Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana Through Land ... vs Asha Devi Daughter Of Chajju Ram And ... on 1 November, 2012
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
RFA No.2201 of 1993(O&M)& anr. [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
X-Obj.No.97-CI of 2011
in/and
RFA No.2201 of 1993(O&M)
and
X-Obj.No.98-CI of 2011
in/and
RFA No.2202 of 1993(O&M)
Date of Decision: 01.11.2012
State of Haryana through Land Acquisition Collector-cum-Sub
Divisional Officer (C), Kalka, District Panchkula.
... Appellant
Versus
Asha Devi daughter of Chajju Ram and others.
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:Mr. DD Gupta, Addl. AG, Haryana
for the appellant(s).
Mr. Surjit Singh, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Jagdev Singh, Advocate,
for respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr. Durgesh Aggarwal, Advocate,
for respondent No.4.
*****
1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment? NO
2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the
digest? NO
K. KANNAN, J. (Oral)
1. Both the appeals are by the State and before the reference Court, the only document which was relied on for consideration was an earlier award passed by the Court for RFA No.2201 of 1993(O&M)& anr. [2] acquisition of property for an approach road to the grain market exhibited as PW 5/3 (as referred to in RFA-2201-1993) where the Court had assessed a compensation of `300/- per sq. yard. The State had itself not filed any document other than contending that the assessment made by the Collector at `17/- per sq. yard was correct and would not require any intervention by the Court in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State Mr. Gupta points out to me that the award relied on by the landowners was in respect of an acquisition notification made on 12.12.1980 through an award dated 31.08.1992 and the Court was considering acquisition of property at the bazar in Kalka and the location of the property was surely much better to command a higher price, which was not the case in respect of property which was being acquired for establishing housing board for low income groups. If the award indeed related to a property in respect of a place where now stands established the bazar, the reliance would have been definitely inappropriate.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the landowners refers me to the award PW 5/3, the purpose of acquisition and the location of the property which it was concerned about. The property which the earlier award was considering was situated in village Kurari, tehsil Kalka and the RFA No.2201 of 1993(O&M)& anr. [3] purpose of acquisition notification was a construction of approach road to grain market at Kalka. It was not even situated at the main bazar and before the Court, the reliance was being made also with reference to some lands in the main bazar. The Court, while assessing the compensation, made reference to the fact that the properties in the main Kalka bazar were more valuable but the property which was acquired for the approach road being away from the bazar, the Court deliberately made a modest valuation against the documents showing the value at bazar to be `1,000/- per sq. yard. The Court was making a refernece to a site of 16' X 50' sold at `333/- per sq. yard and made further reduction to determine the valuation at `300/- per sq. yard. The learned Senior counsel would, therefore, argue that the property which was dealt with in the award was not even as valuable as the property acquired through the instant notification and, therefore, the price determined with reference to the said award could only be seen to be on the higher side. If at all, there was even a scope for assessing a compensation of more than what was referred to in the award.
4. I find merit in the argument on behalf of the landowners that the property which was dealt with through the award was not in the market place and, therefore, the valuation on the reliance made by the reference Court on the said award RFA No.2201 of 1993(O&M)& anr. [4] which pertained to a notification dated 12.12.1980 and which was even earlier to the notification issued for acquisition of property in the instant case cannot, therefore, be seen to be on the higher side. The Court determines the compensation only on the basis of documents filed before it. In this case, the State had literally offered no other document or evidence to displace even the document which was even relied on by the landowners and that the value of the property could not be assessed at `300/- per sq. yard. With no better evidence available, the Court was, if at all, assessing a compensation which was modest and not an exaggerated claim as is sought to be now canvassed by the counsel for the State.
5. The Haryana Housing Board has been impleaded as a party on its own application being the beneficiary of the acquisition in which they established the housing colony for lower income group of people. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Housing Board contends that the Court below had actually assessed compensation three times more than of the amount which they were claiming before the Collector. This, according to him, shows that the assessment made by the Court was on the higher side. He further contends that the Housing Board itself has purchased some property subsequent to the notification on 07.05.1986 at a price of `27/- per sq. yard and, therefore, the assessment made by the reference RFA No.2201 of 1993(O&M)& anr. [5] Court cannot be appropriate. It could not have been more than `27/- per sq. yard.
6. At the time when the proceedings were initiated and the reference was made under Section 18, there was no necessity to implead the beneficiary of acquisition. However, in Neyvely Lignite Corporation Ltd. v. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) Neyveli (1995) 1 SCC 221, the Supreme Court held that beneficiary will be a proper party, if not a necessary party. If the Housing Board has been impleaded as a party in the appeal, it cannot secure any specific equities in his favour unless the assessment made shown to be grossly arbitrary. Even now a reference in the application for impleadment that the Housing Board itself had purchased some property subsequent to the notification at `27/- per sq. yard contains no details with reference to the said purchase such as date, the nature of property, the location of the property and how the valuation brought about in a post-notification sale has a bearing to the determination of compensation. With little or no material for a Court to accept the contention of the Housing Board, I find no error in the determination already made and I would reject also the plea by the Housing Board that the case must be remitted to the reference Court by giving liberty to let him evidence for re-determination of compensation. The appeal is dismissed.
RFA No.2201 of 1993(O&M)& anr. [6]
7. There is a plea for enhancement of compensation in cross appeals. I have already found that the evidence adduced had been grossly inadequate and if the Court was assessing the compensation, it did so what was best possible in the given circumstances. I would find no reason to enhance the compensation which has been sought through the cross- appeals. The cross-appeals are also dismissed.
1st November, 2012 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE