Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Anr. vs Ram Chander And Ors. on 13 May, 1999
Equivalent citations: (1999)122PLR753
Author: Swatanter Kumar
Bench: Swatanter Kumar
JUDGMENT Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. State of Haryana on 27.8.1987 published a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, intending to acquire 305.7 acres of land in the revenue estate of village Sukhrali and another area of 133.18 acres from the revenue estate of village Salokhra. In furtherance thereto notification under Section 6 was published on 22.8.1988 for the entire land measuring about 438 acres. The learned Land Acquisition Collector pronounced award No. 12 of 1988-89 dated 20.3.1989 awarding the following amounts of compensation to the claimants for acquisition of their respective lands:-
Village Sukhrali Rate per acre
a) Land upto 1 acre from the main road Rs. 2,50,000/-
i.e. Delhi-Mehrauli-Gurgaon-Jaipur Road
b) Land behind that land Rs. 2,00,000/-
Village Salokhra
Uniform rate of compensation Rs. 1,25,000/-
In addition thereto the learned Land Acquisition Collector had granted compensation for crops, trees, tubewells, building structures etc. to the individual claimants in their respective cases.
2. Dis-satisfied from the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Land Acquisition Collector to the claimants, the claimants preferred. references under Section 18 of the Act, Out of Award No. 12, number of references arose which were disposed of by the learned District Judge, in different batches. First award was pronounced by the learned District Judge on 16,3.1995 in the case of Ram Chander v. State of Haryana awarding a compensation of Rs. 90/- per square yard or nearly Rs. 4,35,000/- per acre. In Ram Chander's case only one reference was disposed of. Second judgment/award was pronounced by the learned District Judge on 29.4.1995 in the case of Shiv Chand v. State of Haryana. Vide this judgment the learned District Judge disposed of as many as 68 references. The case of Ram Chander has given rise to filing of two regular first appeals being R.F.A. No. 37 of 1996 titled State of Haryana and Anr. v. Ram Chander, and Ors. and R.F.A. No. 1189 of 1995 Ram Chander and Ors. v. State of Haryana and another. While from the judgment dated 29.4.1995 Shiv Chand being the lead case 136 Regular First Appeals have been filed before this Court. 68 appeals have been preferred by the claimants while equal number of appeals have been preferred by the State as well. The judgment of Ram Chand was on record and has been discussed by the learned District Judge while pronouncing the judgment in the case of Shiv Chand. Further more, they arise from a common notification. It will, therefore, be appropriate to dispose of all these 138 regular first appeals by a common judgment, the lead case being Ram Chander and Ors. v. State of Haryana and another and Shiv Chand v. State of Haryana and State of Haryana v. Shiv Chand.
3. The learned Advocate General at the very out set conceded that he has been instructed not to assail the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge dated 16.3.1995 awarding a compensation of Rs. 90/- per square yard i.e. Rs. 4,35,000/- per acre in the appeal preferred by the State and the State is willing to accept the awarded amount to be just and fair compensation awarded to the claimants. Consequently, regular first appeal No. 37 of 1996 State of Haryana and another v. Ram Chander and others against the judgment of the learned District Judge dated 16.3.1995 is dismissed as not pressed. However, the appeal preferred by Ram Chander and others against the same judgment for enhancement of the amount remains for consideration.
4. In Ram Chander's case the claimants had examined six witnesses while the respondents examined only one witness, whereas in the case of Shiv Chand, the claimants examined as many as 15 witnesses to prove their case. The respondents only examined four witnesses. The petitioners produced 18 sale instances (Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8, Ex.P.17, Ex.P.18 and Ex.P.21 to Ex.P.30 in the case of Ram Chander while in the case of Shiv Chand they produced 34 sale instances being Ex.P.61, Ex.P.36, Ex.P.58, Ex.P.59, Ex.P.60, Ex.P.62 to Ex.P.73, Ex.P.38, Ex.P.40, Ex.P.79 to Ex.P.81, Ex.P.39, Ex.P.53 to Ex.P.56, Ex.P.74 to Ex.P.77, Ex.P.41 and Ex.P.57, while 4 awards were produced in Shiv Chand's case and 11 awards were produced in Ram Chander's case.
5. In order to identify the location and potential of the land, the claimants produced on record site plans Ex.P.3 and P.13 in Shiv Chand's case and Ex.P.14 in Ram Chand's case, while the respondents countered the same by producing Ex. R.4 in Ram Chander's case.
6. In order to examine the worth of the evidence produced by the respective parties during-the course of hearing on 24.2.1999 the Court had passed the following order:-
" In order to curtail un-necessary arguments and in order to pointedly noticed the basic controversy in issue in the bunch of these 138 regular first appeals, it will be appropriate to place on record the common stand taken by all the learned counsel appearing for the claimants in these appeals as well as the learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Haryana. They jointly stated that:-
1) No vendor or vendee was examined to prove the sale instances produced on record. It is further stated that no official from the office of Registrar or Revenue Authorities was summoned to prove the sale instances in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of The Agricultural Produce Market Committee v. The Land Acquisition Officer and Assistant Commissioner and Anr. etc., J.T. 1996(9) S.C. 432;
2) No regular first appeal, to the best of their knowledge, has been decided till today which would cover any of the cases arising from the notification dated 27.8.1987 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in relation to village Sukhrali, Jharsa and Silokhra;
3) It is also conceded that no claimant is either the vendor or vendee in the exhibited sale instances which have been examined in the various cases which have given rise to the present appeals.
7. Arguments have been heard in part. List on 26.2.1999 for further arguments.
8. The sale instances produced by the respective parties have been tendered in evidence as is clear from the records of the Court below, without being proved in accordance with the settled principles of law. Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the cases of The Agricultural Produce Market Committee v. The Land Acquisition Officer and Assistant Commissioner and another etc., J.T. 1996(9) Supreme Court 432; A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. P. Venkaiah and Ors., A.I.R. 1997 Supreme Court 2600 and Special Deputy Collector and Anr. v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and Ors., A.I.R. 1997 Supreme Court 2625, has held that the sale instances which are not proved by examining vendor or vendee would not be admissible in evidence. Resultantly, this Court has hardly any option but to hold the sale instances referred to above produced by the claimants as well as the respondents are inadmissible in evidence and, therefore, cannot be looked into by this Court for the purposes of determining the amount of compensation payable to the claimants.
9. The learned Judge has noticed the sale instances produced by the respective parties in paragraph No. 7 of the judgment. The sale instances besides being inadmissible most of them are post-notification. The notification in the present case is of July, 1987 while the sale instances relate to the period 1988-89 and even 1992. It is a settled principle of law that the sale instances which are post notification cannot be valid indicators to the market value of the land at there levant time. The Additional District Judge has mainly relied upon Ex.P.79 and Ex.R.1 drawing an average of these two sale instances and applying 10% deduction. for giving compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 189/- per square yard i.e. Rs. 9,14,760.00 per acre. As already discussed, the learned District Judge could not have relied upon the sale instances as the law stands today. In other words, it will be difficult for this Court to compute compensation payable to the claimants on the basis of these sale instances.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants mainly relied upon Ex.P.31 and P.32 which are the letters of allotment and brochure published by the Haryana Urban Development Authority, for short HUDA for allotment of developed plots. According to PW4 and PW9 the HUDA had sold the plots at a very high price i.e. at the rate of Rs. 4,176/- per square meter. It is contended on behalf of the claimants that based on oral testimony of PW3, PW4 and PW 9 seen in the light of Ex.P.31 and P.32 the compensation awardable to the claimants would be of a much higher amount than the one awarded by the learned Court below. PW3 who is an investigator officer from the office of District Town Planner has stated that the land for Sectors 14 to 18, 31 and 32-A of HUDA had already been acquired before issuing the present notification which has for development of Sector 29. This witness has further stated that Ansal Properties Limited and Colonizers like DLF and Universal Ltd. have already developed residential colonies around Sector 29 and the land in question has a great potential.
11. Another argument on behalf of the claimants is that Ex.P.11 and P.12 are the agreements actually executed between the DLF and the parties where the land had been agreed to be sold for Rs. 3,000/- per square yard. For this purpose reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Administrator General and West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi, A.I.R. 1988 Supreme Court 943. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority v. Dominion Land and Industries Ltd., 1995(4) S.C.C. 231 to argue that the agreement could be relied upon for determining the fair market value of the land in question. The auction by HUDA was further referred in reference to sale of plots in Sectors 15, 31 and 3.2-A where the lands have been sold from Rs. 1,585/- to Rs. 2,738/- per square yard. Reliance was placed on the statement of PW11 Junior Engineer MCD, Gurgaon, who stated that they were taking Rs. 20/- per square yard as development charges. Thus, after deduction of 20% the claimants claim the valueon the aforesaid basis.
12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the auction of developed plots is not a true basis for determining the compensation payable in relation to an agricultural land. Reference was made to the cross-examination of PW4 who clearly stated that the plots had not developed and everuthe Sectors except Sector 14 had not developed at the time of acquisition of the present land. Therefore, it was argued that they are not entitled to any compensation more than that of Ram Chander's case (supra).
13 It is true that the mere fact that the State has conceded to the amount of compensation awarded in the case of Ram Chander (supra) would no way debar the claimants from claiming higher amount of compensation. This would be equally true not only to the other claimants but even to Ram Chander himself who has preferred his own appeal being RFA No. 1.189 of 1995. the concession of the State in accepting the compensation awarded in Ram Chander's case thus, cannot operate as a bar or affect the sustainability of the claim of the claimants in any "manner, whatsoever.
14. In view of the above discussion the only relevant evidence on record is the judgment and award of the Court in relation to the land of these villages or the surrounding villages. Attainment of finality of the Stale appeal in Ram Chander's case would, thus, not materially affect "prejudicially the rights of the claimants but the said judgment would be a relevant piece of evidence to be considered by this Court. In the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Vasudev Chander Shanker, 1998(1) L.A.C.C 234 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has specifically held that judgments and awards of Court are the best piece of evidence which can be safely relied upon by the Courts while determining the fair market value of the land at the relevant time. In the present case there are four material judgments which are available on record, out of which one relates to the village which is subject matter of the present acquisition, while other three judgments relate to the lands which are adjacent to the acquired land. The details are as under:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibits Date of Notification Village Amount awarded
PSY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ex.P.42 12.10.83 Silokhra 70.00 Ex.P.43 2.7.10.88 Bhondsi 450.00 Ex.P.44 27.08.87 Jharsa 272.00 Ex.P.52 27.08.87 Jharsa 300.00
----------------------------------------------------------------
15. Before discussing the effect of these awards on the present case reference to the location and potential of the acquired land would be necessary. Ex.R.4 shows that some part of the acquired land is located on the other side of the main Gurgaon Mehrauli Road towards Mehrauli-Delhi, while major part of the acquired land is located on the other side though small part of it abuts main road. Ex.P.3 further shows that the surrounding lands to the acquired land have been developed or are being developed for different sectors by HUDA. in addition thereto Ex.P.4 shows that Sector 39 for which the land has been acquired is surrounded by Sushant Lok, Jiwali, Saiokhra, DLF Phase-II and other sectors and the main road from Jaipur coming to Delhi.
16. The witnesses who appeareel on behalf of the respondents have not been able to really refute the suggestion that the area in question is surrounded by developed area or the areas which are under development at the stage of acquisition. In fact RW1 in hi statement has stated that he has not even seen the acquired land. ,
17. PW3 Prem Dutt, Field Investigator, Office of District Town Planner clearly stated in his statement that the land acquired for development of Sector 29 is situated 4 kilometres to 5 kilometres away from the land acquired for development of Sector 14. It has specifically come in evidence on record that the land of village Jharsa which was subject matter of the previous acquisitions is at a distance of 3 to 4 kilometres. The land of village Jharsa abutting the National Highway is closer to Delhi and at a better potential and location than the present land. Ex.P.4 which is revised draft development plan for controller area I to IV, Gurgaon, clearly shows that location of village Jharsa is better than the present acquired land. Village Silokhra in this exhibit is shown to be at the back of village Jiwavali, while Jharsa land which was acquired for development of other sectors was abutting National Highway. RW1 has adopted an approach unlike a Government servant and has opted to deny things which are exhibited by the documents produced on record. He expressed his ignorance even if the National Highway was in existence near to those sectors or not. While, in his cross examination he clearly admitted that part of the acquired land abuts Gurgaon-Mehrauli Road This witness has avoided to clearly answer the questions.
18. Mr. Sarin, the learned senior counsel appearing for the claimants contended that the land has been acquired in the present cases for development of Sector 29 (city centre). He further contended that the City Centre is developed normally after all other sectors or at least the surrounding sectors have already been developed and as such higher amount of compensation ought to be paid to the claimants on the basis of better potentiality and location of the land. Mr. Bali, another learned senior counsel, contended that even if no documentary evidence of the sale instances is taken on record, the claimants would be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per square yard on the oral statements of PW3, PW4 and PW9. According to him the value of the land given by these witnesses in their statements fully corroborate Exhibits P.31 and P.32 which are auction prices of the land in the same vicinity. The auction was conducted by the HUDA in relation to commercial area.
19. To rebut both these contentions learned Advocate General argued that the commercial auctions held by HUDA are not relevant considerations for determining the compensation and the mere facts that the lands were acquired for City Centre would not entitle the claimants for a higher amount of compensation because huge lands of the present villages as well as the adjoining villages were acquired vide notification dated 27.8.1987. Thus, there was a common purpose for acquisition of all these lands including the lands of adjacent villages i.e. development of the residential and commercial sectors to build up new township. Ex.P.31 and Ex.P.32 are the allotment letters issued by HUDA for sale of commercial plots/shops in the year 1987. There a price of Rs. 4,176/- per square yard is indicated. These auction prices relate to shop sites in Sector 17 and a space of nearly 32 square meters was auctioned for a consideration of Rs. 1,59,800/-.
20. These instances are to my mind not relevant considerations for determining the fair market value of the acquired land at the time of notification. Varied reasons can be given for rejecting these instances. Firstly these plots are developed plots on which the Government or HUDA has already spent considerably amount. Secondly these are commercial sites and can never be equated to the value of huge agricultural land like the land acquired in the present case. Thirdly, these auction prices are not true index of a fair market value of the land at the relevant time because of the element of speculation and unfair competition in such auctions. Fourthly, the auctions have an element of uncertainty and they cannot be equated to a sale deed. It will depend on the terms and conditions of the auction because normally very meager amount is payable at the time of auction and balance is to be paid in instalments. Whether balance amount was paid or not, whether final documents of lease-deed or sale deed were executed in favour of bidder? Ex.P.31 and Ex.P.32 are based on such terms only and lastly but not the least these are such small pieces of land that they cannot form a reasonable and fair basis for determination of compensation payable to the claimants. Once this evidence is held to be irrelevant, the compensation cannot be granted on the mere asking of the claimants which they stated in their examination in chief as PW3, PW4 and PW9 respectively.
21. Adverting back to the relevant and material evidence on record in these cases, court has to inevitably make a reference to the judgments of record. Ex.P.42 to Ex.P.44 and Ex.P.52 are the relevant documents in this regard. As already noticed, Ex.P.42 relates to village Silokra where for the lands vide acquired vide notification dated 12.10.1983, a compensation of Rs. 70/- per square yard was awarded, Ex.P.43 relates to the lands of village Bhondsi, which is situated at a distance of more than 12 kilometres away from the acquired land and compensation of Rs. 450/- per square yard was awarded, Ex.P.44 and Ex.P.52 relate to the lands acquired vide notification dated 27.8.1987 in village Jharsa and compensation of Rs. 272/- per square yard and. Rs. 300/- respectively was awarded by the Court.
22. It must be noticed that Ex.P.44 and P.52 are under appeal before this Court. Vide Judgment of the same date a compensation of Rs. 213.99 per square yard upto 10 yard abutting the National Highway; Rs. 160.49 per square yard upto 10 yards abutting Gurgaon-Jharsa Road, and Rs. 106,99 per square yard beyond 10 yards in case of both lands above mentioned, has been awarded by following the belting system on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The learned counsel for the parties conceded that Ex.P.42 probably is not subject matter of appeal before this Court. In other words Ex:P.42 with an appropriate increase over the period i.e. for 1983 to 1987- could form basis of reasonable compensation.
23. The location of the present acquired land and its potential is certainly less than that of village Jharsa. The amount of compensation awarded to the claimants of village Jharsa can obviously be not granted to the present claimants as the land was acquired for the same purpose and vide separate notification though of the same date. In 1983 compensation awarded is Rs. 70/- in village Silokhra and compensation awarded by this Court for the acquisition of 1987 in village Jharsa for a land which was not abutting the National Highway is Rs. 160.49 per square yard. In other words, taking the average of the two an considering the fact that the value of the land had considerably increase, the areas had been developed and apparently the land had good location and potential, it will be fair to award the compensation to the claimants of Rs. 135/- per square yard i.e. Rs. 6,53,400/- per acre.
24. Vide judgment dated 16.3.1995 which has given rise to the various connected appeals, the learned District Judge had awarded compensation of Rs. 4,35,600/- while the same learned Judge vide judgments dated 29.4.1995, 6.5.1995, 8.5.1995 and 8.3.1996 awarded a sum of Rs. 9,15,000/- per annum as compensation for the same land of the same villages which were acquired by a common notification dated 27.8.1987. Such a high increase is not justifiable on record. The entire matter could be looked into from a different point of view.
25. Though I have observed that all the sale instances including Ex.P.79 and Ex.R.1 are not admissible, but for the sake of arguments they could be analysed even from the findings recorded by the learned Judge in relation to sale instances. In the case of Sant Lal v. State of Haryana, pronounced on 6.5.1995, the learned Judge in paragraph No. 10 of the judgment came to the conclusion that on the basis of the sale instances, the compensation awardable would be Rs. 8,80,000/- at the rate of Rs. 182/- per square yard, but he awarded a sum of Rs. 9,15,000/- per acre. In the case of Ram Chand v. State of Haryana the same learned Judge while awarding the compensation of Rs. 4,35,600/- per acre had relied upon the statement of the claimant itself in addition to taking the average of the sale instances proved on record. The average of the sale instances and the amount claimed by PW1 were nearly at parity and, therefore, the said amount was awarded. At the cost of repetition it must be noticed that all these judgments arise out of a common judgment and award.
26. In the judgment of Sant Lal, the learned Judge himself had come to the conclusion that based on all sale instances produced before the Court including Ex.P.79 and Ex.R.1 as mentioned in the earlier judgment of Shiv Chander the average of the sale instances comes to Rs. 8,80,800/- per acre. If that be so, a reasonable amount of cut ought to have been applied to this sale consideration keeping in view the settled principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard in the case of K.S. Shivadevamma and Ors. v. Assistant Commissioner and Anr., 1996(2) S.C.C. 62. The land was acquired for a public purpose, was to be developed by the State, the land at the time of acquisition was agricultural land as per revenue records and plots or areas which were shown to have been sold were of a smaller area except two sale instances Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.10, which again were of 2 to 5 Kanals comparatively of a much smaller area to the area of the acquired land. While the learned Judge himself had applied the element of cut in the case of Shiv Chand, but in subsequent judgments no element of deduction was applied. This to my mind apparently is an error of jurisdiction as it is in apparent conflict to the various judgments of the Supreme Court which makes it mandatory to apply the element of deduction for arriving at a final figure of compensation payable to the claimants.
27. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the evidence available on record I am of the considered view that if sale instances have to be taken into consideration deduction of 30% is called for. Applying the deduction of 30% to Rs. 8,80,800/-, a sum of Rs. 2,64,240/- is liable to be reduced from the sale consideration. As such the net amount of compensation payable to the claimants shall be Rs. 6,16,560/- per annum i.e. approximately Rs. 130/- per square yard.
28. As the figure arrived at is based on the earlier judgments of the Courts, I have come to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to Rs. 135/- per square yard, while based on the sale instances the claimants are entitled to approximately Rs. 130/- per square yard, I would prefer to grant higher compensation to the claimants as it is a compulsory acquisition of the lands of the claimants and such other attendant circumstances I would award a sum of Rs. 135/- per square yard. The learned District Judge had relied upon the case of Ram Chand and Shiv Chand (supra) in all subsequent judgments and had granted compensation on the same basis. As such all the appeals arising from all these judgments shall stand disposed of in terms of this judgment.
29. In view of the above reasoning and detailed discussion, the appeal preferred by the State of Haryana rising from the judgment 16.3.1995 {State of Haryana v. Ram Chander) is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs, while the appeals of the claimants arising from the same judgment are hereby partly accepted. The claimants would be entitled to receive compensation for the acquisition of their respective lands at the rate of Rs. 135/- per square yard i.e. Rs. 6,53,400/- with statutory benefits which they are entitled to under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. The claimants would also be entitled to proportionate costs.
30. All appeals of the State arising from the judgments of the learned District Judge dated 29.4.1995, 6.5.1995, 8.5.1995 and 8.3.1996 awarding Rs. 9,15,000/- per acre to the claimants are hereby partly accepted .and the claimants instead of Rs. 9,15,000/- would be entitled to get the above amount of Rs. 6,53,400/- per acre with all statutory benefits. All other appeals of the claimants are hereby dismissed