Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana Through Land ... vs Ram Partap on 1 April, 1999
Equivalent citations: (1999)123PLR203
Author: Swatanter Kumar
Bench: Swatanter Kumar
JUDGMENT Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. This and other 5 connected first appeal have arisen from the judgment/award passed by the learned District Judge, Ambala, dated 22.10.1992 awarding Rs. 5,80,800/- per acre to the claimants for their land, which was acquired by the State alongwith statutory benefits permissible under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The State of Haryana published a notification dated 31.8.1987 under Section 4 of the Act intending to acquire 5.68 acres of land in village Saunda, hadbast No. 114, Tehsil and District Ambala. The Acquisition of the land was for its development and utilisation as water works in Sector 9 Ambala Section 6 of the Act was issued on 294.1988. Having considered the objections of the parties, the learned Land Acquisition Collector vide award No. 3 dated 27.9.1988 granted the following compensation to the land owners.
a) Chahi Land : Rs. 69,000/- per acre. b) Barani Land : Rs. 46,000/- per acre. c) Gair Mumkin : Rs. 23,000/- per acre.
2. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded to the land owners, the claimants made requests for reference for enhancement before the learned Land Acquisition Collector. The Land Acquisition Collector made reference under Section 18 of the Act to the learned District Judge, Ambala. The learned District Judge vide his judgment and award dated 22.10.1992 having afforded opportunities to the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective case, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 5,80,800/- per acre.
3. It may be noticed here at this stage that the learned District Judge, Ambala disposed of 3 references i.e. LAC No. 155 of 1991, LAC No. 156 of 1991 and LAC No. 157 of 1991 vide a common judgment dated 22.10.1992. Disposal of these three references by awarding the aforestated amount has resulted in filing these all 6 RFAs, 3 by the State and 3 by the claimants. The State prays for reduction of the compensation awarded, while the claimants pray for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned District Judge. As all these 6 RFAs arise from one and the same judgment, it will be appropriate to dispose of all these regular first appeals together by this common judgment.
4. Reference to the evidence produced by the parties before the learned District Judge would be relevant. The material witnesses of the claimants were PW1 to PW7 Rajinder Singh and PW2 Gurdial Singh proved the sale deed EX.P1, P.2 and P.3 respectively. PW4 draftsman proved the site plan Ex.P10 and PW5 Sarwan Kumar Patwari and PW6 Kirpa Ram Patwari proved the ak-shijra PW5/A. PW7 Pritam Sharma was a witness summoned from the Haryana Urban Development Authority, who proved the letter of allotment Ex.PW7/A, where the value of the plots allotted by the said authority was stated to be Rs. 31,000/-. Advertisement issued by the HUDA at mark 'A' obviously was not exhibited in accordance with law. Respondents examined RW1 Dhoop Singh and proved on record only judgment Ex.R1.
5. In addition to the above documentary and oral evidence the parties had also proved on record certain certified copies of the awards/judgments of the learned courts including the judgment of the High Court in the case of Pala Singh v. State of Haryana, R.F.A. No. 985 of 1991 decided on 18.5.1992.
6. After examining the evidence produced on record, the learned District Judge held as under:
"The evidence on the file shows that acquired land is surrounded by residential colonies and is close to the new grain market Ambala City. There had been urban development in the area inasmuch as urban sectors had been developed by the HUDA in land acquired in villages Patti Mehar and Saunda. The evidence on the file further shows that shop sides in Patti Mehar in the year 1981 was sold at the rate of Rs. 200-210 per sq. yard. One shop site measuring 13 Sq. Yard was sold in Patti Mehar abutting on the national highway Ambala Hisar Road at the rate of Rs. 309 per sq. yard on 14.1.1980. They have also led evidence to show sale of developed site measuring 24 metres for Rs. 31,000/- - in the grain market during January, 1981. However, these instances are of no relevance as developed commercial plots are sold after carving out green belts, parks, roads and sites for social service institutions. The claimants have relied upon judgments copies of which are Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 which shows that High Court had enhanced compensation in respect of Patti Mehar land at the rate of Rs. 70,000/- per sq. yard acquired in the years 1973 and 1978. This Court has also allowed compensation at the rate of Rs. 100 per sq. yard in LAC case No. 83/4 of 1987 titled Satish Kumar v. State vide judgment dated 26.1.1991 (copy Ex.P/7) in respect of the land acquired in village Patti Mehar in the year 1983. This court also allowed compensation at the rate of Rs. 70/- per sq. yard in LAC case No. 8/4 of 1987 titled Buta Ram v. State of Haryana vide judgment dated 14.2.1992 (copy Ex.P9) for the land acquired in village Saunda in the year 1981. This Court further allowed compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,38,000/- per acre (coming Rs. 70/- per sq. yard) in LAC Case No. 2 of 1991 titled Harpal Singh v. State of Haryana vide judgment dated 6.5.1992 (copy Ex.P8) for the land acquired in village Patti Mehar and Jandli in the year 1981.
xx xx xx xx The High Court has allowed compensation at the rate of Rs. 70 per sq. for the Patti Mehar land acquired in 1973 and 1978. However, Patti Mehar land is more advantageous position and village Saunda land is towards back of Patti Mehar. Taking into consideration the compensation awarded for the Patti Mehar land abutting on the main road and national highway and also taking in view the fact that land now acquired falls in village Saunda which situation wise was away from the main road and national highway the market price of the acquired is assessed at Rs. 120/- per sq. yard after giving margin of 12% increase between the land acquired in the same village in the year 1981."
7. It is clear from the above discussion that the learned Judge primarily relied upon the judgments placed on record in relation to other land in the same vicinity. The learned Judge further granted 12% increase between 1973 to 1981 and determined the fair market value payable to the claimants as Rs. 120/-.
8. At the outset, it may be noticed that such an approach of giving flat increase in amount of compensation payable has not been appreciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In the case of Mehtab Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana, (1995-2)110 P.LR. 47 (S.C.), the Apex Court has held as under: -
"No occasion arose to take judicial notice of the inflation and high rise of prices. It must be borne in mind that from the date of award, interest becomes due to the claimant land owner, for thenceforth the land ceases to be his and while so the question of price rise does not arise when he is compensated for the deprival by payment of interest. That apart we have our strongest reservations to the rule evolved by the High Court in Maya Devi's case as also in Inder Singh's case afore-quoted. The Amendment Act of 1984 is explicit in terms. The limited retrospectively provided in the amending provisions do not permit adoption of 12% increase in price in each and every acquisition. If it was so intended the legislature would have expressly provided so. We would decry that rule and express our disapproval for its universal application or for all acquisitions." From the above detailed discussion these exhibits produced and proved by the claimants which are comparable instances are Ex.PX, Ex.PAA and Ex.P.18. These instances are not only comparable in terms of location, and potentiality but are also relevant in relation to proximity of time of acquisition of land."
9. Resultantly, the approach made by the learned District Judge cannot be accepted by this Court in view of the above dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
10. In this case Ex.P.1, P.2 and Ex.P.3 are the Sale Deeds produced on record by the claimants while the respondents admittedly did not produced any sale-deeds/sale instances on record. Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 have been proved in Court in accordance with the law. The vendor or vendee were examined as PW-1. and PW-2. Ex.P.1 is the sale-deed dated 14.5.1981 for the sale of 6 marlas while Ex.P.2 is the sale deed of 12.3.1981 in relation to three marlas. The sale consideration as reflected in these documents was Rs. 18,000/- and Rs. 19,383/-respectively. Ex.P.3 is the sale instance in relation to 13 square yards for a sum of Rs. 4,000/-on 14.1.1980.
11. Awards/judgments were produced and proved on record as Ex.P.4 to P.9. The learned Additional District Judge mainly relying upon Ex.P.4, P.5, P.7 to P.9 had awarded a compensation of Rs. 120/- per square yard after giving the increase of 12% for a period of three years.
12. The sale instances produced by the parties in the present case relate to very small pieces of land i.e. like 13 square yards and 91 square yards approximately. It will not be safe to place reliance for finally determining the amount of compensation payable to the claimants in relation to their acquired land on the basis of such sale instances. Further more, the sale instance Ex.P.1 relates to a little larger piece of land i.e. around 178 square yards sold for Rs. 18,000/- giving a flat cost value at Rs. 101/- per square yard. Even if I take this sale instance as the basis for determining the compensation then essentially element of deduction/cut has been applied to such sale instances. The extent of deduction would have to depend upon the factor that it is a small piece of land and secondly the area has to be developed and due provision should be made for the lands which are acquired for public purpose like raising of water works centre in Sector 9. However, it remains a fact that the land in question is surrounded by some developed lands as well.
13. Keeping in view the totality of circumstances some element of conjectures has to be introduced for the purposes of final determination. As such I would apply element of deduction to the extent of 45%. Resultantly, cost pay- able to the claimants on the basis of Ex.P.3 would be Rs. 55.62 per square yard (101.12 x 45 - 100 = 55.50, 101.12 - 55.50 = 55.62).
14. I do not consider it necessary to discuss in great detail the evidence adduced by the parties on record. This is for the reason that the judgments i.e. Ex.P.4 in Pa/a Singh's case, Ex.R.1 in Baldev Singh's case, Ex.P.8 in Harpal Singh's case and Ex.P.9 in Buta Ram's case were dealt with in a regular first appeal by this Court. In other words, the appeals preferred in these cases by the claimants as well as by the State were disposed of by this Court vide a detailed judgment in the case of Harpal Singh v. State of Haryana, R.F.A. No. 2872 of 1992 decided on 7.1.1999 and Baldev Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana, R.F.A. No. 965 of 1992 decided on 16.1.1999. After discussing the evidence in great detail and the law governing the subject in the above regular first appeals, this Court awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,91,800/- per acre to the claimants with statutory benefits.
15. The case of Pala Singh, which the very basis of Ex.P.7, Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.9 relates to a land which was situated in Municipal Limits of Ambala City at the time of acquisition. This Pala Singh does not form a comparable basis for final determination of the amount of compensation payable to the claimants though it would certainly the indicative of the market price of the land existing in the surrounding areas. While deciding the other connected regular first appeals Ex.P.4 had come up for discussion. In the case of Baldev Singh v. State of Haryana, after detailed discussion, the Court took the view that Pala Singh's case was not a comparable instance for the land being acquired vide the present notification. The Court held as under:-
"In the case of Pala Singh land of village Patti Mehar, the boundaries of which are common with village Saunda, was acquired vide notification dated 30.5.1978 and a sum of Rs. 4,84,000/- per acre was awarded by the High Court. However, while applying the belting system, different compensation was awarded to different lands at the rate of Rs. 100/- per square yard and Rs. 70/- per square yard to the other kind. The judgment of the learned Single Jude of this Hon'ble Court Ex.PX was affirmed in Letters Patent Appeal. It is further conceded position that Special Leave .Petition preferred against that order stands dismissed. As such the compensation awarded in Pala Singh's case is stated to have become final."
16. Remaining judgments and awards were discussed at great length in the case of Jagir Kaur v. State of Haryana, where the land was acquired on 2.2.1989. The Court discussed the entire evidence in those cases including the evidence produced in the present case as well as the awards passed by the learned Additional District Judge in the present case. After detailed discussion the Court held as under:-
"From the above detailed discussion three exhibits produced and proved by the claimants which are comparable instances i.e. Ex.PX, Ex.PAA and Ex.P.18. These instances are not only comparable in terms of location, and potentiality but are also relevant in relation to proximity of time of acquisition of land.
"In addition to the above exhibits produced by the petitioners, the Court would have to take into consideration the exhibits produced by the respondents. Ex.PW1/H, Ex.RX and Ex.RZ are the documents which have been proved in accordance with law and relate to the lands in or around the same villages. Though they cannot be made the sole basis for determination, but they cannot also be excluded. The fact that the notification in those cases is of the years 1978 and 1981, per se would not be sufficient to ignore these instances.
The principle of determination of market value of the land by applying the principle of averages of the sale instances proved on record and which are admissible would be a safe measure to arrive at a figure which should finally be paid to the claimants. Application of principle of average is no where an innovative application, but is a mere reiteration of a well accepted norm and principle which has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajashekhar Sankappa Taradandi (supra). This principle was also fully accepted by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Khushi Ram and Anr. v. The State of Haryana, 1988 L.A.C.C. 653."
"It is true that the instances proved on record by the respondents are judgments of the Court, but all of them have not still attained finality. While from the instances proved by the claimants, two of them have already attained finality. As judgments and awards of considerably variable amounts of compensation have been proved on record, this Court would not be in a position to ignore either of them. Thus, the only principle applicable would be that of computing the average of such instances. All these instances are otherwise relevant keeping in view the location, potentiality of the land and the purpose for which such lands are acquired."
"The claimants would be entitled to the higher value determined by this Court. Consequently, they should be entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,91,813.33 per acre.
For the reasons afore-stated I am of the considered view that the land owners claimants should be entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 2,91,813.33 per acre as uniform compensation payable for the lands acquired under the notification dated 2.2.1989."
17. There could be no dispute to the fact that Section 4 notification acquiring . the land in Jagir Kaur (supra) is dated 2.2.1989 and the land was having somewhat better location than the present case and was acquired for residential and commercial development, while In the present case notification under Section 4 is of 31.8.1987 and the land has been acquired for water works for supply of water to other developed sectors. Resultantly, the claimants in the present petition have to get compensation of a lessor amount than the one awarded by this Court in the case of Jagir Kaur (supra).
18. It will be just equitable and fair if the claimants are awarded a sum of Rs. 56/- per square yard i.e. nearly Rs. 2,71,040.00 per acre. The evidence even otherwise in the present case i.e. Ex.P.3 by which the claimants have prayed for enhancement, the amount comes to somewhat similar amount i.e. Rs. 55.62 paise. The claimants should normally be entitled to the higher amount arrived at by the two afore mentioned methods of computation. Sum of Rs. 56.00 would be more appropriate because the same has been calculated on the basis of principles of averages of Jagir Kaur's case. Therefore, I hold that the claimants would be entitled to the compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 2,71,040.00 per acre (Rs. 56/- per square yard) with statutory benefits available to them under Section 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act.
19. Resultantly, the appeals preferred by the State are party accepted in the above terms, while the appeals preferred by the claimants are dismissed. However, there shall be no orders as to costs in all the appeals.