Punjab-Haryana High Court
Daljeet Singh & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 29 March, 2019
Author: G.S.Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S.Sandhawalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RFA-6790-2011 (O&M)
Reserved on : 01.03.2019
Pronounced on: 29.03.2019
Daljeet Singh & others ....Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana & others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr.Shailendra Jain, Sr.Advocate
with Ms.Anupama Arigala, Advocate for the landowners.
Mr.Sudeep Mahajan, Addl.A.G., Haryana.
Ms.Vibha Tewari, AAG, Haryana.
*****
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J.
The present judgment shall dispose of 10 appeals, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the 'Act') out of which, 5 appeals bearing RFA-6790 to 6793-2011 and RFA-4698-2012 are filed by the landowners and remaining 5 appeals bearing RFA-566 to 570-2012 are filed by the State, against the common award dated 21.03.2011, passed by the Reference Court, Kaithal. Facts have been taken from RFA-6790-2011 titled Daljeet Singh & others Vs. State of Haryana & others.
The Reference Court has awarded a sum of Rs.430/- per sq.yard (Rs.20,81,200/- per acre), for the land which had been acquired vide notification under Section 4 dated 26.07.2006. The Land Acquisition Collector, vide award dated 19.03.2009, had awarded a sum of Rs.8.5 lakhs per acre, for the land measuring 34.41 acres falling in Village Patti Kaisth Seth Kaithal, Hadbast No.24, which had been 1 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 14-04-2019 07:52:39 ::: RFA-6790-2011 (O&M) & others connected cases -2- notified under Section 6 of the Act on 28.03.2007, acquired for the purpose of Sewerage Disposal Works & Solid Waste Disposal, at Kaithal. The enhancement was on the basis of the sale deeds (Exts.P-4 & P-5) wherein the rate of land was assessed @ Rs.21 lakhs per acre. Similarly, sale deed (Ext.P-6) was also kept in mind whereby the value was coming to Rs.26 lakhs per acre whereas Exts. P-7 & P-8 showed that the value was @ Rs.40 lakhs per acre. An earlier award titled as Krishan Kumar Seth Vs. State of Haryana & others (Ext.P-15) which pertained to the notification under Section 4 dated 10.11.2003 had also been produced by the landowners wherein market value had been assessed @ Rs.310/- per sq.yard. At an even earlier point of time, vide award dated 14.05.2009 (Ext.P-17), pertaining to the notification dated 09.08.2002, market value had been fixed @ Rs.280/- per sq.yard. Both the said acquisitions were of Sector 21 Kaithal. Keeping in view the potentiality of the land in question and that the market value was going up and the land being in close vicinity of Sector 21 and the fact that there would also be wastage of land on account of development and the fact that HUDA was also selling land @ Rs.10,000/- per sq.meter in the locality, the market rate was, thus, assessed @ Rs.20,81,200/- per acre.
Senior Counsel, Mr.Shailendra Jain, accordingly, submitted that the market value was assessed on the lower side whereas there were sale exemplars of the said village wherein the value was shown @ Rs.40 lakhs per acre, while referring to Exts.P-7 & P-8 and accordingly, enhancement was sought. Apart from that, by filing applications bearing 2 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 14-04-2019 07:52:40 ::: RFA-6790-2011 (O&M) & others connected cases -3- CM-1866-CI-2019 & 10100-CI-2013 and 10775-CI-2014 in RFA-6790- 2011, CM-10102-CI-2013 in RFA-6791-2011, CM-10098-CI-2013 in RFA-6792-2011, CM-10096-CI-2013 in RFA-6793-2011 and CM- 10104-CI-2013 in RFA-4698-2012, for additional evidence, the fall back was on another acquisition wherein, vide notification dated 30.06.2006, vide award dated 21.03.2011 (Annexure A-1) land was acquired for extension of the Bus Stand and the Traffic Park whereby market value had been granted @ Rs.2000/- per sq.yard. The same had further been enhanced to Rs.3000/- per sq.yard in RFA-3733-2011 titled State of Haryana & others Vs. Ashok & another, the Special Leave Petition of which is, however, pending and the award had been stayed by order dated 04.05.2017.
Similarly, reliance is also placed upon another award dated 06.03.2014 (Annexure A-5) for the notification dated 02/10.12.2002 wherein 55 acres 7 kanals and 11 marlas of land had been acquired for the Police Lines in the said revenue estate and the market value had been assessed @ Rs.977/- per sq.yard, which is also pending for further consideration before this Court in RFA-6777-2014. Resultantly, it was submitted that the market value was much more. The site-plans were also relied upon which had been brought on record as additional evidence, to show the location of the lands in question.
Mr.Sudeep Mahajan, Addl.A.G., Haryana, on the other hand, opposed the enhancement by submitting that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector was justified. It was further submitted that 3 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 14-04-2019 07:52:40 ::: RFA-6790-2011 (O&M) & others connected cases -4- even if 10% cumulative increase is granted on Rs.280/- per sq.yard, which is the amount granted on award dated 09.08.2002 (Ext.P-17) for notification dated 09.08.2002, the market value would only come to Rs.410/- per sq.yard (Rs.19,84,400/- per acre) if the similar analogy is applied and a 12% increase is also granted on the said market value of land acquired at an earlier point of time, the market value would come to Rs.440/- per sq.yard (Rs.21,29,600/- per acre).
Applications for additional evidence have also been opposed by the State on account of the fact that the location, situation and purpose of the land on which reliance had been placed upon, was different. That the acquisition was also for different purpose, wherein in the present case, the land was acquired for sewerage treatment plant. It was further submitted that the evidence was closed with the consent of the parties and the counsels and therefore, the same would not be liable to be allowed.
A perusal of the award would also go on to show that the Reference Court also noted that the exact location of the sold land was not clear while referring to Exts.P-1 to P-3, which were post-dated having been sold on 26.08.2008 but as noticed, there was a considerable increase in the market price, as such. Resultantly, this Court is of the opinion that the additional evidence which has been sought to be brought on record, which is also by way of site-plans, showing the other land in the locality including the one acquired for the Bus Stand and for the Police Lines, would only help this Court in adjudicating the issue in a proper perspective. Accordingly, the applications for additional evidence are 4 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 14-04-2019 07:52:40 ::: RFA-6790-2011 (O&M) & others connected cases -5- liable to be allowed under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27, as it would help the Appellate Court to pronounce judgment. Reliance can be placed upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Wadi Vs. Amilal & others 2004 (1) Scale 82, North Eastern Railway Adminstration, Gorakhpur Vs. Bhagwan Das (D) by LRs 2008 (8) SCC 511, Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin & another 2012 (8) SCC 148 and Union of India Vs. K.V.Lakshman & others 2016 AIR (SC) 3139, for the said proposition. No prejudice, as such, would be caused to the State also as the awards could not have been produced at an earlier point of time, since Annexure A-1 is for the notification dated 30.06.2006 and was passed on 21.03.2011 whereas Annexure A-5 has been at a subsequent point of time, passed on 06.03.2014, for the notification dated 02/10.12.2002. Keeping in view the fact that the said award was also passed at a subsequent point of time, it cannot be said that the landowners were filling up the lacunas and to fill up their weak points. Accordingly, the said applications for additional evidence are allowed and the documents annexed with the applications are taken on record, for necessary adjudication.
The sale deeds which were relied upon by the landowners under Section 18 reference as per the table reproduced by the Reference Court read as under:
Sr. Exhibit Date of Area Sale Price Sale Price in
No. sale acres
1. Ex.P1 26.8.08 13K 4M 78,66,385/- Rs.42 Lacs
2. Ex.P2 26.8.08 6K 16M 93,9,282/- one crore
3. Ex.P3 26.8.08 18K 13M 2,54,13,490/- one corre
5 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 14-04-2019 07:52:40 :::
RFA-6790-2011 (O&M) & others connected cases -6-
Sr. Exhibit Date of Area Sale Price Sale Price in
No. sale acres
4. Ex.P4 19.12.05 18K 14M 49,08,750/- 21 lacs
5. Ex.P5 19.12.05 45K 16M 1,20,22,500/- 21 lacs
6. Ex.P6 23.12.05 20K 11M 73,22,500 Appx 26 lacs
7. Ex.P7 29.6.06 50K 12M 2,59,32,500/- 40 lacs
8. Ex.P8 29.6.06 14K 12M Rs.74,82,500/- 40 lacs
9. Ex.P9 14.12.05 21.33 sq.y 1,20,00,000 per acre
10. Ex.P10 20.5.08 19.46 yards 14000 per sq.y. 32 Lacs
Exts.P-1 to P-3 have rightly been discarded on the ground that they were post notification by 2 years and therefore, the same would have no relevance, as such. Even otherwise, the site-plan now produced on record as Annexures A-2 & A-6 would go on to show that the sale deed dated 26.08.2008 pertained to one Jindal House, which was shown in pink colour and is on the Dhand road and opposite the private colony and at a considerable distance from the acquired land. It is closer to the bus stand and the developed portion of the town and also on the main road. The said road passed on the back of the road of PWD office on which commercial institutions are already functioning. A consolidated chunk of land had been sold on the same date by one Ashok Kumar Bansal and therefore, it would not be reflecting the true market value, as such, prevailing in the said area. As per the settled principles, it cannot be considered as it was not situated close to the land acquired and was having far better potential.
Similarly, Exts.P-7 & P-8 dated 29.06.2006, which have been sold to Nachiketa Realtors, were executed less than a month before the acquisition and cannot be taken to be a safe guide for assessing the correct market value. Merely because the colonizer is, as such, 6 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 14-04-2019 07:52:40 ::: RFA-6790-2011 (O&M) & others connected cases -7- developing the land and purchasing the same in the same revenue estate but closer to the heart of the town, would not entitle the landowners for the same market value. The appellants' land is situated further north on the road leading to Village Khurana. Though purpose of acquisition is not to be kept in mind but the fact that it is for the sewerage treatment plant, cannot be lost sight of. The acquisition is not for development of commercial or residential area and the type of the land would be best suited, as such, for the purpose which it has been acquired on the other side of the drain and further away and not close to the main road. Thus, reliance upon Exts.P-7 & P-8 would also be of no help to the landowners. Even it had been noticed that the exact location of Exts.P-7 & P-8 has not been depicted in the site-plan (Ext.P-14), which had been brought on record by the draftsman and neither any witness had deposed as to the location of the land, which is very important factor. It is settled principle that even if the land is falling in the same revenue estate it might command a higher value due to its sheer better location. Merely because the land has been sold at a higher value would not entail that the landowners would be entitled for the same benefit.
Rather, a perusal of the sale deed, as such, which have been brought on record by way of additional evidence, as Annexure A-4, having Sr.No.10256 and registered on 01.03.2006, goes on to demolish the case of the landowners. Vide the said sale deed, land measuring 122.22 sq.yards (7.34 marlas) was sold for Rs.1,40,000/- which would work out the value @ Rs.630/- per sq.yard (Rs.30,49,230/- per acre). The 7 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 14-04-2019 07:52:40 ::: RFA-6790-2011 (O&M) & others connected cases -8- same is also in Patti Kaisth Seth, shown in the site-plan (Annexures A-2 & A-6). The said plot is prior to the Kaithal drain, on the Khurana Road, close to the acquired land and therefore, even if the same is taken into consideration and a 30% cut is applied on account of smallness of the plot, the market value would again come down in the range of Rs.21,34,461/- per acre, which is very close to what the Reference Court has also awarded, i.e., Rs.20,81,200/- per acre. As noticed, the plot is prior to the Kaithal drain and therefore, would command a better price and in such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the amount awarded by the Reference Court is very apt and just and there is no scope for enhancement.
Similarly, the argument which has been raised that the value of the land which was acquired for the construction of bus stand should be taken into consideration, is without any basis. A perusal of the said award would go on to show that the location of the land, as such, is in the middle of the town and adjoining the General Bus Stand, Kaithal. The land is abutting to the main road and a finding has been recorded that it could be utilized for developing a commercial site. Land measuring 4 kanals which had been acquired, had been purchased by the landowners @ Rs.50 lakhs per acre and in such circumstances, the market value worked out @ Rs.8.5 lakhs, as assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector, was held not to be justified. Even otherwise, the SLP is stated to be filed against the said fixation @ Rs.3000/- per sq.yard in RFA- 3733-2011 and the award has been stayed and therefore, the market value 8 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 14-04-2019 07:52:40 ::: RFA-6790-2011 (O&M) & others connected cases -9- is still in a fluid state. The said award, thus, would be of no help to the landowners.
Similarly, the award dated 06.03.2014 (Annexure A-5) for Police Lines, whereby Rs.977/- per sq.yard has been assessed, could also be of no assistance to the landowners as admittedly, the location of the land is in front of Sector 19-I & II and abuts on the National Highway No. 65. A perusal of the site-plan (Annexures A-2 & A-6) which have now been produced on record, would go on to show that it is on the existing bye-pass road and next to Silver Oak School and also close to the Dhand road, the location of which has already been discussed above, which was subject matter of sale deeds, Exts.P-1 to P-3. Thus, the said land was situated in the heart of the town and the market value of the said land cannot be taken into consideration for the purposes of assessing the market value of the land which was situated across the Kaithal drain, on the road leading to Village Khurana.
A perusal of Annexure P-6 would go on to show that the sale deed dated 19.12.2005, whereby the land was sold for Rs.21 lakhs, is also part of the private colony whereby land of Sector 33 of Suncity, was developed, which is also on the other side and closer to the Dhand road. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the market value which has been assessed, in the facts and circumstances, is very much justified. It has been held in Raghubans Narain Singh Vs. The Uttar Pradesh Government through Collector of Bijnor 1967 SCR (1) 489, by a Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court that the potentiality of the land 9 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 14-04-2019 07:52:40 ::: RFA-6790-2011 (O&M) & others connected cases -10- should be taken into consideration and what a willing purchaser would pay to the willing seller, having due regard to its existing condition, with all its existing advantages, and potential possibilities when laid out in its most advantageous manner, excluding any advantage due to the carrying out of the scheme for the purposes for which the property is compulsorily acquired and record of any building activity in the neighbourhood, which were factors to be taken into consideration. Keeping in view the said observations and on account of the fact that the land is in the close vicinity, in Sector 21 which has been developed and fell within the Municipal limits and had potential value to be utilized, this Court is of the opinion that the Reference Court was well justified, as such, in fixing the market value @ Rs.430/- per sq.yard and there is no scope for enhancement and neither the appeals of the State, in the facts and circumstances, are liable to be allowed.
Resultantly, in view of the above discussion, the award dated 21.03.2011 is upheld and the appeals, filed by the landowners as well as by the State, are hereby dismissed.
29.03.2019 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
Sailesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
10 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 14-04-2019 07:52:40 :::