14.02.2006 1K-14M 1,07,000/5,03,529 Para
11. R-9 3925/10.07.2007 2K 5,00,000/20,00,000 Para VILLAGE: BOHAR (ROHTAK) Sr. Exhibit Sale Deed Total Area Price/Price pre acre Village No. Nos. Numbers/Date
1. P-4 173/10.04.2006 33K-10M 1,48,65,625/35,50,000 Bohar P-4
2. P-5 174/10.04.2006 12K 53,25,000/35,50,000 Bohar P-2
3. P-3 172/10.04.2006 6K-8M 28,40,000/35,50,000 Bohar P-5
4. P-1 3067/03.07.2006 10K-9.88M 56,93,000/43,40,003 Bohar P-4
5. P-2 7840/08.12.2006 8K 45,00,000/45,00,000 Bohar
6. P-5 8576/29.12.2006 1A 41,50,000/41,50,000 Bohar
7. P-3 10157/13.02.2007 1A-1K- 58,45,625/47,00,000 Bohar 19M
8. R-12 1945/01.06.2006 1K-17M 1,16,000/5,01,621 Bohar
9. R-3 1168/05.05.2005 5K-18M 2,23,500/3,03,050 Bohar
10. R-7 1876/31.05.2006 10K-13M 6,66,000/5,00,281 Bohar
11. R-8 3278/10.07.2006 4K-11M 2,84,500/5,00,219 Bohar
12. R-9 3865/31.07.2006 16K 10,00,000/5,00,000 Bohar
13. R-10 4193/10.08.2006 09K-16.5M 9,85,000/8,14,249 Bohar
14. R-11 4196/10.08.2006 7K-12.75M 3,85,000/4,03,273 Bohar
15. R-4 9503/14.01.2005 7K-12M 3,35,000/3,52,631 Bohar
16. R-6 10171/08.02.2005 4K-7M 1,39,000/2,55,632 Bohar
17. R-2 11185/09.03.2005 16K 7,10,000/3,55,000 Bohar
18. R-1 11446/16.03.2005 10M 16,000/2,56,000 Bohar
19. R-5 12460/31.01.2006 1K-10M 52,500/2,80,000 Bohar
20. R-13 14144/13.03.2006 1K-9M 43,000/2,37,241 Bohar
21. R-6 14145/13.03.2006 15K-12M 4,59,000/2,35,384 Bohar 6 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 12:42:02 ::: RFA-9727-2014 and -7- other connected cases VILLAGE: BHAIYAPUR (ROHTAK) AWARD DATED 10.03.2014 Sr. Exhibit Sale Deed Total Area Price/ Price Per Village No. Nos. Number/Date Acre
1. R-6 1491/09.05.2007 2K 4,50,000/18,00,000 Bhaiyapur
2. R-7 2711/08.06.2007 90 Sq. 36,000/19,36,000 Bhaiyapur Yards
3. R-8 2714/08.06.2007 357 Sq. 1,43,000/19,38,711 Bhaiyapur Yards
4. R-9 2716/08.06.2007 579 Sq. 2,32,000/19,39,343 Bhaiyapur Yards
4. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPECTIVE COUNSELS 4.1 This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the awards passed by the RC on 10.03.2014, 14.08.2014, 05.09.2014 and 15.12.2016, along with the record of evidence produced by the respective parties before all the four RCs. They have also filed synopsis along with the gist of their arguments. 4.2 The various learned counsel representing the landowners while criticizing the various awards passed by the RC referred to above have contended that while assessing the market value of the acquired land, the RC has erred in applying deduction at the rate of 38% from the base market value of the acquired land. While elaborating, they contend that the RC even after recording a finding that comparable sale exemplars of contemporaneous period have been produced, proceeded to apply deduction at the rate of 38%. The learned counsel while relying upon the judgment passed in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust Vs. State of Punjab 2012 (5) SCC 432, contend that the landowners are entitled to the highest price, out of the comparable sale exemplars that are 7 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 12:42:02 ::: RFA-9727-2014 and -8- other connected cases produced in evidence. In Village Para, the land measuring 2 acre vide sale deed No.171, dated 10.04.2006, which is with respect to the acquired land, has been sold at the rate of Rs.35,50,000/-. The sale deeds No.172 and 173, dated 10.04.2006, with respect to the land measuring 6 kanals 8 marlas and 33 kanals 10 marlas, respectively, located in Village Bohar are also with respect to the acquired land. The per acre rate of these sale instances also comes to Rs.35,50,000/-. Further, while drawing attention of the Court to Sale deed No.1498 dated 19.05.2006, with respect to 4 kanals 17 marlas, land located in Village Para, they contend that the land has been sold at the rate of Rs.40,00,000/- per acre. It has been pointed out that this sale instance is also with respect to the acquired land.
4.3 Per contra, the learned State counsel while contending that the sale deeds of land located in one village cannot be considered for assessing the market value of the acquired land located in some other village particularly when the sale instances of the same village are available for consideration. She has further stated that the cases should be decided village wise i.e. according to the sale exemplar of the similar village.
4.4 It has further been pointed out that the deduction on account of development cost should not be less than 50%, because a very large chunk of land has been acquired. While referring to the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Lal Chand vs Union of India and another (2009)15 SCC 769, she contends that the sale deeds produced by the State have been wrongly ignored by the RC.
5. ANALYSIS OF REASONS GIVEN IN VARIOUS REFERENCE AWARDS 8 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 12:42:02 ::: RFA-9727-2014 and -9- other connected cases This Bench now proceeds to examine the reasons recorded by the RC in each of the award.
5.1 ANALYSIS OF AWARD DATED 10.03.2014 5.1.1 In the award dated 10.03.2014, while deciding the cases of village Bhaiyapur, the RC after noticing that the landowners have produced three sale deeds of various parcels of land located in Village Para, refused to rely upon the same on the ground that these sale deeds are of a land located in different villages. Whereas, the sale deeds produced by the State have been ignored on the ground that these are reflecting a price lower than the market value assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector.
5.2 ANALYSIS OF AWARD DATED 14.03.2014 5.2.1 It is obvious that both the reasons assigned by the RC are erroneous. The Court should have examined the matter comprehensively and thoroughly. The Court should have been conscious of the fact that the acquired land is in a rectangular shaped compact block. Hence, the sale deeds of the land located in Village Para could not be ignored, particularly when the land of Village Para has also been acquired. Similarly, the RC has also erred in refusing to take into consideration the sale exemplars Ex.R-6 to R-9 by misinterpreting Section 25 of the 1894 Act. This matter is no longer res integra as the Supreme Court in Lal Chand's case (supra), has already laid down that the sale deeds reflecting a price lower than the price assessed by the LAC, cannot be kept out of consideration.
5.3 ANALYSIS OF AWARD DATED 14.08.2014
(I) REASONS
5.3.1 In award dated 14.08.2014, while deciding the cases of village
9 of 22
::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 12:42:02 :::
RFA-9727-2014 and -10-
other connected cases
Bohar, the RC after noticing that the landowners have produced various sale deeds of the various parcels of land located in village Bohar, has refused to rely upon the same on the ground that these sale instances show that the builders and colonizers have purchased these various parcels of the land. PW-1 Jai Pal also admits that the land was not being used for agricultural purposes. Therefore, the RC held that the sale deeds cannot be relied upon to assess the market value of the acquired land. The Court also ignored the sale deeds produced by the State on the ground that the price of the land is less than the amount assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector and therefore, in view of Section 25 of the 1894 Act, the same cannot be taken into consideration.
(II) ANALYSIS OF THE AFORESAID AWARD 5.3.2 If the acquired land was not being used for agriculture purpose and
is sufficiently big parcels of land were being purchased by the developers/colonizers before the issuance of notification under Section 4, the sale deeds could not be ignored merely on the ground that the various parcels of the land have been purchased by the builders/colonizers. If the acquired area had come within the city or very close to the city, and the developers/colonizers had started purchasing the land on large scale then the landowners cannot be deprived the benefit thereof. The RC has erred in ignoring the sale deeds only on this count. The Court has further erred in misinterpreting Section 25 of the 1894 Act while ignoring the sale deeds produced by the State. It has been consistently held that the sale deeds produced in evidence before the RC cannot be kept out of consideration only on the ground that these sale instances reflect price lesser than the amount awarded by the LAC. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Lal Chand's case (supra).
10 of 22
::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 12:42:02 :::
RFA-9727-2014 and -11-
other connected cases
5.4 ANALYSIS OF AWARD DATED 05.09.2014
5.4.1 In the record of award dated 05.09.2014, passed by the RC while
deciding the cases arising from village Para, the same Presiding Judge has recorded exactly the same reasons as were recorded in the award dated 14.08.2014. Hence, it would not be appropriate to repeat the reasons recorded by the RC and the analysis of the Court.
5.5 ANALYSIS OF AWARD DATED 15.12.2016 (I) REASONS 5.5.1 In the record of RC in award dated 15.12.2016, while deciding
remaining cases of village Bohar, it has been found that the sale deed Nos.172, 173 and 174, dated 10.04.2006 (Ex.P-3 to Ex.P-6), respectively, are relevant, being proximate to the acquired land. The RC further observed that no reliance on the award dated 14.08.2014, passed by the RC can be placed. Thereafter, the Court proceeded to discuss the deduction on account of factors that includes development of infrastructure, development expenditure and the waiting period. After taking average of the price of sale deeds No.172, 173 and 174, dated 10.04.2006, at the rate of Rs.35,50,000/- per acre, the RC proceeded to apply deduction of 38%. Taking into consideration, the 8 months' gap the Court escalated the price at the rate of 9% per annum to Rs.37,63,000/- and, thereafter, applied deduction of 38% to arrive at a figure of Rs.23,33,000/- per acre.
(II) ANALYSIS OF THE AFORESAID AWARD 5.5.2 In the considered opinion of the Court, the RC has erred in the
facts of the present case while taking note of the average price of the sale deeds No.172, 173 and 174, dated 10.04.2006. The RC also erred in overlooking the 11 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 12:42:02 ::: RFA-9727-2014 and -12- other connected cases fact that sufficiently big parcels of land have been sold through the various sale instances. Therefore, these sale instances which are not only comparable but are related to the contemporaneous period were correctly relied upon. However, it was not appropriate for the RC to apply deduction of 38% on account of various factors as noticed above. The detailed reasons will be discussed in the later part of this judgment.
6. DISCUSSION BY THIS COURT:-
6.1 It may be noted here that certain layout plans/sectoral plan of Sector 36 prepared by the officials of the Haryana Urban Development Authority has been produced, however, it was considered appropriate to have a look at a compact layout plan while identifying the location of the various parcels of land sold through various sale deeds produced by the respective parties. Hence, with the consent of the learned counsel representing the parties, the revenue Patwari of the village (Government official) was requested to place on file the layout plan which was taken on record as Ex.HC-1. On careful perusal thereof, it is evident that the acquired land for Sector 36 is located on the South of the Northern bypass road that is under construction, which is planned to be 75 metre wide. On the Western side there is a railway track and then there is Sector 36 A. On the Southern side, Sector 5 is located. On the Eastern side, Sector 35 is located. Furthermore, it is evident that the sale deed No.174 dated 10.04.2006, with respect to land comprised in Rectangle No.29, Khasra No.16, 17 and 25, measuring 12 kanals has been sold at the rate of Rs.35,50,000/- per acre. This forms part of the acquired land. Similarly, out of sale deed No.173 dated 10.04.2006, with respect to the land measuring 33 kanals 10 marlas sold at the average rate of Rs.35,50,000/- per acre, land 12 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 12:42:02 ::: RFA-9727-2014 and -13-
other connected cases comprised in Rectangle No.28, Khasra No.20 has been acquired. Similarly, in village Para the land sold through sale deed No.171, dated 10.04.2006, with respect to 16 kanals land has been sold at an average per acre price of Rs.35,50,000/-. Even sale deed No.1498 dated 19.05.2006, with respect to 4 kanals 17 marlas land, which is also a part of the acquired land has been sold at the rate of Rs.40,00,000/- per acre.
6.2 Further, a bare look at the layout plan, it is evident that none of the sale deeds produced by the State is either not with respect to the acquired land or is with respect to the land located near the acquired land. Hence, the aforesaid sale deeds have been correctly ignored although for different reasons. There is only one sale instance Ex.R-8 with respect to the land located in village Para. This is with respect to a very small parcel of land measuring 17 marlas only. Hence, the same sale instance cannot be said to be comparable sale exemplar with respect to the acquired land.
6.3 By now, it is well settled that the landowners are entitled to the highest/best price. The sale deed No.1498, dated 19.05.2006, is with respect to an area little more than half acre. This parcel of land is located right in the middle of the acquired land as per Ex.HC-1. This sale instance is 7 months' prior to the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. It is important to note that sale deed Nos.171, 172, 173 prove that the land was being sold at the rate of Rs.35,50,000/- and within one month and there was an increase in the price as the various developers had started purchasing the property in order to convert the land into colonies.
6.4 Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, it is considered appropriate to rely upon the highest sale exemplar while determining the price. While deciding 13 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 12:42:02 ::: RFA-9727-2014 and -14- other connected cases M/s Satkarta Realtors (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and other, Regular First Appeal No.458 of 2016, decided on 02.03.2012, this Court while relying upon the various judgments passed by the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"6.10 Further, it is by now well settled that the landowners are entitled to the highest price fetched by the various owners of comparable sale deed during contemporaneous period. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the following observations made in M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur v. Collector 1969 Madras Law Journal, 45 (SC) :-
"46-47 It seems to us that there is substance in the first contention of Mr Ram Reddy. After all when the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to say that he should be given the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. It is not disputed that the transaction represented by Ext. R-19 was a few months prior to the notification under Section 4 that it was a bona fide transaction and that it was entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller. The land comprised in the sale deed is 11 grounds and was sold at Rs. 1961 per ground. The land covered by Ext. R-27 was also sold before the notification but after the land comprised in Ext. R-19 was sold. It is true that this land was sold at Rs. 1096 per ground. This, however, is apparently because of two circumstances. One is that betterment levy at Rs. 500 per ground had to be paid by the vendee and the other that the land comprised in it is very much more extensive, that is about 93 grounds or so. Whatever that may be, it seems to us to be only fair that where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, that representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. In any case we see no reason why an average of two sale deeds should have been taken in this case."
6.11 Similarly, while deciding Anjani Molu Dessai 14 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 12:42:02 ::: RFA-9727-2014 and -15- other connected cases vs. State of Goa 2010 (13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court, once again, re-interated the same principle in the following manner:-
20. The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered. Where however there are several sales of similar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of undervaluation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently, averaging cannot be resorted to. We may refer to two decisions of this Court in this behalf.
6.12 In Mehrawal Khewaji Trust's case (supra), it has been held as under:-
"17.It is clear that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied that it is a bona fide transaction, has to be considered and accepted. When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. In our view, it seems to be only fair that where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, the transaction representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. It is not desirable to take an average of various sale deeds placed before the authority/court for fixing fair compensation."
6.5 Now, this Bench proceeds to examine the justification of the Court to deduct 38% from the average base value calculated by the RC. This Bench has already discussed the matter at length in Jai Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, Regular First Appeal No.3000 of 2016, decided on 15.11.2021, in the following manner:-
15 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 12:42:02 ::: RFA-9727-2014 and -16-
other connected cases "7.14 The principle underlined by all these judgments is that while assessing the market value, the court is required to apply the wisdom of a common man and arrive at a figure which a willing seller will get from a voluntary purchaser for the property. Once the market value of the acquired agricultural land is being assessed and many sales exemplars of considerably big sized plots of the agricultural land are available, the application of cut/deduction for development, in the considered opinion of the Court, is not justified unless the court is assessing the market value of a land where the sale exemplars produced before the Court are of relatively small sized plots or are being used for residential, commercial or industrial purposes. The deduction can be applied when comparable sale exemplar is of a plot of a very small size as compared to the acquired land in order to moderate the difference between wholesale and retail prices as observed by the Supreme court in judgment passed in Lal Chand (supra). The appropriate percentage of cut can also be applied if the sale exemplar is of a plot which was being used or was capable of being used for different purposes like residential, commercial or industrial. The development cut can also be applied when the comparable sale exemplar is of a plot which is located at a key position like near the road, market, developed residential colony or commercial establishments. There can be more than one reasons to apply the development cut. However, if the price is reduced while assessing the market value of the acquired land, without observing the aforesaid principles while making the deduction in the facts and circumstances of the individual cases, it shall be against the statutory intendment. In a case where the court is making an assessment with respect to an undeveloped acquired land as an undeveloped area and the sale exemplar produced for such determination is also of an undeveloped piece of land of reasonable size, then any deduction which is made on account of development work or development cost, in the considered opinion of this Court, shall not be considered appropriate. This can be explained by an example. Hypothetically, if a farmer purchases a sufficiently large chunk of land just before the notification under Section 4. On the acquisition of the land purchased, he is likely to produce the sale exemplar of the land purchased by him. If the court treats the sale exemplar as the base value and thereafter applies a cut or deduction on account of development cut or development cost per se, he shall stand deprived of the market value paid by him while purchasing the land. It would be against the spirit/intention of the Act.
While assessing the market value of the undeveloped/agricultural land, the court is not required to 16 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 12:42:02 ::: RFA-9727-2014 and -17- other connected cases work out the market value of the developed land or plot. In such circumstances, the application of development cut in the considered opinion of the court would not be appropriate and justified. The cut/deduction is applied by the courts in order to arrive at a correct figure representing the true market value of the acquired land on the relevant date. This method has been devised by the Courts in order to tide over the situations where exactly comparable sale exemplars of contemporaneous period are not available. The court, while making adjustments or treating the prices of the developed plots of smaller size as the base, endeavours to work out the fair market value of the acquired land.
7.15 This matter can be examined from another angle. The intention of the legislature is not to put the landowners who stand deprived of the land through double whammy. On the one hand, their immovable property is compulsorily taken away, whereas on the other hand, they are not being compensated adequately due to the deduction towards the development. This cannot be the intention of the legislature. The fundamental intention of the Legislature has always been to make the land laws fair, just and reasonable towards the sufferers of compulsory land acquisition.
7.16 Once a large chunk of agricultural land is being acquired for carving out a residential/commercial or industrial colony and the sale exemplars of plots of reasonable size of agricultural land are available, then in the considered opinion of this Court, it would not be appropriate to apply a development cut for the purpose of assessment either towards development cost or towards the area to be used for passages, roads, drains, parks etc. The landowner stands in the shoes of a loser even if some part of the acquired land is being used for providing common facilities. The landowner does not gain anything exclusively on account of reservation of land for common facilities. In fact, the landowner suffers a dual loss. On the one hand, he is deprived of the acquired land and on the other hand, he does not receive a fair and appropriate amount towards the involuntary deprivation.
7.17 There is yet another aspect of the matter. The development agency/organization/colonizer or the government do not sell the developed plots on the market value assessed by the court. The plots are sold while determining price on basis of the demand and supply. Usually, the plots are sold on the basis of price determined on per sq. feet or per sq. yard. basis and not on per acre. Therefore, certain percentage of land utilized for carrying out development activities like passages, roads, drains, parks etc. is to be accounted for by the developer and not the landowner. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, 17 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 12:42:02 ::: RFA-9727-2014 and -18- other connected cases the development cost incurred or to be incurred for providing common facilities is also required to be borne by the developer.
7.18 It is well settled that while assessing the market value, the court is required to adopt a pragmatic approach. The landowners who stand deprived of the property cannot be permitted to be denied of an adequate and just compensation as well. This is the responsibility of the courts to see that the landowners are adequately compensated. The learned counsel representing the parties have failed to draw the attention of the court to any precedent which lays down that while assessing the market value, the application of development cut or deduction on the base value is mandatory."
6.6 The learned counsel representing the State of Haryana has relied upon certain additional judgments which have also been discussed while deciding the various appeals in Sant Ram and other Vs. State of Haryana and others, Regular First Appeal No.6193 of 2015, decided on 17.02.2022. in the following manner:-
"5.3.1 This Court has carefully and respectfully read the judgments relied upon by the State's counsel. In Ram Kanwar's case (Supra), the Supreme Court while upholding the order of the High Court noticed that there was an abnormal increase of more than 100% within a period of less than four months. In that context, the Court observed that such a sale deed could not be relied upon without making the necessary deductions to assess the market value at par with the estimated market value of the acquired land. In the respectful opinion of the Court, such observations do not mean that in each and every case, the deduction/cut is mandatory. This Bench has also carefully read the judgment passed in Kasturi (Supra) in which the land was acquired to develop Sectors 13 and 23 at Bhiwani. The High Court relied upon the sale instance (Ex. P-7) with respect to land measuring 3 Kanal located on the main road which is claimed to be have the potential to be used for commercial purposes. The High Court applied a deduction of 20% after finding that the sale instance relied upon is not similar to the acquired land. The Supreme Court, while dismissing the appeal, approved the decision of the High Court. In the considered opinion of the court, the Supreme Court approved the decision of the High Court on the ground that there was a dissimilarity between the parcel of land covered 18 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 12:42:02 ::: RFA-9727-2014 and -19- other connected cases by the sale instance and the acquired land. In the humble opinion of this Court, the aforesaid judgments in Ram Kanwar's case (supra) and Kasturi's case (supra) do not, as a ratio decidendi, lay down, that even if the comparable sale exemplars of contemporaneous period have been produced, still, it is necessary to apply some amount of deduction. Deduction is to be applied in a case where the Court finds that there is a dissimilarity between the acquired land and the land sold through the concerned sale exemplar."
6.7 It may be noted here that the acquired land is in a compact rectangular block of land. No doubt, the acquired land is located in three different villages, however, it is evident that out of the acquired land a very small parcel of land is acquired from village Bhaiyapur. On the other hand, a major chunk of the acquired land is taken from village Para. From village Bohar, comparatively, a small parcel of land has been acquired. There is no physical boundary between the land of the various villages. If the landowners are different in the contiguous villages, then the land in the each village can be identified by a boundary line which is only a few inches above the ground, prepared with mud. On the boundary line, only one person can barely walk at one point of time. Further, there is no material to prove that when all other parameters are equal, only with the location of land in one village or the other, the market value changes significantly.
6.8 As already noticed, the acquired land is not only contiguous but also a compact rectangular block. Hence, it would not be appropriate to make any distinction while assessing the market value of the acquired land located in the various villages.
6.9 As already noticed, the most appropriate sale exemplar is sale deed No.1498, dated 19.05.2006, which reflects per acre price at the rate of Rs.40,00,000/-. There is a gap of 7 months' between the same exemplar and the 19 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 12:42:02 ::: RFA-9727-2014 and -20- other connected cases notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. Therefore, the price is increased at the rate of 10% per annum. Hence, the base value of Rs.40,00,000/- shall be liable to be increased by 6%. Accordingly, the price is worked out at Rs.42,40,000/- per acre.
7. DECISION:-
7.1 Consequently, the appeals filed by the landowners are allowed and they are held entitled to the amount along with all the statutory benefits under the amended Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
March 29th, 2022 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Sr. No. Case No. Party name
1. RFA-8355-2014 RISHIPAL V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
2. RFA-2055-2015 M/S SHARAD FARMS & HOLDING PVT LTD V/S
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS
3. RFA-2054-2015 M/S PITAMBER PROJECTS PVT LTD V/S STATE
OF HARYANA & ORS
4. RFA-2056-2015 M/S PUSHPAK COLONIZERS PVT LTD V/S
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS
5. RFA-2052-2015 M/S APARAJITA REALTORS PVT LTD V/S
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS
6. RFA-2050-2015 M/S UJJAWAL BUILDWELL PVT LTD V/S STATE
OF HARYANA & ORS
7. RFA-2051-2015 M/S SONIKA PROPERTIES PVT LTD V/S STATE
OF HARYANA & ORS
8. RFA-2053-2015 M/S APARAJITA BUILDCON PVT LTD V/S
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS
9. RFA-2139-2015 M/S UJJAWAL COLONIZERS PVT LTD V/S
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS
20 of 22
::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 12:42:02 :::
RFA-9727-2014 and -21-
other connected cases
10. RFA-10187-2014 SURESH KUMAR V/S STATE OF HARYANA & ORS
11. RFA-10184-2014 SATISH KUMAR V/S STATE OF HARYANA & ORS
12. RFA-9727-2014 JAI PAL SINGH & ANR V/S STATE OF HARYANA & ORS
13. RFA-10183-2014 AZAD SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
14. RFA-10186-2014 SUNIL KUMAR V/S STATE OF HARYANA & ORS
15. RFA-10185-2014 SHIV KUMAR V/S STATE OF HARYANA & ORS
16. RFA-123-2016 SATBIR SINGH AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
17. RFA-1378-2017 M/S SATKARTAR REALTORS PVT. LTD. V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
18. RFA-1380-2017 M/S SHIVSHAMBHU CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD. V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
19. RFA-1379-2017 M/S GOVERDHAN PROJECTS PVT. LTD. V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
20. RFA-1381-2017 M/S HARIHAR REALTORS PVT. LTD. V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
21. RFA-1382-2017 M/S SURYAPRABHA BUILDWELL PVT.LTD. V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
22. RFA-8399-2018 SHANTI DEVI AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
23. RFA-22-2015 TEJBIR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
24. RFA-23-2015 TEJBIR V/S STATE OF HARYANA ETC
25. RFA-10670-2014 RAM CHANDER & ANR V/S STATE OF HARYANA & ORS
26. RFA-620-2016 HOSHIYAR SINGH ETC. V/S STATE OF HARYANA ETC.
27. RFA-8352-2014 MAHESH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
28. RFA-8337-2014 RUMALI @ KUMALI V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
29. RFA-8339-2014 SURAJ BHAN AND ANR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 21 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 12:42:02 ::: RFA-9727-2014 and -22-
other connected cases
30. RFA-8341-2014 DEVENDER THR. HIS GPA V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
31. RFA-8344-2014 ANAND V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
32. RFA-8348-2014 RAM PARKASH THR. GPA V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
33. RFA-8349-2014 ROHTAS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
34. RFA-8350-2014 SURENDER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
35. RFA-8338-2014 SUDESH AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
36. RFA-8340-2014 RAMPAL V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
37. RFA-8342-2014 YOGENDER THR. HIS GPA V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
38. RFA-8343-2014 KRISHAN LAL V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
39. RFA-8345-2014 DALJEET THR. HIS GPA V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
40. RFA-8346-2014 SRIPAL THR. HIS GPA V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
41. RFA-8347-2014 SURJEET V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
42. RFA-8351-2014 CHHANNO THR. HER GPA V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
43. RFA-8353-2014 AMAN THR. HIS GPA V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
44. RFA-8354-2014 RAM KUMAR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
45. RFA-561-2016 HOSHIYAR SINGH AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
46. RFA-2057-2015 M/S SURYANCHAL COLONIZERS PVT LTD V/S STATE OF HARYANA & ORS
47. RFA-5934-2015 KEHARI DECEASED THRO LRS V/S STATE OF HARYANA ETC
48. RFA-8682-2014 INDERJIT V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR (ANIL KSHETARPAL) JUDGE 22 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 12:42:02 :::