Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajit Singh vs Land Acquisition Collector And Anr. on 8 September, 1995
Equivalent citations: (1996)112PLR174
JUDGMENT Harphool Singh Brar, J.
1. In pursuance of the Notification published on 20th of March, 1985 Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called 'the Act') State of Punjab sought to acquire land of village Ropar Hadbast No. 44 actual measuring 22.34 acres which came out to be 23.62 acres after measurement for public purpose of construction of Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal at public expense. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation vide its Award No. 129 dated 3.7.1986 as under :-
Chahi Rs. 70,200/- per acre Barani Rs. 50,000/- per acre Banjar Kadim Rs. 45,000/- per acre Gair Mumkin Rs. 40,000/- per acre
2. Being dis-satisfied with the adequacy of the compensation of their acquired land by the Land Acquisition Collector the claimants sought reference Under Section 18 of the Act of the Court of District Judge, Ropar. The learned District Judge, Ropar vide his impugned order dated 1.6.1988 enhanced the compensation of the acquired land as under:-
Chahi Rs. 80,000/- per acre Barani Rs. 55,000/- per acre Banjar qadim Rs. 50,000/- per acre Gair Mumkin Rs. 45,000/- per acre
3. In addition, the claimants were held entitled to payment of solatium at the rate of 30 per cent of the market value besides an additional amount at the rate of 12 per cent per annum Under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. They were further held to be entitled to payment of interest as per Section 28 of the Act.
4. Aggrieved against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Ropar the appellants have filed an appeal Under Section 54 of the Act. This judgment of mine shall dispose of Regular Second appeals Nos. 1241, 1320, 1321, 1322, 1324 and 1340 of 1988 and Regular Second Appeals Nos. 281 and 291 of 1989 as they have been filed against the common judgment rendered by the District Judge, Ropar vide its judgment dated 1.6.1988 and also common question of law and fact are involved in these appeals.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants have submitted (i) that while awarding compensation, the learned District Judge has not taken into consideration the potential value of the land (ii) the land is situated within the Municipal Limits of Ropar and it can be utilised for commercial/industrial and residential purposes. According to the learned counsel the rate of the acquired land is not less than Rs. 1,000/- per yard and the kind of the land has been wrongly classified as Banjar and Barani as according to the learned counsel it is only Chahi and Barani land. It is further argued by them that while acquiring the land, the severance of the land of the claimants has been affected and no compensation has been awarded for the same.
6. The learned counsel has further argued that the sale-deeds produced by the claimants in support of enhancement of the compensation have not been taken into consideration by the learned District Judge while determining the compensation.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has argued that the acquired land is of very poor quality. The claimants are not entitled to compensation on account of severance and the learned District Judge has determined and consequently awarded the compensation to the applicants/appellants rightly on the basis of the record produced by the parties and the compensation is adequate and it may not be enhanced in any case.
8. The claimants have produced the following sale-deeds in the main case in order to prove the market value of the land:-
Sr. Sale Deed Date of Area sold Kind of Sale Price
No. No. sale land price per acre
Ropar Rs.
1. 339(Ex.P2) 8.5.1985 2K-17M G.M. Petrol 29000/-
Pump (Building)
2. 42(Ex.P3) 4.4.1985 OK-4M G.M. Makan 40000/-
3. 60(Ex.P4) 8.4.1985 OK-19M Chahi 30000/- 252000/-
Village Bari Haveli
4. 118(Ex.P5) 12.4.1985 OK-14M Chahi 77000/- 880000/-
Village Ropar
5. 61(Ex.P6) 8.4.1985 OK-8M Chahi 12000/- 240000/-
The learned District Judge has discarded these sale instance on the following reasons:-
9. Sale-deed Ex.P2 is with regard to the building, sale-deed Ex.P3 relates to the sale of four marlas of land which is comparatively very small piece of land. Ex. P-5 relates to land situated in village Bari Haveli which is near the Ropar towns where the land in question is across the Railway Line and the road leading from Nangal to Chandigarh. But these sale instances ought not to have been considered at all by the learned District Judge as they relates to the sales after the date of the Notification in this case Under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 20th of March, 1985. Even otherwise the perusal of Ex.P.3 cited above indicates that it also relates to a building and not to land. The mutations Exs. P-7 and P-8 produced by the claimants could also not be considered as instances for determining the market value of the land in view of Full Bench of this Court in The State of Punjab v. Pohu and Anr., (1986-2) 89 P.L.R. 109 (F.B.).
10. As evidence was being separately recorded in the land reference Ajit Singh etc. v. Punjab State but at later stage, this was also consolidated with the main case.
11. The other sale instances relied upon by the appellants in the land reference Ajit Singh etc. v. Punjab State are as under:-
Sr. Sale deed Date of Area Sold Kind of Sale Price
No. No. sale land Price per acre
Ropar
1. 98-l(Ex.P2) 13.7.1984 8K-10M Gair 30000/- 48000/-
(Mumkin)
2. 1397(Ex.P3) 19.9.1984 0K-14M 40000/- 457120/-
3. (Ex.P4) 1.2.1985 0K-12M Banjar 37000/- 493333/-
Qadim
4. 1.2.1985 0K-12M -Do- 37000/- 493333/-
5. 2383(Ex.P6) 1.2.1985 0K-7M 37000/- 74,000/-
6. 2412(Ex.P7) 6.2.1985 0K-12M Banjar 37000/- 394333/-
Qadim
Village Bari Haveli
7. 119(Ex.P8) 12.4.1985 0K-14M Chahi 77000/- 8,21,333/-
Ropar
8. 2338(Ex.P9) 10.12.1985 0K-11M Banjar 33000/- 480000/-
Kadim
9. 2341(Ex.Pl) 10.12.1985 OK-11M Banjar 33000/- 480000/-
Kadim
So far as these instances are concerned, the sales in Exs, P-8, P-9 and P-10 were executed after 20.3.1985 i.e. after the Notification Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the case in hand. So far as the other sale-instances are concerned they relate to very small pieces of land and thus, could not be considered as very much relevant in determining the market price of the land in hand. The claimants have then relied upon an Award dated 22.3.1984 of village Thali Ex.P-2 wherein the piece of land per acre was determined as under:-
Chahi Rs. 2,05,000/-per acre. Barani Rs. 1,16,000/- per acre. Gair Mumkin Rs. 30,000/- per acre.
12. It was contended by the learned counsel for the claimants that village Thali is situated at Ropar Nangal Road at a distance of 4 kms from Ropar. The sale price depicted in this award may be considered for determining the price of the land in question. The learned District Judge has rightly dis-agreed with the contention of the learned counsel made before me because the land acquired in the award of Thali was adjacent to the road whereas the land covered by the award in question is away from the road. In between the road and the acquired land there is Bhakra Main line, rivulet and then Sutlej Yamuna Link canal. Moreover, the land of village Thali is nearer to Ropar Chandigarh Road or Ropar Nangal Road but the acquired land in question in this case is not near Ropar Chandigarh or Ropar Nangal Road. It is then contended by the learned counsel for the claimants that road touches the acquired land and this has greatly increased the potential of the acquired land. It is factually found incorrect. The mere fact that some road passes near the acquired land will not make it as valuable as the land situated along Ropar Nangal Road. Moreover, it has not been shown by the learned counsel for the claimants/appellants that there is any expansion of Ropar City towards the acquired land. It is rather found from the evidence on the file that there is no expansion of Ropar City towards the acquired land at all which is only agricultural land. The acquired and is also not served by any main road as is discernible from the plan Ex.R-4 produced by the respondents.
13. Krishan Dass Kanungo R.W.-2 has stated on oath before the District Judge that there is no population towards the side of the acquired land. There are, however, certain "Bass" built in the fields. The "Bass" has been described as a group of hutments built in the fields. These few hutments have been built by the villagers in their fields for their own convenience. From the presence of 'Bass' in the fields it cannot be inferred that the acquired land is near a populated area. There is no evidence that there are any houses, buildings, cold-storages or petrol-pumps near the acquired land.
14. The learned counsel for the appellants have not been able to show from the evidence on the record anything which could substantiate their argument that the acquired land had acquired any potential for commercial/industrial or residential purposes. It is rather discernible from the map R-4 and other oral as well as documentary evidence on record that Ropar City is expanding along Ropar Chandigarh Road from old Bus Stand towards New Bus stand and not towards the acquired land. The learned counsel for the appellants have then relied upon an award dated 10.11.1983 photo copy of which has been produced as Ex.P-12. In land Reference Ajit Singh etc. v. Punjab State", the compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per marla but the whole land involved is only 3 marlas and was acquired by the State Electricity Board. The learned District Judge has rightly ignored this Award as it comprises only 3 marlas and that was also acquired by the State Electricity Board and moreover it is not nearer to the acquired by land at all. The respondents have produced in evidence the following sale deeds:-
Sr. Sale Deed Date of sale Area sold Kind of Sale Price
No. No. land price per acre
Ropar
1. 1034(Ex.Rl) 20.7.1984 0K-14M "Barani" Rs. 1000/- Rs. 11,429/-
2. 1212 (Ex.R2) 16.8.1984 OK-13M "Banjar" Rs. 2,600/- Rs.32,000/-
3. 97(Ex.R3) 16.4.1984 4K-11M "Banjar" Rs. 13,000/- Rs. 22,858/-
The learned counsel for the State has emphasised that these sale-deeds have been wrongly excluded by the District Judge from consideration in determining the market price of the land as these sales took place on 02.7.1984, 16.8.1984 and 16.4.1984 when the Notification in the case in hand was published Under Section 4 of the Act on 20.3.1985. The District Judge has ignored these sales obviously because these sales related to the year 1984 whereas the Notification in the case in hand was published on 20.3.1985 and the Award was pronounced on 3.7.1986.
15. Reference has been made of the award dated 27.6.1986 Ex.P-8 in Land Reference Prem Singh v. State of Punjab etc. This award pertained to the acquired land in village Pathreri Rajputan and the market price of the land was determined under this Award as under:-
Chahi Rs. 70,200/- per acre Barani Rs. 50,000/- per acre Banjar Kadim Rs. 45,000/- per acre Gair Mumkin Rs. 40,000/- per acre
16. According to the learned counsel for the respondents the same price as determined in the above award was allowed by the Land Acquisition Collector in the present Land Reference. Thus, the compensation enhanced by the learned District Judge in this case is adequate and does not need further enhancement.
17. I have also considered the judgment dated 26.5.1990 of the learned Additional District Judge, Ropar which has been allowed by me by a separate order 19.7.95 to be read as a part of evidence in the appeals. In my considered view, this judgment is not helpful to the appellants as in this case the Notification Under Section 4 was published on 3.10.1985 whereas the Notification in the appeals which are under decision now was published on 20th of March, 1985. Even otherwise?, the land of village Kotla Nihang is not comparable with the acquired land with regard to its nature, situation and nearness to the city of Ropar. The village Kotla Nihang has rather become a part of the city of Ropar itself whereas the acquired land is far away. The one end of the acquired land is rather about 2 kms away from the village Kotla Nihang and between the acquired land and Kotla Nihang intervenes the Bhakra Canal. Only a very small tip of the acquired land at its farthest end is shown near the village Kotla Nihang but this fact alone is not enough to compare the acquired land with the land of Kotla Nihang. Taken from all angles the award dated 26.5.1990 of the learned Additional District Judge, Ropar cannot be considered as an example for enhancement of compensation of the acquired land in this case.
18. Learned counsel for the appellants has further contended that the learned District Judge should have taken into consideration the sale transactions dated 1.2.1985 Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 and the sale transactions dated 6.2.1985 and 19.9.1984 comprised in Ex.P.7 and Ex.P3 respectively though they belong to small transactions of land. To fortify his arguments, the learned counsel has cited Bangaru Narasingha Rao Naidu etc. v. The Revenue Divisional Officer Vizianagaram, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 63, Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha etc. v. Amritsar Improvement Trust and Ors., A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 940 sad Administrator Genl. of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 943.
19. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Punjab submits that there is no dispute with the proposition that under the circumstances of a particular case, even sale transactions of small pieces of land forming part of the acquired land provide sale or genuine basis for ascertaining its market value at the relevant time, as held by the Supreme Court in Bangaru Narasingha Rao Naidu's case (Supra) and Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha's case (Supra), but at the same time, a party relying upon a particular sale transaction has to prove such sale to be genuine.
20. In the case of hand, the sale deeds comprised in Ex.P4 to P.6 were executed on 1.2.1985 and sale deed comprised in Ex.P.7 & P3 were executed on 6.2.1985 and 19.9.1984 respectively. In the present case, the Notification Under Section 4 of the Act was published on 20.3.1985.
21. The learned Advocate General further submits that it is worth noting that before the issuance of the Notification, the revenue officials or officials of the concerned Department did survey the land in order to find it suitable for the construction of Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal. Thus, the sale transactions appear to have been entered into in order to boost the sale price of the land knowing that the land was being acquired for Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal Project. I find force in the argument of the learned Advocate General. Firstly, that these sale transactions of small pieces of land do not form part of the acquired land. Secondly, it was for the party relying on these transactions to prove that the sale transactions were genuine and were not made to boost the sale price. Claimants have not proved the genuineness of the transactions in that manner. As has been stated by me above, the learned District Judge has rightly not taken into consideration these sale transaction relating to small pieces of land.
22. The decision of the Supreme Court in Administrator Genl. of West Bengal's case (Supra) is also not applicable to the facts of this case. The acquired land in the case in hand is agricultural land and as discussed above, it has not developed any potential, for it is being utilised for commercial/industrial/ residential purposes. Neither any industry nor any residential houses are found even nearer to the acquired land which is wholly agricultural.
23. Mutations Ex. P.7 and P.8 produced by the appellant, cannot be taken into consideration in view of the Full Bench of this Court in (1986-2) 89 P.L.R. 109 (F.B.), The State of Punjab v. Pohu and Anr.
24. After going through the evidence of both the parties regarding the determination of market price of the land, I feel that the compensation paid to the claimants is of a little lower side.
25. After taking into consideration the over-all picture of the sale instances and the awards produced by the claimants/appellants, I think, the ends of justice shall be met if the market price of the Chahi, Barani, Banjar Kadim and Gair Mumkin land is determined at Rs. 90,000/- Rs. 60,000/- Rs. 55,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- per acre respectively. It is thus ordered that the enhanced compensation of the acquired land shall be paid as under:-
Chahi Rs. 90,000/- per acre.
Barani Rs. 60,000/- per acre.
Banjar Kadim Rs. 55,000/- per acre.
Gair Mumkin Rs. 50,000/- per acre.
26. In addition, the appellants will be entitled to the payment of solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value besides an additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum Under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. The appellants will also be entitled to payment of interest as per Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Consequently, the appeal is accepted to the extent indicated above.