Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hazura Singh And Ors. vs The State Of Punjab And Ors. on 18 August, 2003
Equivalent citations: (2003)135PLR869
Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel
JUDGMENT Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred against award of the Reference court determining market value of the acquired land.
2. Date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) in respect of the land in question, is 9.7.1979. The land was acquired for water supply project. The Collector gave his award dated 24.7.1980, determining market value of acquired land in four categories - Rs. 15,000/- per acre for Chahi, Rs. 9,600/- per acre for Rousli and Bagh Rousli, Rs. 3,998.40 for Gair Mumkin and Rs. 8,001.60 for Bhudd.
3. The Reference court consolidated various references and in the main case, Rabi Singh, PW1 appeared for the claimants and relied upon Exhibits P1 and P2 which are sale instances dated 7.4.1981 and 30.3.1982. He stated that the acquired land was at a distance of 100 yards from Chandigarh-Ludhiana road and there were about 15 poultry farms, 5/7 factories, a High School and a college near the acquired land; the land fell within the periphery limits of Chandigarh; prices were rising continuously and market price of the land was Rs. 50,000/- per acre at the time of acquisition.
4. On behalf of the State, Hari Singh, Kanungo, appeared as RW1 and stated that the land was at a distance of 6 kms. from village Manakpur and 7 kms. from Morinda; there was no town within the area of 6 kms. from the acquired land; Ludhiana-Chandi-garh road was at a distance of 1 km. from the acquired land; Abadi of village Manakpur was at a distance of 4 kms. from the acquired land and there was no commercial establishment or any residential building in the vicinity of the acquired land. He proved AKs-Shajra Ex.P1 and mutations Exhibits R2 and R3. Besides, other evidence was also led.
5. The reference court rejected the instances of sale produced by the parties. The instances of sale produced by claimants were 20 months after the acquisition. Version of the claimants that there were commercial structures near the acquired land was found to be without any basis as RW1 Hari Singh was not confronted with any material which could rebut his version that there was no commercial or other establishment near the acquired land. It was further held that land did not have any potential for residential or commercial use. Instances of sale produced by the respondents were also held to be not relevant being eight months prior to the date of acquisition. Compensation determined by the Collector was, thus, held to be sufficient. It was, however, held that acquisition of part of holding of the claimants resulted in causing severance of their remaining holdings. RW3 Vinay Kumar, Sub Divisional Engineer, Public Health Division, stated that the width of the acquired strip was 15 feet; pipes were being land in the acquired land to the depth of 7 feet below the ground level; the level of acquired land will be maintained at the level of the adjoining land; no wall was to be made nor fencing was to be done; the owners will be able to pass through the land, dig their cattle, carts and tractors; no digging was done in the adjoining land and, thus, no loss will be caused by severance. The Court held that as a result of severance, the claimants will suffer great handicap, difficulty and inconvenience in proper cultivation and were entitled to 5% compensation over and above compensation assessed by the Collector on account of severance.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that compensation should have been awarded at higher rate in view of potential for commercial purposes and rate of 5% additional compensation for severance was not sufficient. He also submitted that in view of amendment in the Land Acquisition Act by Act 68 of 1984 as interpreted by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Raghbir Singh, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1933, the appellants were entitled to higher solatium and interest.
7. Learned counsel for the State supported the view taken in the award of the reference court.
8. I have perused the record of the case and considered the submissions. Apart from oral statement, no other relevant material has been produced to show the market value of the land. Burden was on the claimants to show that market value of the land was higher than what had been determined by the Collector. Though, some amount of guess work is permissible, there should be some relevant material on the basis of which higher market value can be allowed. Potential of the land for commercial purposes or other urban purposes having also not been established, the land in question had to be taken as agricultural land. I, therefore, do not find any ground for holding that the claimants are entitled to higher compensation than that assessed by the Collector.
9. As regards compensation for severance, there is no reliable evidence for holding that there is depreciation in the value of the left-over land. No doubt, a person whose land is acquired, is not only entitled to compensation for the acquired land but also for diminution in the value of the left-over land. Evidence is required to show as to what was the value of the left-over land before acquisition and after acquisition and compensation is payable if there is depreciation in the value of the left-over land. Mere slicing of property of large extent, without any further proof of depreciation in value, cannot be the basis for compensation for severance. It is not shown on record as to in what manner, value of the left-over land had been depreciated. The reference court has awarded 5% of compensation for depreciation on ad hoc basis based on guess work. Without there being any specific evidence on the point, it is not possible to make further enhancement.
10. Even though, no case has been made out for further enhancement, the claimants are entitled to benefits of amended Act 68 of 1984 with regard to higher rate of solatium and interest as provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the Act. Thus, the claimants will be entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 9% on the amount enhanced by the reference court from the date of dispossession till the date of payment of excess in court. If the payment has been made after one year from the date of possession, interest will be 15% per annum for the period beyond one year.
11. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms.