Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parveen Kumar And Anr. vs Haryana State on 23 August, 2006
Equivalent citations: (2007)145PLR346
JUDGMENT H.S. Bhalla, J.
1. In a free country like India, right to own property is a fundamental right given by the Constitution of India and every citizen, as per his desire, can possess moveable and immovable property, but at the same time, in the interest of State and General Public, the property of a person can be acquired, but certainly after awarding compensation to him and this is the spirit of law, which spells out from the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short as "the Act").
2. By this common judgment, I shall be disposing of three appeals, being R.F.A. Nos.2085, 2086 and 2087 of 1991 as they arise out of the same impugned award dated 17.9.1991 passed by Additional District Judge, Karnal and are being heard together. However, for the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from R.F.A. No. 2085 of 1991.
3. The facts required for the disposal of this appeal are that in pursuance of notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Act dated 26.6.1989 and 7.12.1989 respectively, the Haryana Government decided to acquire land measuring 26 Kanals-7 Marias situated in Kasha Nilokheri, Tehsil and district Karnal for the construction of tehsil building and residential quarters at Nilokheri. The land acquired was Chahi-Nehri. It has been alleged in the petition that the Collector awarded a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- per acre for Chahi Nehri land. He also awarded Rs. 1425/- for the tubewell and one kotha which was constructed in the acquired land. The Collector also granted an additional amount at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum with effect from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act till the date of award on the market value as provided under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. The Collector also granted 30% solatium. The land owners, being dissatisfied with the award granted by the Collector, a reference under Section 18 of the Act was sought to be referred to the District Judge, Karnal. The Collector referred the matter to the District Judge, Karnal for determining the market value of the acquired land, who entrusted it to the Court of Additional District Judge for disposal. It has been alleged in the petition that appellant Sunder Dass is owner in possession of the land measuring 10 Kanals 9 Marias, whereas the appellants in other connected appeals Parveen Kumar and Satish Kumar are owners in possession of land measuring 5 kanals -9 marlas. It has been alleged in the petition that the land which was to be acquired by the Government was being used for agricultural purposes but it was surrounded by various types of buildings, residential, industrial and commercial. They prayed for enhancement of compensation. Hence, this petition.
4. On the other hand, reply was filed by the respondent-State controverting all the pleas taken up by the claimants in their appeals re-asserting that the value of the acquired land assessed by the Collector is correct and no further enhancement is required. They prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal after framing necessary issues and assessment of the evidence on record, awarded compensation to the claimants, the operative part of the award dated 17.9.1991 is reproduced as under:
As a result of my findings discussed above, 1 award a sum of Rs. 72/- per sq. yard in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent. In addition to this the petitioners are also entitled 30% solatium on the market value within the terms of Section 23(2) of Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners are also entitled amount at the rate of 12% per annum on the market value for the period commencing on and from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act to the date of the award of Collector or the date of taking the possession whichever is earlier within the purview of Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners are also entitled 9% interest on the market value from the date on which the possession of the land is taken to the date of payment and where the payment is not made for a period of one year from the date on which the possession is taken, the petitioners are entitled interest @ Rs. 15% per annum after the expiry of period of one year. The petitioners Parveen Kumar and another are awarded compensation of Rs. 4,000/- for their kotha tubewell. Counsel fee is assessed Rs. 250/-in each petition. Memo of costs be prepared accordingly.
6. The appellants, being dissatisfied with the award, have knocked the door of this Court for further enhancement of the amount of the acquired land.
7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case.
8. Before I proceed in the controversy involved in the present appeal, 1 would like to highlight the factors on the basis of which the parameter for enhancement of compensation can be assessed. It is no doubt true that each and every case has its own facts and circumstances and has to be examined on the basis of material available on the record. Valuation of immovable property is not a science and that valuation cannot be made by merely applying algebraic formulae for it quite often abounds in uncertainties and imponderables and therefore, no exact reasons for the conclusions arrived at is possible on all occasions. Some room has to be allowed for conjectures and guess works, through the court should be reluctant to venture too far in that direction because, there is a danger of being mislead in the decision making. The Court while determining the market value should take into consideration the evidence adduced as to the nature, situation, income and potential value of the land. The Apex Court in a catena of decisions over the past four and half decades and more have evolved principles and norms for determination of compensation of the lands compulsorily acquired by the State in exercise of its eminent domain power under the Act or under any other enabling statute. One of the principles discernible from the pronouncements of the Apex Court is that while determining compensation for larger extent of land, price paid for or compensation determined by the Court for smaller parcels of land does not provide a safe and dependable base. At the same time, it is also discernible from the pronouncements of the Supreme Court that in the absence of any better evidence, even transactions involving conveyance of smaller extents of land or blocks of land which are comparable in terms of point of time and the locus would become relevant.
9. Now keeping the aforementioned parameters in view, the present case has to be examined minutely on the basis of evidence led by the parties. It is an admitted case of the parties that the acquired land abuts on the G.T. Road towards the eastern side and on the western side there is also a road as well as Government of India Press. On the northern side of the acquired land, there is a police post and octroi post and on the southern side, there is a cinema. There is also a factory known as Kapoor plastic. The agricultural land has the potential value for being used for commercial and industrial purposes and therefore, the acquired land is more costlier than the land sold vide Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2. It has come in the testimony of Shri Gian Chand Arora (PW1) that the acquired land is situated within the Municipal limits although the acquired land is agricultural land. Lilia Krishan (AW-3) has deposed that he purchased the land measuring 1 kanal from Suresh Kumar for a sum of Rs. 2 lacs on 28.3.1989 vide registered sale deed, a copy of which is attached as Ex.A-1. He stated that he purchased the plot for residential purposes although at the time of sale, the land was being used for agriculture purposes. The acquired land is situated at a distance of 200 yards from the plot purchased by the witness on 2S.3.1989. According to this witness, the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 400/- per yard when he purchased the plot. He further stated that Suresh Kumar has sold another piece of land out of the same khewat out of which the witness purchased the land and the second sale took place at the rate of Rs. 1,10,000/- for 10 Marias. Rajiv Kumar (AW-4) has deposed that he purchased land measuring 1 Kanal for a sum of Rs. 2 lac on 4.4.1989 vide a registered sale deed Ex.A-2 from Suresh Kumar. According to this witness the acquired land and the land purchased by him are situated within Municipal limits and the acquired land has potential value for being used as commercial, residential and industrial purposes. The acquired land is surrounded by various types of the building,; on all the sides. According to this witness, the acquired land is more costlier than the land purchased by him. Sunder Dass (AW-7) has also stepped into the witness box and deposed that total land measuring 26 kanals 7 Marias was acquired by the Government which belong to all the claimants. The acquired land is situated within the municipal limits and is located in urban area and it is surrounded by the buildings on all four sides.
10. From the unrebutted testimony of the appellants and their witnesses, it is apparent that the acquired land has a potential for being used as residential, commercial and industrial purposes and on account of this, it should not have been treated to be a purely agricultural land. To my mind, though it may not be possible to grant increase at the rate which is being prayed for by the land owners yet some increase in compensation is called for keeping in view the fact that the land was acquired in the year 1989. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances spelled out from the evidence available on record, I find that a lot of construction had come up near the land acquired and on this ground, the acquired land had also gained potential for urbanisation and once urbanisation has come on and the acquired land has got potential for the purpose, it will be wholly wrong to classify the land on the agricultural quality.
11. To my mind, the prices fetched for similar lands with similar advantages and potentialities under bona fide transections of sale at or about the time of the preliminary notification are the usual, and indeed the best, evidences of market value. In the instant case, it is clear that the land acquired has a potentiality for urban use and is meant for the construction of the building to be used as Tehsil within the municipal limits of Nilokheri. What is fair and just or reasonable market value is always a question of fact depending on the nature of the evidence, circumstances and probabilities in each case. All its existing advantages and its potential possibilities when laid doubt in a most advantageous manner should be taken into consideration while fixing the market value. The Court can also take into account any special circumstances, apart from the methods of valuation traditionally adopted, in order to arrive, as nearly as may be, at an estimate of the market value. The Court's attempt should always be to adequately and reasonably compensate the loss sustained by a person as a consequence of compulsory acquisition of his property by the State by invoking its eminent domain power and the person who is deprived of his land is entitled to be compensated to the full value of the deprivation caused.
12. Keeping in view the evidence available on record, it is quite clear that the acquired land, as on the date of acquisition itself had tremendous non-agricultural potentiality because the whole area abutting on all four sides of the acquired land was being used for non-agriculrural purposes. Apart from high non-agricultural potentiality possessed by the acquired lands, the same is also situated within the Municipal Limits. As per the stand of the State, the land in dispute was an ordinary agricultural land. It is settled law that where land acquired under the Act falls within the Municipal Limits of a particular town, it should be evaluated as an urban property even if the property at the time of acquisition is used as agricultural property. In the instant case, the Collector and the Tribunal had evaluated agricultural property acquired by the standards of agricultural property and not by the standards of urban property. Thus, it was a patent error on the face of the record and the same is required to be corrected by this Court by awarding some enhancement and in view of this, to my mind, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the location of the acquired land, as discussed above, compensation at the rate of Rs. 144/- per sq. yard would meet the ends of justice and 1 order accordingly. The land-owners will also be entitled to all the statutory benefits as awarded by the Additional District Judge, Kamal.
13. For the reasons recorded above, appeals filed by the appellants land-owners are partly allowed by enhancing the amount of compensation to Rs. 144/- per sq. yard instead of Rs. 72/- per sq. yard awarded by the Additional District Judge, Kamal. The appellants are directed to pay the court fee, if not paid earlier, on the enhanced amount of compensation, within three months from today to claim the enhanced amount of compensation.