Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhagat Sarup And Anr. vs Haryana State And Ors. on 2 July, 2004
Equivalent citations: (2004)138PLR441, 2004 A I H C 4142, (2004) 2 LACC 499, (2005) 1 LANDLR 268, (2004) 3 PUN LR 441, (2004) 4 RECCIVR 261, (2004) 4 ICC 835
JUDGMENT M.M. Kumar, J.
1. The claimant-appellants have filed three appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, 'the Act) registered as R.F.A. Nos. 331 to 333 of 1987. The State has also filed three appeals registered as R.F.A. Nos.962 to 964 of 1987. In both set of appeals challenge is to the judgment dated 20.11.1986 passed by the Additional District Judge, Hisar enhancing the compensation to Rs.27,750/- per acre of the acquired land under Section 18 of the Act as against the award of the Collector, Hisar awarding Rs. 18,000/- per acre for Banjar Kadim and Rs.19,800/- per acre for Nehri land.
2. Facts in brief may first be noticed. State of Haryana issued a notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Act on 15.9.1976 expressing the intention to acquire the land for a public purpose although possession had already been obtained on 10.6.1976 because of urgency as postulated in Section 17 of the Act. The first award was announced on 28.8.1978 being Award No.70/3 in respect of the land measuring 5 kanals 7 marlas (3237 yards). The type of the land was Banjar Kadim. The second award No. 117 supplementary in respect of land measuring 1 kanals 13 marlas (998.25 yards), which was also Banjar Kadim was announced on 29.9.1978. The third award No.79 in respect of 5 kanals 7 marlas (3237 yards) was announced on 25.11.1981 and the type of land was Nehri land.. The market value in respect of Banjar Kadim land was assessed at Rs. 18,000/ per acre i.e. Rs.3.70 Paise per square yard and Rs.19,800/- for Nehri land i.e. Rs. 4.10 Paise per square yards. The claimant-appellants feeling aggrieved sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation and relied upon various sale instances including Ex.P7 a sale deed in respect of a part of the acquired land.
3. On the basis of Ex.P7 read with oral statement the learned Additional District Judge has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.27,750/- per acre by treating the entire land as agricultural. It comes to Rs.5.73 Paise per square yard. He has discarded the sale instances Exs.P8 to P10, P12 and P13 on the ground that the land which was subject matter of sale deeds Exs.P8 to P10, P12 and P13 was situated near the Bus Stand which was a very busy locality. It was further held that there was no comparison between those sale deeds and the acquired land as it was situated on the other side of the canal The learned Judge concluded that the acquired land lacked the potential of developing into an urban locality because of its location. Views of the learned Additional District Judge with regard to the market value of the land and the potential of developing the land into urban locality reads as under:-
"I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel on this aspect and I agree with the learned Govt. Pleader that the land did not have the potential of developing into an urban locality because of its location. Site plan Ex.P4 has been placed on record on behalf of the petitioners whose land had been shown at points A.B.C. and D. It is not disputed that by the side of the petitioners' land a canal already existed and that the petitioners' land was also acquired for more or less similar purpose i.e. B.N.C. feeder. Bus Stand, Hansi has been shown to be at a distance of 1980 feet from the acquired land. In other words, the land of the petitioners is on one corner whereas the Bus Stand is on the other corner. In between, there is all agricultural land. There is no Abadi. On one side, there is H.W.E.B. Officers Colony but that is the only Colony nearby and that also across the canal. Model Town is also located at a distance of 1980 feet across the canal. On the other aide of the canal and the petitioners' land one godown and one house has been shown but these are scattered constructions. From these one cannot come to the conclusion that the petitioners' land had the potential of developing into an urban locality. In fact the existence of the canal already by the side of the petitioners land was a great hurdle and could never make the petitioner land acquire the urban character. Some part of this land had been purchased by the petitioners in 1970 and the remaining was already with them. In the sale deed, it had been mentioned that it had been acquired for construction. The land was acquired somewhere in 1976. If the same could be developed into an urban locality, nothing prevented the petitioners from raising constructions as it was acquired six years later and at the time of purchase there would be no anticipation of it being acquired. Stray construction on either side of the petitioners land is not considered sufficient to raise the potential of the land which was essentially agricultural as cultivation was being done at the time of acquisition. I am, therefore, of the view that the land has been rightly treated as agricultural and assessed on that basis."
The learned Additional District Judge then discussed the various sale instances produced in evidence by the claimant-appellants and relied upon only Ex.P7 which relate to the sale of pail of the acquired land. The sale instances represented by Exs.P8 to P10, PI2 and P13 were rejected by observing as under:-
" As far as remaining instances Ex.P8, P9, P10, P12 and P13 are concerned their location has been shown and they are all near the vicinity of Bus Stand, Hansi which is a busy locality and Market is also nearby. There can be no comparison between the value of the petitioners' land and these instances because of their location. In between these two, there is only land and no abadi. It is not understood as to how these can form the basis of determining the market value of the land of the petitioners. This then leaves this court with Ex.P7. Vise Ex.P7, part of the acquired land was purchased by the petitioners on 9.3.1971. Ex.P7 is the original sale deed. 5 kanals 7 Marlas of land was purchased for sum of Rs.l 1,000/-. A sum of Rs. l100/-was spent on the non-judicial stamp papers and another sum of about Rs.250/- on registration. In other words, the total price of the land was about Rs. l2,350/-. It is not disputed that the land covered by this transaction is part of the acquired land. The rate of this land comes to Rs. 18,500/- per acre. This to my mind furnishes the best instance for determining the market value because it forms part of the acquired land which was purchased by the petitioners in 1971 for a sum of Rs. 12,350/- at a rate of Rs.l8,500/-per acre. Apart from 5 Kanals 7 Marlas which is the subject matter of Ex.PC, the other land of the Petitioners which has been acquired is adjacent to this land and there is no reason why they should not be given the compensation basing it on Ex.P7."
The other sale instances Exs.Pll, P14 and P15 have been discarded on the ground that their location had not been pointed out in the site plan Ex.P4. In this regard, the views of the learned Additional District judge reads as under:-
" No location has been indicated as far as Ex.P11 is concerned. However, the sale transaction is dated 3Q.4.65 and the rate comes to Rs.5/- per square yard. Ex.P12 is at No. 6 in Ex.P4 It is dated 14.1.1969 and the rate comes to Rs. 17/- per square yard. Ex.P13 is at No.7 in Ex.P4. It is dated 4.11.71 and the rate comes to Rs.25/- per square yard. Ex,P4 has not been shown to have been located in the site plan and the rate comes to Rs.19/- per square yard. Similarly Ex.P15 has also not been located in the site plan nor any evidence led to show as to where it is located. It is dated 10.4.73 and the rate comes to Rs.50/- per square yard. Thus, as far as Exs.Pl 1, P14 and P15 are concerned, nothing has come on record as to where these are located. These are, therefore, ruled out of consideration."
4. Mr. Sanjay Bansal, learned counsel for the claimant-appellants has argued that the acquired land has every potential to be developed as urban land which is borne out from the material evidence on record. He has referred to the following statements as well documents in respect of his arguments, namely, (a) the acquired land is within the municipal limits of Hansi and the claimant-appellants have been paying the house tax for the same as per the unchallenged testimony of one of the claimants Shri Ram Niwas who appeared as PW-5; (b) admittedly, the acquired land is situated in Ward No. 17 within the municipal limits of Hansi town as per the unchallenged testimony of Charan Dass, House Tax Clerk, Hansi who has appeared as PW-3. According to him there is abadi around the Bus stand which is also in Ward No. 17; (c) the statements of PW-1 to PW-4 are of unimpeachable character alongwith the site plan Ex.P4 duly proved on record of the case go to prove That the acquired land is surrounded by, inter alia, the Bus Stand, Patwari Colony, HSEB Colony, Power House, Model Town on one side, Ram Singh Colony, houses and godown on the other side showing great pressure of building activity towards and around it; (d) the unchallenged testimony of Nand Lal, Patwari, Halqa No .4, Hansi proves that acquired land is about 11 Killas i.e. 11 x 70 = 770 yards from Bus Stand. There are shops in front of the Bus stand. The acquired land is about 9 Killas i.e. 9x90=630 yards from Model Town, Hansi. Similarly, power house is four killas i.e. 4/70 = 280 yards and Patwari Colony is 3 Killas i.e. 3 x 70 = 210 yards away from the acquired land.
5. Mr. Bansal has further argued that the State-appellant has failed to produce any evidence to controvert the statements made by PW1 to PW4 and the facts discernible from the site plan Ex.P4. According to the learned counsel, the view taken by the learned Additional District Judge that the acquired land has to be treated as agricultural land is contrary to the statements of PW1 to PW4 and being perverse, the findings are liable to be reversed. The learned counsel has maintained that the acquired land deserves to be evaluated at a rate based primarily on its urban potentiality as was held by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Bakshi Ram Jain and others v. State of Haryana and others, 1 (1997-3)117 P.L.R. 831.
6. The learned counsel has still further argued that the sale instances produced by the claimant-appellants such as Exs.Pl to P.3, P8 to P10, P12 and P13 could not be legally ruled out of consideration merely because the acquired land is situated on the other side of the canal. The learned counsel has placed reliance on two judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Revinder Narain and another v. Union of India,2 A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 1987 and Bhagwathula Samanna and others v. Special Tehsildar and Land Acquisition Officer Visakhapatnam Municipality, Visakhapatnam? (1991)4 S.C.C. 506 and argued that even the sale instances in respect of small pieces of land Exs.Pl to P3 auctioned by the Improvement Trust would become relevant. The valuation has to be assessed by applying a suitable cut in lieu of development and other charges. The learned counsel has stressed that a bare perusal of the site plan Ex.P4 and the statement of PW-5 Ram Niwas would establish beyond doubt that the plots referred in Exs.Pl to P3 are hardly at a distance of 600-700 yards and in fact adjacent to the acquired land. He has also relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Shri Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana and others,4 1980 P.L.J. 77 to argue that a claimant is entitled to the market value on the basis of sale deeds fetching highest value. The learned counsel has also disputed the wisdom of learned Additional District Judge in giving only 50 per cent increase to the value of the land revealed by Ex.P7 in the year 1971. He has submitted that this Court has allowed an increase of Rs. l/- per square yard per year in the case of Puran v. State of Haryana, through LA.C.,5 (1986-2)90 P.L.R. 59 and an increase of Rs.2.50 Paise per square yard per year in the case of Sumer Chand Jain v. State of Haryana,6 1986(1) Current Law Journal 45 was allowed. He has also referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of Inder Singh v. State of Punjab,7 (1988-2)94 P.L.R.. 190 wherein an increase of 12 per cent per annum per year was considered appropriate for the purposes of calculating compensation.
7. The learned counsel has also pressed the application for additional evidence and pointed out that in the judgment Annexure Al titled Balwant Singh Gupta and others v. Hansi Improvement Trust, Hansi and others, rendered by the Tribunal, Improvement Trust, Hisar, the amount of compensation awarded is Rs.75/- per square yard by the Collector and on reference made to the Tribunal, it was increased to Rs. 180/- per square yard. The learned counsel has maintained that the land in Balwant Singh Gupta's case (supra) was acquired in the year 1974, whereas the land of the claimant-appellants was acquired in the year 1976 after the Improvement Trust had acquired the land. The land in Balwant Singh Gupta's case (supra) is stated to be only 900 yards away from the acquired land. Therefore, the claim of Rs.25/- per square yard had to be considered as the real market value of the acquired land as against the market value assessed by the Additional District Judge at Rs. 5.73 Paise per square yard.
8. Mr. B.B.Gupta, learned State counsel has argued that the Additional District Judge has awarded to the claimant-appellants compensation which is much more than the market value. According to the learned counsel, once the land is classified as agricultural land and lacking potential for urbanisation, then the assessment was required to be made on the basis of nature of the land being Nehri or Banjar Kadim. According to the learned counsel, one composite method could not have been applied by awarding the same rate in respect of the whole land. The learned counsel has also emphasized that in any case the land is situated beyond the canal and it looses the potential to be developed as urban land. He has maintained that the compensation should be reduced and the compensation awarded by the Collector deserves to be upheld.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the considered view that the appeals filed by the claimant-appellants deserve to be accepted and those of the State-appellant are liable to be dismissed. The first question which falls for consideration in these cases is whether the acquired land is to be considered as urban land or it has to be rated as agricultural land. A reference to the statements of Charan Dass PW-3, House Tax Clerk, Municipal Committee, Hansi and Ram Niwas PW-5 along with the site plan Ex.P4 would clearly reveal that the land of the claimant-appellants is situated within the municipal limits of Hansi town. Ex.P5 is a copy of the notice showing the payment of house tax. Therefore, the learned Additional District Judge is wrong in recording the finding that the land has to be treated as agricultural land. Once the land is situated within the municipal limits of a town, then it has to be presumed that there is scope for potential development for residential as well as industrial purposes. In this regard, reliance could be placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Lakshmi Dass and others v. State of Punjab and others,8 1977 P.L.J. 464 and a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Kumar v. Town Improvement Trust9 (1989)2 S.C.C. 329. The view of their Lordships in Suresh Kumar's case (supra) reads as under:
"In the instant case the acquired land possess some important features being located within the corporation area and its potentiality for being developed as a residential area. In such a situation in determining its market value, where there was no. sufficient direct evidence of market price, the Court was required to ascertain as best as possible from the materials before it, what a willing vendor would reasonably have expected to obtain from a willing purchaser for the land in this particular position and with this particular potentiality. A land which is certainly or likely to be used in the immediate or reasonably near future for building purposes but which at the valuation date is wasteland or has been used for agricultural purposes, the owner, however, willing a vendor he is, not likely to be content to sell the land for its value as waste or agricultural land as the case may be. The possibility of its being used for building purposes would have to be taken into account. However, it must not be valued as though it had already been built upon. It is the possibilities of the land and not its realised possibilities that must be taken into consideration. In other words, the value of the land should be determined not necessarily according to its present disposition but laid out in its lurative and advantageous way in which the owner can dispose it of. In sum, in estimating the market value of the land all of the capabilities of the land, and all its legitimate purposes to which it may be applied or for which it may be adapted are to be considered and not merely the condition it is in and the use to which it is at the time of applied by the owner. The proper principle is to ascertain the market value of the land taking into consideration the special value which ought to be attached to the special advantage possessed by the land, namely, its proximity to developed urbanised area. The value of the potentiality has to be determined on such materials as are available and without indulgence in fits of the imagination."
10. This Court also took the view that a presumption would arise that the acquired land is of urban character if it is situated within municipal limits of a town. The Division Bench in Lakhmi Dass v. Punjab State,10 1977 P.L.J. 464 has observed as under:-
"It is evident from the above that the area under acquisition had assumed primarily an urban character and had indeed ceased to be a rural or agricultural in nature. Its potentiality for development as residential colonies within the municipality limits of Ludhiana is thus too patent to deserve any great elaboration.
One aspect which seems to have been missed by the Court below is the virtually admitted fact that nearly a year prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act, the area under acquisition had been included within the municipal limits of Ludhiana It has been stated at the bar that infact the notification bringing the area within the municipal limit was issued nearly a year earlier in January, 1962. It inevitably flows from this that a presumption would arise in favour of the claimants that the acquired land was primarily of an urban character."
11. The only factor then requires to be considered is whether the sale instances produced by the claimant-appellants are relevant or have to be discarded on the reasoning adopted by the learned Additional District Judge. There are three sets of sale instances which have been discarded by the Additional District Judge and have been ruled out of consideration. The first group of sale instances is Exs.Pl to P3 which relates to Model Town, Hansi. These sale instances have been ruled out of consideration for two reasons, namely, the acquired land is situated on the other side of the canal and the plots covered by sale instances were auctioned by Improvement Trust, Hansi as stated by Sant Lal PW-1. The reasoning adopted by the learned Additional District Judge is not acceptable because once the land is within municipal limits of a town then it has to be presumed that the acquired land is of urban character. The location of the land may affect the valuation of land but the sale instances cannot be ruled out from consideration on that account. The other reason is equally invalid because the sale instances of small pieces of land situated in the same municipal area and authorised by a local body would be relevant for determining the market value after making necessary deductions for development etc. Therefore, Exs.Pl to P3 would be relevant examples of sale. Similarly, the sale instances Exs.PS to P10, P12 and P13 would also be relevant because these sale instances furnish us the guidance about the market value of the land and the same could not be ruled out of consideration merely because the land covered by the sale instance is situated in a very busy area of Bus Stand which is hardly 900 yards away from the acquired land. It would be pertinent to have a bird's eye view of the above mentioned sale instances Exs.P1 to P3, P8 to P10, P12 and P13 by referring to the following table:-
Exhibits Date of Sale Price (in Square yards) Ex. P1 06.06.1976 Rs. 40/- Ex. P2 28.11.1976 Rs. 45/- Ex. P3 22.07.1976 Rs. 42/- Ex. P8 07.08.1974 Rs. 20/- Ex. P9 10.09.1974 Rs. 50/- Ex. P10 13.03.1967 Rs. 37.50 Paise Fix. P12 14.01.1969 Rs. 17/- Ex. P13 04.11.1971 Rs. 25/-
12. The above said table would demonstrate that most of the sale instances are before the date of acquisition i.e. 15.9.1976 and the average comes to more than Rs.25/-. A perusal of the site plan Ex.P4 reveals that although the acquired land is situated on the other side of the canal but it is less than 800 yards away from the Bus Stand and Model Town, Hansi. It is also situated very near to the Power House. Patwari Colony as is patent from the statement made by Nand Lal Patwari PW-4 and other witnesses i.e. PW to PW3. The land acquired in the case of Balwant Singh Gupta (Supra) Annexure A1 in the year 1974 had fetched the market value of Rs. 180/- per square yard and the present land is situated at a distance of 900 yards from the acquired land. Moreover, that land was acquired in 1974, whereas the land in question was acquired in 1976 i.e. 2 years later. It is further appropriate to mention that Exs.Pl, P2 and P3 are the sale instances relating to Model Town Hansi. In those sale instances the land is shown to have been sold for Rs.40/-, Rs.45/- and Rs.42/- per sq. yard. If an appropriate cut is applied to the price of the land shown Exs.Pl, P2 and P3 and all allowances are made in the price reflected by Annexure A/1, the market value assessed by the learned Additional District Judge cannot be accepted. In no case the market value would come to Rs.25/- per sq. yard. Therefore, the claim of the claimant-appellants claiming compensation @ Rs.25/- per sq. yard is not unreasonable and deserves to be accepted. Accordingly, it is held that the market value of the acquired land belonging to the claimant appellant was Rs.25/- per sq. yard on the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act i.e. on 15.9.1976.
13. For the reasons stated above, the appeals filed by the claimant-appellants succeed and the other set of appeals filed by the State-appellant are dismissed. The compensation awarded by the learned Additional District Judge is enhanced to Rs.25/- per square yard with all statutory benefits available under the Act.