Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Others vs Neeru Gupta on 31 October, 2011
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
RFA No.5606 of 2010 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RFA No.5606 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision:31.10.2011
State of Haryana and others ....Appellant(s)
Versus
Neeru Gupta ....Respondent(s)
RFA No.5607 of 2010 (O&M)
State of Haryana and others ....Appellant(s)
Versus
Partap Singh ....Respondent(s)
RFA No.5608 of 2010 (O&M)
State of Haryana and others ....Appellant(s)
Versus
Chhotu Ram and another ....Respondent(s)
RFA No.5609 of 2010 (O&M)
State of Haryana and others ....Appellant(s)
Versus
Gurvinder Singh and others ....Respondent(s)
RFA No.5610 of 2010 (O&M)
State of Haryana and others ....Appellant(s)
Versus
Jaipal Singh alias Jaspal Singh ....Respondent(s)
RFA No.5611 of 2010 (O&M)
State of Haryana and others ....Appellant(s)
Versus
Manjit Singh and others ....Respondent(s)
RFA No.5612 of 2010 (O&M)
State of Haryana and others ....Appellant(s)
Versus
RFA No.5606 of 2010 (O&M) 2
RFA No.5613 of 2010 (O&M)
State of Haryana and others ....Appellant(s)
Versus
Jagjit Singh and others ....Respondent(s)
RFA No.5614 of 2010 (O&M)
State of Haryana and others ....Appellant(s)
Versus
Harbans Kaur wd/o Hazara Singh and others ....Respondent(s)
RFA No.5615 of 2010 (O&M)
State of Haryana and others ....Appellant(s)
Versus
Darshan and others ....Respondent(s)
RFA No.5616 of 2010 (O&M)
State of Haryana and others ....Appellant(s)
Versus
Kashmir Singh and another ....Respondent(s)
RFA No.5617 of 2010 (O&M)
State of Haryana and others ....Appellant(s)
Versus
Harbans Singh ....Respondent(s)
RFA No.5618 of 2010 (O&M)
State of Haryana and others ....Appellant(s)
Versus
Gurmit Singh ....Respondent(s)
RFA No.5619 of 2010 (O&M)
State of Haryana and others ....Appellant(s)
Versus
Kewal Jindal ....Respondent(s)
RFA No.5606 of 2010 (O&M) 3
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment ?
2. To be referred to reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
Present: Mr. H.S.Lalli, Additional Advocate General Haryana with
Mr. Amandeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General
Haryana.
Mr. Arvind Bansal, Advocate
for the landowners in RFA Nos. 5606 and 5619 of 2010.
Mr. Ajit Atri, Advocate
for respondent No.1 in RFA No.5607.
for respondent Nos.1 and 2 in RFA No.5608.
for respondent Nos.1 to 6 in RFA No.5609.
for respondent Nos.1 to 4 in RFA No.5612.
***
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL)
This judgment shall dispose of 14 Regular First Appeals i.e. 5606 to 5619 of 2010 as the same have arisen out of one common award of the Reference Court.
Vide notification dated 18.08.2005 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the 'Act'), Government of Haryana, intended to acquire land measuring 23.49 acres situated at village Malikpur for construction of BML Hasni Branch, Butana Branch Multi Purpose Link Channel. The aforesaid notification was followed by a declaration dated 13.09.2005 under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the land at the rate of ` 5 lacs per acre for Nahri/Chahi/Gair Mumkin kind of land.
Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award of the Land Acquisition Collector, landowners/appellants filed reference applications under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement of RFA No.5606 of 2010 (O&M) 4 compensation. Vide impugned award Ld. Reference Court assessed the market value of the acquired land in question at the rate of ` 8 lacs per acre. The Reference Court further held that the landowners whose land has been bifurcated because of acquisition were also entitled to ` 50,000/- per acre, on account of loss caused because of bifurcation of their land.
Challenging the aforesaid assessment of market value of the Reference Court, learned counsel for the State has vehemently argued that compensation awarded is on the higher side and the Reference Court has erred at law while placing reliance upon Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 (Sale deeds) which pertains to small plots, whereas a huge chunk of land was acquired vide impugned notification in question and in view of the various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the sale instances pertaining to small plots, cannot be taken into consideration for determining the market value of the big chunk of land which has been acquired.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award as well as documentary evidence as referred by the counsel for the parties.
It is not in dispute that the sale deeds Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 pertains to village Malikpur itself and are in close vicinity of acquired land and the land was sold vide these sale deeds prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. In fact, counsel for the appellants could not dispute the fact that aforesaid sale instances are comparable, but for the fact that they pertains to small pieces of land i.e. 16 marlas and 2 marlas respectively. The RFA No.5606 of 2010 (O&M) 5 argument raised on behalf of counsel for the appellants is liable to be rejected in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anjali Molu Dessai versus State of Goa and another 2011 (3) RCR (Civil) 696 wherein it has been authoritatively laid down that in the absence of any other evidence, even the sale instances pertaining to small pieces of land, which are otherwise comparable can be relied upon after making a suitable cut. The Reference Court has already applied a cut of 1/3 on the average price of the land on the basis of sale instances Ex.P8 and Ex.P9, and has assessed the market value as stated above.
Thus, no error can be found in the manner in which the market value of the land has been determined by the Reference Court while relying upon Ex.P8 and Ex.P9.
No other point has been argued.
It is made clear that this judgment shall not have any effect on the appeals filed by the claimants/landowners for enhancement of compensation.
Dismissed.
October 31, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) savita JUDGE