Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raghuvans Kumar Bhatia vs State Of Gujarat on 23 February, 2012
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
R.F.A. No. 2848 of 1993 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
R.F.A. No. 2848 of 1993 (O&M)
Date of decision: February 23, 2012
Raghuvans Kumar Bhatia
.. Appellant
v.
State of Haryana
.. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Mr. Shiv Kumar, Mr. Sharad Aggarwal
and Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocates for the land owners.
Mr. H. S. Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana with
Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
...
Rajesh Bindal J.
1. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 2848, 3600 of 1993;
R.F.A. Nos. 2523, 2672 of 1994;
R.F.A. Nos. 1850, 1916 to 1918, 2005, 2050 to 2052, 2086 2087, 2088 of 1995;
R.F.A. Nos. 15, 935, 998, 1001, 1342, 1380, 1403, 1446, 1451, 1605, 1706, 1915, 1987 of 1996 R.F.A. Nos. 255, 266, 361, 577, 578, 634, 680, 681, 796, 878, 1191, 2139, 2677 of 1997 R.F.A. Nos. 328, 536, 677, 1187, 2047, 1192 of 1998;
R.F.A. No. 765 of 1999;
R.F.A. Nos. 1173, 1896 of 2000;
R.F.A. No. 769 of 2005;
R.F.A. Nos. 4532 to 4550, 4581, 4584, 4869 to 4882, 4887, R.F.A. No. 2848 of 1993 [2] 4888, 5053, 5070, 5086, 5222, 5223, 5228, 5229, 5526 to 5534, of 2009;
R.F.A. Nos. 330, 486, 801, 1275 to 1277, 1777, 1778, 1810, 2002, 2003, 2162 to 2174, 2395, 2407, 2757, 2843, 3917, 4250, 4638, 5035, 5162, 5163, 5198 of 2010 and R.F.A. No. 1230 of 2011; and Cross Objections No. 6-CI of 1996 and 5-CI of 2004, as common questions of law and facts are involved.
2. In the appeals and cross objections, the land owners are seeking enhancement of compensation awarded to them by the learned court below for the acquired land, whereas by filing appeals, the State of Haryana is seeking reduction thereof.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 10.6.1988, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana sought to acquire 303.28 acres of land, situated in village Jharsently, HB No. 44 and 51.31 acres in village Ballabgarh HB No. 78, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad for Industrial Sector 59, Faridabad. The same was followed by notification dated 7.6.1989, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 1,00,000/- per acre for Chahi, Narmot, Nehri, Banjar Qadim land and ` 1,50,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin Talab land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference, the learned court below, vide award dated 12.5.1993, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 150/- per square yard. The land owners as well as State filed appeals in this court challenging the award of the learned court below. In R.F.A. No. 1329 of 1995--State of Haryana v. Vijay Kumar and other connected appeals, decided on 19.11.2008, this court remanded the matter back to the learned Reference Court for fresh consideration. The learned Reference Court assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 165/- per square yard upto two acres on G.T. Road and @ ` 132/- per square yard for rest of the land.
4. Vide another notification dated 26.12.1988, issued under Section 4 of the Act, State of Haryana sought to acquire 497.30 and 19.80 R.F.A. No. 2848 of 1993 [3] acres of land, situated in villages Jharsently, Hadbast No. 44 and village Ballabgarh, Hadbast No. 78, respectively, Tehsil Ballabgarh, Distict Faridabad for Industrial Sector 58, Faridabad. The same was followed by notification dated 22.12.1989, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector, vide award dated 19.12.1991, assessed the market value @ ` 2,40,000/- per acre for Chahi, Nehri, Magda, Banjar Kadim and Gair Mumkin land and ` 1,50,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin Talab pertaining to the land of village Jharsently and ` 2,40,000/- per acre for the land, pertaining to village Ballabgarh. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 150/- per square yard. The land owners as well as State filed appeals in this court challenging the award of the learned court below. In R.F.A. No. 2263 of 1995-- Bir Singh and others v. State of Haryana, decided on 13.2.2001, this court assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 165/- per square yard. The land owners challenged order dated 13.2.2001 before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. In Civil Appeal No. 4819 of 2008 -Rama Nand v. State of Haryana, decided on 4.8.2008, Hon'ble the Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the learned Reference Court for deciding the market value de novo in accordance with law. After remand, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 175/- per square yard upto the depth of two acres and ` 140/- per square yard for rest of the land.
5. In the bunch of cases, some appeals pertain to the first round of litigation where the matter had gone upto Hon'ble the Supreme Court pertaining to notification dated 26.12.1998, whereas the matter pertaining to notification dated 10.6.1988 was subject-matter of appeals before this court in the first round of litigation. For both the acquisitions, the matter was remanded back to the learned reference court. In the bunch of cases, being decided, some of the cases out of the first round of litigation which remained pending are also being disposed of, whereas majority of the appeals are challenging the fresh awards by the learned reference court after the cases were remanded back.
R.F.A. No. 2848 of 1993 [4]Arguments pertaining to notification dated 10.6.1988
6. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the land in question was acquired for the purpose of development as Sector 59, Faridabad for industrial use. Ex. P1 is a development plan produced on record by the land owners showing the location of various sectors, which have been developed in Faridabad. The land in question is abutting the main GT road/National Highway No. 1. Though the land owners have produced various sale deeds on record showing the value of the land in the area, however, those in fact are not showing the correct value for the reason that the land in the area always remained under threat of acquisition. Repeated notifications were issued and permitted to be lapsed. The first in the series was on 12.3.1975, which was followed by notification dated 17.2.1981 and thereafter on 27.3.1985 and finally the notification in question. The transactions were in the kind of distress sales.
7. In addition to the sale deeds produced on record, the land owners have also produced awards pertaining to acquisition of land qua Sector 21-C (Ex. P7) and for road leading from GT road to Sector 46, which is located adjoining to Sector 21-C, Faridabad (Ex. P8). The submission is that the land owners had placed reliance upon the award pertaining to acquisition of land for Sector 21-C, Faridabad, which is located on other side of the city. Notification under Section 4 of the Act in that case was issued on 22.8.1988, which in the present case is dated 10.6.1988. The learned court below while placing reliance thereupon had applied a cut of 1/3rd, which was totally un-called for. Even if it is considered that the land pertaining to Sector 21-C, Faridabad was located towards Delhi side from Faridabad, special advantages can very well be set off considering the fact that Sector 21-C, Faridabad is not abutting the National Highway, rather, it is located beyond Railway Line, which is at some distance from the National Highway, whereas the land in question is abutting the National Highway.
8. He further submitted that this court in R.F.A. No. 504 of 1993- State of Haryana and another v. Ghamandi Singh and another, decided on 17.10.2008, had assessed the value of land pertaining to Sector 21-C, Faridabad @ ` 200/- per square yard. The land pertaining to Sector R.F.A. No. 2848 of 1993 [5] 21-C as well as the land in question are forming part of municipal limits of Faridabad, hence, same rate should have been awarded.
9. He further relied upon a judgment of this court in R.F.A. No. 2392 of 1997 -Mukhtiar Singh and others v. State of Haryana and another, decided on 6.10.2010, whereby the value of land for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 7.4.1986, was assessed by this court @ ` 435/- per square yard. It was for development of land as green belt along with Delhi-Mathura road, Faridabad. This portion of land is also located on the National Highway as the land in question is. The extra advantage, if any, available to the land being close to the city can be set off with the time gap in the two acquisitions, the acquisition in the present case being two years later. He further submitted that merely because the land in question is located at a distance from Sector 20-B, Faridabad, is not material as both are equally potential. In support, reliance was placed upon Thakarsibhal Devjibhai and others v. Executive Engineer, Gujarat and another, 2001(9) SCC 584. The land had great future potential. As is well-known, a lot of industrialisation was there in Faridabad where big industrial units had been set up. Even in the acquired land, the industries were existing.
10. Learned counsel further submitted that though the sale deeds had been produced on record by the land owners, those do not depict fair market value on account of successive notifications being there for acquisition. In fact, application for additional evidence seeking production thereof on record was filed before this court during the pendency of appeals in the first round of litigation. However, the same was directed to be heard along with the main appeal. When the bunch of appeals was decided and the matter was remanded back to the court below for fresh consideration, the application stood disposed of accordingly. After the remand, application was filed before the learned Reference Court, which was rejected merely stating that the court below had to consider the matter on the basis of evidence already produced on record. The approach was not correct. The evidence sought to be produced was admissible as such as it was merely in the form of three notifications issued by the State under Section 4 of the Act seeking to acquire the land in the area. The R.F.A. No. 2848 of 1993 [6] notifications were ultimately permitted to be lapsed till such time the land was acquired.
11. Another contention raised by learned counsel for the land owners was that the court below has committed an error in applying the belting system for valuation of the acquired land. The land is abutting the GT road. The depth from the road is not much. The land in the area was being purchased for setting up of industrial units which was in the form of big chunks of land. He referred to a judgment of this court in R.F.A. No. 5100 of 2001--Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 13.12.2006 pertaining to acquisition of land for Sector 59, Faridabad, where notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 10.7.1995 and this court had assessed the value of the entire land @ ` 500/- per square yard without applying any belting. Reliance was also placed upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Harinder Pal Singh and others, 2005(12) SCC 564 and judgments of this court in Kehar Singh v. Punjab State, 1992(1) PLR 148; Punni Devi alias Basant Kaur v. Collector, Land Acquisition, Industries Department, Punjab, 1992(1) PLR 516; Harbans Singh and others v. State of Punjab through the Land Acquisition Collector, Patiala, 2006(1) PLR 157 and L.P.A. No. 387 of 2001--Pawan Kumar and another v. Land Acquisition Collector and others, decided on 15.5.2006.
12. On the other hand, learned Advocate General submitted that though the court below had applied a cut of 1/3rd on the value of land acquired for Sector 21-C, Faridabad, but the same is without comparing the distance, location and potentiality of both the portions of land. Sector 21-C is quite near to Delhi, whereas the land in question is located beyond Ballabgarh,. The distance between two portions of land is 15 kilometers. The area towards Delhi was developing at a very fast pace. Even before separate State of Haryana had come into existence, there were number of big industrial units set up on GT road. In fact, NIT Faridabad was set up in 1950. It is totally misconceived to argue that on account of successive notifications for acquisition of land in the area which, according to the land owners were permitted to be lapsed, there were no sale transactions. In fact, number of them have been produced by the land owners and by the R.F.A. No. 2848 of 1993 [7] State as well. Some are forming part of the acquired land as well. Once the sale of land was taking place in the area frequently, it cannot be argued that successive notifications had any effect on the routine transactions of buying and selling of land in the area.
13. He submitted that the land pertaining to sale deeds (Ex. R10, Ex. R12 to Ex. R20, Ex. R22 and Ex. R23) was forming part of the acquired land. Sale-deed (Ex.P11) was registered on 27.4.1988, whereby one marla of land located on GT road was sold at an average price of ` 165/- per square yard. The acquired land is a big chunk of 303.28 acres. The cut applied by the learned court below is not reasonable. He further submitted that the award pertaining to the acquisition in different villages can be considered only if no sale transaction of the village in question is on record. In the present case, there are number of sale transactions pertaining to not only the village, land of which was acquired, rather, some of them are forming part of the acquired land as well. If the evidence led by both the parties is weighed, the compensation awarded to the land owners is already much more than they deserved. However, he was candid in stating that the State is not in appeal. He further submitted that reliance on the valuation of land acquired for Sector 20-B, Faridabad is not relevant as the same is located in the heart of the city. Similarly, valuation of land acquired for Sector 61, Faridabad is also not relevant as notification under Section 4 of the Act in that case was issued in the year 1995, as by that time lot of development had already taken place in the area.
14. As far as application of belting system is concerned, the submission was that this court as well as Hon'ble the Supreme Court have taken different views in different facts and circumstances. Wherever it was found that on facts belting was required for the reason that value of the land on road had more potentiality or value as compared to the land located in the back, compensation was awarded accordingly. In the present case as well, it is not that the land in question is located on some link road with no other advantages, rather, the same is located on GT road, where every one prefers to buy the land especially the big industrial houses because of its easy access as large quantity of raw material/finished products is required to be transported to/fro the factory. In these R.F.A. No. 2848 of 1993 [8] circumstances, the belting system adopted by the court below cannot be faulted with.
Arguments regarding notification dated 26.12.1988
15. Learned counsel for the land owners in the present set of appeals, while adopting the contentions raised by learned counsel for the land owners, as noticed above, submitted that as notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued six months later in time, the land owners deserve to be granted increase for the time gap as has even been awarded by the court below. The arguments raised pertaining to belting system was also adopted. In addition, it was submitted that vide letters (Ex. PW-11/C and Ex. PW-11/D) dated 29.12.1995 and 13.1.1997 respectively, 40 acres of land was allotted to Escorts JCB Ltd. in Sector 58, Faridabad @ ` 565/- per square yard. Even if this transaction had taken place 8-9 years after the acquisition of land in question, a reasonable cut could be applied.
16. As far as valuation of land for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 26.12.1988, the learned Advocate General submitted that it would not be reasonable for the land owners to rely upon different awards as before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the stand was that other evidence produced by them had not been considered.
17. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record.
18. As far as location of the land is concerned, the same is located on National Highway No. 1 on one side and on the other side is the Railway Line leading from Delhi to Mathura. It is claimed that lot of industrial units had been set up close to the acquired land. Grain Market, Ballabgarh is located at a distance of about two kilometers.
19. A Development Plan (Ex. P1) has been produced on record by the land owners showing location of various sectors developed in Faridabad, which is located adjoining to New Delhi and has been developed on both sides of National Highway No. 1. Old Faridabad town is shown to be now part of Sector 18, which is not abutting the National Highway. Adjoining Sector 19 thereof is abutting the National Highway. If we proceed from Delhi to Agra, Sectors 18 and 19-C fall on left side of the R.F.A. No. 2848 of 1993 [9] National Highway. Sector 21-C is located on the right side, a little bit towards Delhi, however, not abutting the National Highway but beyond Delhi-Mathura Railway Line, which is at some distance from National Highway. Moving further from Old Faridabad Town towards Mathura, on the right side beyond Railway Line is NIT Faridabad Township. Towards Delhi side, beyond the boundaries of NIT are located Sectors 21-A, 21-B and 21-C. Sector 20-B is located on the portion of land, which is located between the National Highway and Railway line adjoining to NIT, Faridabad. Moving there to Mathura side after crossing another township known as Ballabgarh are Sectors 58 and 59, for which the land in question was acquired. At a junction close to the acquired land, the road had crossed the Railway Line. One side of the boundary of Sector 59, which is located on left side of GT road if we move from Delhi to Mathura, other side touches the Railway Line, whereas on the right side of the road is Sector
58. The land pertaining to Sectors 61, 62, 64 and 65 is located beyond the Railway Line on the left side after Sector 59. It is not abutting the National Highway. It has come on record that the acquired land is situated at a distance of about 15 kilometers from Sectors 21-C and 46.
20. The evidence produced on record by the parties in the form of sale deeds and the awards pertaining to the acquisition of land, as have been relied upon and as referred to in paragraph 37 of the award of the learned Reference Court (LAC No. 41 of 1992) are extracted below:
"Sr. No. Exhibit Date of sale deed Area sold Sale price in Sale price per Location/ K- M ` sq. yard in ` village ........................................................................................................................................................
1. P9 23.12.1982 5-17 2,25,000/-- 63.57 Jharsently
2. P10 23.12.1982 14-15 12,50,000/- 140/- ..
3. P11 27.04.1988 0-1 5,000/- 165/- ..
4. P12 18.11.1983 12-15 29,00,000/- 376/- ..
5. P15 25.04.1988 0-1 5,000/- 165/- ..
6. P16 25.04.1988 0-1 5,000/- 165/- ..
7. P17 25.04.1988 0-1 5,000/- 165/- ..
R.F.A. No. 2848 of 1993 [10] Award of various courts Sr. No. Ex. LAC No. & Date of Date of notification Village Purpose Amount title decision u/s 4 of the Act assessed by the court per sq. yard in `
........................................................................................................................................................
1. P7 22/1992 17.7.1991 22.8.1988 Mewla Development 198.25 "Ghamandi Maharaj of Sector 21-C v. State" pur
2. P8 9/1991 22.10.1991 30.07.1987 -do- Link road 300/-
"Jagmohan from D. M.
v. State" Road to
Sector 46."
21. Sale transactions (Ex. P9, Ex. P10 and Ex. P12) though pertain to large chunk of land, but the same were not relied upon by learned counsel for the land owners for the reason that there were certain constructions in the form of factory sheds existing thereon. The land pertaining to sale deed (Ex. P11), which was registered on 27.4.1988 is forming part of the acquired land. It is located on GT road. One marla of land was sold at an average price of ` 165/- per square yard. Ex. P15 and Ex. P17 are merely copies of mutations, whereby also it is claimed that one marla of land each was sold at an average price of ` 165/- per square yard. Out of the sale deeds produced by the State, it was claimed that the land pertaining to sale deeds (Ex. R10, Ex. R12 to Ex. R20, Ex. R22 and Ex. R23) is forming part of the acquired land. The average sale consideration paid therein ranges from ` 8.49 per square yard to ` 30/- per square yard.
These are located in different pockets of the big chunk of acquired land. It was not disputed that the value depicted therein was less than the award of the Collector itself. The learned court below assessed the value of the acquired land @ ` 165/- per square yard upto the depth of two acres on GT road and ` 132/- per square yard beyond that. For the purpose, there are two methods available in the impugned award, namely, application of a cut of 20% on the value of land shown in sale deed (Ex. P11) and application of cut of 1/3rd on the value assessed for the land acquired for Sector 21-C. The cut applied in sale deed (Ex. P11) is on account of smallness of the transaction, whereas for Sector 21-C, the same is on account of location.
22. In the opinion of this court, none of the above transactions could be considered for the purpose of valuation of the acquired land. If a R.F.A. No. 2848 of 1993 [11] sale deed pertaining to one marla of land was to be considered for the purpose of valuation of a big chunk of 303.28 acres of land, application of only 20% cut may not be appropriate. As far as reliance on the award pertaining to acquisition of land for Sector 21-C is concerned, the same was also not safe to be relied upon for the reason that it is located 15 kilometers away from the acquired land. The location thereof vis-a-vis the acquired land has already been referred to in the preceding paragraph.
23. Similarly, there is no weight in the argument raised by learned counsel for the land owners to consider the valuation of land acquired for the purpose of development as Sectors 20-B or Sector 61. Sector 20-B is located on National Highway No. 1 in the heart of Faridabad, whereas the land in question is located beyond Ballabgarh town. Similarly, the value of land acquired for Sector 61 is also not relevant for the reason that notification under Section 4 of the Act in that case was issued on 10.7.1995. It is more than seven years after the acquisition in question. Reliance on the rate at which the plot had been allotted to Escorts JCB Ltd. on 13.1.1997 (Ex. PW11/D) @ ` 565/- per square yard is totally irrelevant as the transaction took place more than eight years after the acquisition in question and during the interregnum, the area had already been developed.
24. Though in its wisdom, the State had decided to file appeals in the first round of litigation when assessment of compensation for the acquired land by the Reference Court was ` 150/- per square yard, however, when after remand the cases were decided and the value was assessed @ ` 165/- per square yard on the main road and ` 132/- per square yard beyond that, no appeals have been filed by the State.
25. In any case, on an appraisal of the evidence produced on record by the land owners, no case for enhancement of compensation can possibly be made out. Similar is the position with regard to the land for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 26.12.1988, where the claim is for grant of increase for the time gap in the two acquisitions, which has already been granted by the court as the value assessed is ` 165/- per square yard upto the depth of two acres on GT road and ` 132/- per square yard beyond that for the acquisition carried out vide notification dated 10.6.1988 and ` 175/- per square yard upto the depth of R.F.A. No. 2848 of 1993 [12] two acres and ` 140/- per square yard beyond that for the acquisition carried out vide notification dated 26.12.1988.
26. As far as application of belting system is concerned, though learned counsel for the land owners has sought to place reliance upon various judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court and this court in support of his contention, however, later judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court lay down various principles for determination of compensation for the acquired land specifying positive and negative factors.
27. In case titled as Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (D) By LRs. Vs. State of Gujarat, 2005(2) RCR (Civil) 492, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down certain broad principles for determination of compensation for the acquired land. Relevant paras are reproduced hereunder:-
17. Section 23 of the Act specifies the matters required to be considered in determining the compensation; the principal among which is the determination of the market value of the land on the date of the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4.
18. One of the principles for determination of the amount of compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefor. It is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a willing and informed buyer would offer would be different in the cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the cases where he is not.
19. Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase. Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences have to be considered.
20. The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as R.F.A. No. 2848 of 1993 [13] well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-a-vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. The positive and negative facts are as under :-
Positive facts Negative factors
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) smallness of size (i) largeness of area
(ii) proximity to a road (ii) situation in the interior
at a distance from the
road
(iii) frontage on a road (iii) narrow strip of land
with very small
frontage compared to
depth
(iv) nearness to developed (iv) lower level requiring
area the depressed portion
to be filled up
(v) regular shape (v) remoteness from
developed locality
(vi) level vis-a-vis land under (vi) some special
acquisition disadvantageous
factors which would
deter a purchaser
(vii) special value for an owner
of an adjoining property to
whom it may have some
very special advantage.
____________________________________________________
21. Whereas a smaller plot may be within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed preparing a layout plan, carving out roads, leaving open spaces, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers and the hazards of an entrepreneur. Such development charges may range between 20% and 50% of the total price."
28. In case titled as Haridwar Development Authority, Haridwar Versus Raghubir Singh etc., 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 301, the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined as under:-
R.F.A. No. 2848 of 1993 [14]"6. The question whether the acquired lands have to be valued uniformly at the same rate, or whether different areas in the acquired lands have to be valued at different rates, depends upon the extent of the land acquired, the location, proximity to an access road/Main Road/Highway or to a City/Town/Village, and other relevant circumstances. We may illustrate:
(A) When a small and compact extent of land is acquired and the entire area is similarly situated, it will be appropriate to value the acquired land at a single uniform rate. (B) If a large tract of land is acquired with some lands facing a main road or a national highway and other lands being in the interior, the normal procedure is to value the lands adjacent to the main road at a higher rate and the interior lands which do not have road access, at a lesser rate.
(C) Where a very large tract of land on the outskirts of a town is acquired one end of the acquired lands adjoining the town boundary, the other end being two to three kilometers away, obviously, the rake that is adopted for the land nearest to the town cannot be adopted for the land which is farther away from the town. In such a situation, what is known as a belting method is adopted and the belt or strip adjacent to the town boundary will be given the highest price, the remotest belt with be awarded the lowest rate, the belts/strips of lands falling in between, will be awarded gradually reducing rates from the highest to the lowest.
(D) Where a very large tract of land with a radius of one to two kilometres is acquired, but the entire land acquired is far away from any town or city limits, without any special Main road access, then it is logical to award the entire land, one uniform rate. The fact that the distance between one point to R.F.A. No. 2848 of 1993 [15] another point in the acquired lands, may be as much as two to three kilometres may not make any difference."
29. In case titled as Thakur Kuldeep Singh (D) Thr. L.R. & Ors. Versus Union of India and Ors., 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 372, the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined as under:-
"6. Sections 23 and 24 of the Act speak about the matters to be considered and to be neglected in determining compensation. Let us consider whether the appellants are entitled to higher compensation than that of the one fixed by the High Court or Union of India is justified in seeking reduction of the market value/compensation for the acquired land. While fixing compensation, it is the duty of the Land Acquisition Collector as well as the Court to take into consideration the nature of the land, its suitability, nature of the use to which the lands are sought to be acquired on the date of notification, income derived or derivable from or any other special distinctive feature which the land is possessed of, the sale transactions in respect of land covered by the same notification are all relevant factors to be taken into consideration in determining the market value. It is equally to consider the suitability of neighbourhood lands as are possessed of similar potentiality or any advantageous features or any special characteristics available. The Land Acquisition Collector as well as the Court should always keep in their mind that the object of assessment is to arrive at a reasonable and adequate market value of the land. While doing so, imagination should be eschewed and mechanical assessment of evidence should be avoided. More attention should be on the bona fide and genuine sale transactions as guiding star in evaluating the evidence. The relevant factor would be that of the hypothetical willing vendor would offer for the land and what a willing purchaser of normal human conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market conditions R.F.A. No. 2848 of 1993 [16] prevailing in the open market in the locality in which the acquired lands are situated as on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. In other words, the Judge who sits in the armchair of the willing buyer and seek an answer to the question whether in the given set of circumstances as a prudent buyer he would offer the same market value which the court proposed to fix for the acquired lands in the available market conditions. The market value so determined should be just, adequate and reasonable."
30. The aforesaid judgments clearly lay down that the market price is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchaser. The land facing a main road or a National Highway as compared to the land in the interior is to be valued at a higher rate as the land in the interior may not have road access. Even the principle of valuing a big chunk of land at different rates considering its proximity to the city and distance thereof from one end to another has also been approved.
31. It is a matter of common knowledge that if some one buys land on National Highway, the same always costs more than the value of land located on some internal road or the land which has no access at all, hence to claim that belting system adopted by the learned court below is not fair is totally misconceived. Therefore, the contention raised by learned counsel for the land owners is rejected.
32. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the set of appeals filed by the land owners in the second round of litigation impugning the award passed by the learned court below after remand of the cases. Accordingly, the same are dismissed. However, the award impugned in the pending appeals of first round of litigation shall be modified in terms of the award passed by the learned Reference Court after remand of the cases and the same are disposed of accordingly.
( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge February 23, 2012 mk