Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana & Anr vs Ashok Kumar on 17 July, 2009
RFA No.1177 of 1998 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RFA No.1177 of 1998
Date of decision: 17.07.2009
State of Haryana & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Ashok Kumar ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Present: Mr. A.K.Gupta, Addl.A.G, Haryana,
for the appellants.
Mr.R.N.Lohan, Advocate,
Mr.S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate,
Mr.Jitender S.Chahal, Advocate,
Mr.Ashok Khubbar, Advocate,
Ravinder Malik, Advocate,
for Mr.S.P.Laler, Advocate,
---
VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL)
This order shall dispose of RFA No.1177 to 1182, 1191, 1155, RFA No.1177 of 1998 2 1156, 1200. 1201. 1202, 1203,1473, 1474, 1636, 2104, , 782, 783 and 1199 of 1998 titled State of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Ashok Kumar, State of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Gram Panchayat, Badi Majra, State of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Dushyant Kumar & Ors; State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Kaushal Kumar; State of Haryana & Ors.. Vs. Gafoor Hassan, State of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Ramesh Chand, State of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Man Singh & Ors., Smt.Akbari Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., Maqsood Ali & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., Gafoor Hassan Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., Daljeet Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., Gafoor Hassan Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., Dushyant Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., Man Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., Gram Panchyat Badi Majra Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., State of Haryana Vs. Vs. Prem Chand, Kaushal Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., and Hukam Chand Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., respectively, arising out of the same award.
For brevity sake, facts are being taken from RFA No.1177 of 1998.
This appeal is directed against the award dated 27.1.1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jagadhri, on a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act).
A big chunk of land measuring 138 kanals 9 marlas of village Mamidi, measuring 42 kanals of village Garhi Gujran and 39 kanals 12 marlas of village Badhi Majra, was acquired for implementation of sewerage treatment plant. Notification for acquisition under section 4 of the RFA No.1177 of 1998 3 Act was published on 19.4.1994. Vide award dated 17.4.1995, the land Acquisition Collector, Jagadhri assessed the market value per acre for different categories as under:
Village Badhi Majra Sr. No. Kind of land Rate per acre
1. Chahi 7,22,700/-
Village Mamidi Sr. No. Kind of land Rate per acre
1. Chahi Rs.9,50,103.45/-
2. Barani Rs.5,103.70
3. Gair Mumkin Rs.9,214.95 Village Garhi Gujran Sr. No. Kind of land Rate per acre
1. Chahi Rs.8,42,700.80
2. Gair Mumkin Rs.17,295.80 Feeling aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Land Acquisition Collector, land owners sought references under section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation payable for the acquired land.
It was claimed by the land owners that the land for surrounding area was sold at the rate of 15 lacs per acre i.e. Rs.500/- per square yard. The land was said to be situated in 'A' Class Municipal Town of Yamunanagar. The land was said to be near the highway. It was also claimed that highway passes through the land in question known as Yamunanagar - Saharanpur highway. It was also claimed that the land bearing khasra No.6//4 and its surrounding land has a residential colony "Rishi Vihar". A tourist complex named Grey Palican of Haryana Tourism, and Rest House of Irrigation Department and City Centre are situated near RFA No.1177 of 1998 4 the land in question. Claim was also made for superstructure.
Claim was contested. Price was said to have been awarded at the market rate for the land in question. It was denied that there was any building existing on the acquired land. Other allegations were also denied.
All the references were consolidated.
Issue No.1 framed in all these cases was:
"What was the market value of the land in question on the date of publication of notification under section 4 of the Land acquisition Act? OPP"
The Appellant/State as well as the landowners led evidence. Mangru Parshad was examined as PW 1 who stated that he has purchased a plot of land in village Badhi Majra from Mam Chand for a consideration of Rs.8000/- (Rupees eight thousand only). Original sale deed was produced on record as Ex.P.1.. Location of the land of village Badhi Majra was also proved. It was claimed that the land of village Badhi Majra was near City Centre, Khalsa College, market, and Yamuna Nagar
-Saharanpur road.
Amar Singh PW 2 also supported the statement of PW 1. He stated that the land is contiguous to Yamuna Nagar City and also made statement regarding price of land in the year 1993. Ashok Kumar another witness examined as PW 3 made a statement about the land of village Garhi Gujran He deposed the market value of the land in question to be Rs.300/- per square yard. The land acquired was said to be situated behind the residence of Deputy Commissioner It was claimed that the land around RFA No.1177 of 1998 5 acquired land has been developed into a residential colony. Statement was also made that certain trees were standing on the acquired land.
PW 5 D.C.Kaushik factory manager with Haryana Distillery, Yamuna Nagar, proved sale deed Ex.P.3. Haryana Distillery had purchased the land for setting up a plant to treat the effluent discharged from Haryana Distillery. The land was purchased @ Rs.2,80,000/- (Rupees two lacs and eighty thousand only) per acre. Om Parkash PW 6, draftsman prepared the site plan of the area of Badhi Majra showing the location of acquired land. Sale deeds Ex.P.5 and P.6 were also proved on record.
In addition, land owners examined Dasrath Head Registration Clerk, DC Office, Yamunanagar as PW 8 who stated that the Collector's rate for registration of the sale deed was fixed by the Deputy Commissioner in the year 1993-94, according to him for residential plots minimum rate fixed was Rs.150/- per square yard; for commercial plots Rs.600/- per square yard; Rs.4 lacs per acre for bigger chunks of land within municipal limits and Rs.3 lacs per acre outside the municipal limits up to the distance of 3 Kms. These rates were fixed for village Mamidi, Garhi Gujran and Badhi Majra. However, no documentary evidence in proof was brought on record.
The State examined S.P.Sharma, SDO Public health as RW 1 who proved certified copy of sale deeds Ex.R.2 to R.4 and also proved on record site plan Ex.R.1. Certified copy of the sale deeds Ex.P.7 to P.10 were also proved.
Learned reference court by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.Narayan Rao Vs. The Land RFA No.1177 of 1998 6 Acquisition Officer 1996 (2) Apex Court Journal 147, held that for want of examination of vendor and vendee sale deeds Exs.P.7 to P.10 and Exs.R.2 to R.4 could not be relied upon. Learned reference court took into consideration the following sale deeds for determining the market value:
Exhibit Village Area Sale consideration Rate per acre P.1 Badhi Majra 20'x20' Rs.8,000/- Rs.8,71,287 P.3 Mamidi 24K 9M Rs.8,55,750/- Rs.2,80,000 P.5 Badhi Majra 89 Sq.Yd. Rs.28,000/- Rs.15,19,760 P.6 Badhi Majra 16-2/3M Rs.50,000/- Rs.4,80,000 Learned reference court recorded positive finding that the land in question had potential for utilization for residential purposes. The Land near the town was said to be having potential for being used for residential, commercial and industrial units. The reference court was further pleased to hold that the distance from the town could not be a criterion for categorization, of land for assessing the market value.
Learned reference court rejected the sale deed Ex.P.3, for the reason, that this was for quite small piece of land. It was held that when the sale deed with regard to the big chunk was available, the sale deed qua small area was to be ignored. Learned reference court rightly held that when sale deed of big chunk is not available, then that the sale of small piece of land could be considered by filing reasonable price.
Ex.P.3 was sale deed which was executed just prior to the issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act. The learned reference court, therefore, took the market value to be Rs.2,80,000/- (Rupees two lacs RFA No.1177 of 1998 7 and eighty thousand only) per acre. The learned court further held that the land purchased by the company was to be taken to be bona fide, as there could be no reason for the company to fix fictitious price for the land purchased, nor it could be possible, as accounts of company are audited. The learned reference court did not accept the plea that the sale deed was undervalued to save the stamp duty. The acquired land was within 3 Kms from municipal limit of Yamunanagar and therefore, the market value was assessed at Rs.2,80,000/- (Rupees two lacs and eighty thousand only) per acre.
Plea of some of the land owners that there were trees standing in the land was rejected, as except for the bald statement of some of the owners, there was no other evidence to support this plea.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the land owners have challenged the award, primarily on the ground that reference court committed an error in treating the land of all villages to be similar. It was the contention of the counsel for the land owners that the sale deeds produced qua land of Badhi Majra, should have been relied upon as village Badhi Majra was near Yamuna Nagar town, whereas village abadi was at a distance. This plea cannot be accepted as the evidence has come on record, that the whole of the acquired land was within 3 Kms of Municipal limits of Yamuna Nagar. The court has assessed the market value on the basis of sale deed which was registered immediately prior to notification under section 4 of the Act.
Learned counsel for the landowners then raised a plea that once RFA No.1177 of 1998 8 the Collector had fixed the rate for registration charges at Rs.3 lacs per acre, it could not be said that the market value was less than the rate fixed by the Collector. The contention raised, therefore, is that the land owners were at least entitled to the Collector's rate. The plea of the learned counsel for the land owners cannot be accepted in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jawajee Nagnatham Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, A.P. Etc. 1994 LACC SC 496, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down as under:-
"5. The question, therefore, is whether the Basic Valuation Register is evidence to determine the market value. This court in Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore V. T.Adhinarayan Setty, AIR 1952 SC 429, in paragraph 9 held that the function of the Court in awarding compensation under the Act is to ascertain the market value of the land at the date of the notification under Section 4 (1). The methods of valuation may be (1) opinion of experts; (2) the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages; and (3) a number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired. Same was the view in Tribeni Devi and others Vs. Collector of Ranchi, 1972 (3) SCR 208. It was reiterated in catena of decisions vide, Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. V. State of Kerala, 1991 (4) SCC 195 (1991 LACC 227) SC. RFA No.1177 of 1998 9 Therefore, it is settled law that in determining the market value, the Court has to take into account either one or the other three methods to determine market value of the lands appropriate on the facts of a given case to determine the market value. Generally the second method of valuation is accepted as the best. The question, therefore, is whether the Basic Valuation register would form foundation to determine the market value. The India Stamp Act, 1899 provides the power to prescribe stamp duty on instruments, etc. Entry 44 of List III, Concurrent List, of the Seventh Schedule read with Article 254 of the Constitution empowers the State Legislature to amend the India Stamp Act, 1899. In exercise thereof all the State Legislatures including the Legislature of A.P. amended the Act and enacted Section 47-A empowering the registering officer to levy Stamp Duty on instruments of conveyance, etc. if the Registering Officer has reason to believe that the market value of the property,covered by the conveyance, exchange, gift release of right or settlement, has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may refuse registering such instrument and refer the same to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon. On receipt of such opinion, he may call upon the vendor as per the Rules prescribed, to pay the additional duty thereon. If the vendor is dissatisfied, he had been given the right to file an RFA No.1177 of 1998 10 appeal and further getting reference made to the High Court for decision in that behalf. Section 47-A would thus clearly show that the exercise of the power thereunder is with reference to a particular land covered by the instrument brought for registration. When he has reasons to believe it to be under valued, he should get verified whether the market value was truly reflected in the instrument for the purpose of stamp duty; the Collector on reference could determine the same on the basis of the prevailing market value. Section 47-A conferred no express power to the Government to determine the market value of the lands prevailing in a particular area, village, block, District or the region and to maintain Basic Valuation register for levy of stamp duty for Registration of an instrument, etc. No other statutory provision or rule having statutory force has been brought to our notice in support thereof. Whether an instrument is liable for higher stamp duty on the basis of valuation maintained in the Basic Valuation Register, came up for consideration in M/s Sagar Cement Ltd. Mattampalle V. The state of Andhra Pradesh 1989 (3) ALT 677. B.P.Jeevan Reddy, J, as he then was, considered the question and held that the government has unilaterally fixed the valuation of the lands, the Basic Valuation Register, had no statutory foundation and therefore it does not bind the parties. Neither the Registrar nor the vendor is bound by it."RFA No.1177 of 1998 11
The learned reference court rightly rejected the sale deed qua small piece of land in view of the fact that sale deed qua big chunk of land was available.
For the reasons stated no ground is made out to interfere with the award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, which is affirmed.
All the appeals are ordered to be dismissed, but with no order as to costs.
(Vinod K. Sharma) Judge July 17, 2009 rp