Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surjit Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Anr. on 22 August, 1997
Equivalent citations: (1997)117PLR586
JUDGMENT N.K. Kapoor, J.
1. Letters Patent Appeals No. 1254 of 1988 and 10 of 1990 filed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 2.6.1988 raising common question of law are being disposed of by this judgment.
2. State of Punjab vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') dated 26.11.1982 which was published in the government gazette on 27.11.1982 initiated proceedings to acquire land situate in the revenue estate of village Saini Majra, Tehsil and District Ropar, for the construction of Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 6.12.1982 and published in the government gazette on 7.12.1982. Land sought to be acquired measured 48.16 acres. The categories of land acquired are Chahi, Barani, Banjar Qadim and Gair Mumkin.
3. Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation of the acquired land at the following rates:-
Chahi :@ Rs. 31,310/- per acre
Barani Bet :@ Rs. 23,480/- per acre
Barani Bagh :@ Rs. 23,480/- per acre
Banjar Qadim :@ Rs. 23,480/- per acre
Gair Mumkin :@ Rs. 5,870/- per acre
In addition thereto, other benefits permissible under the Land Acquisition Act were also awarded. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded, present appellants too sought references under Section 18 of the Act. Similarly, other claimants too sought references and so the District Judge consolidated various references and disposed of the same by a common judgment.
4. Following issues were framed by the District Judge:-
1) Whether the compensation awarded to the claimants is inadequate and, if so to what extent? OPA
2) Relief.
Parties were permitted to adduce evidence in support of their contentions. The District Judge on considering the evidence adduced which was in the nature of copies of mutation pertaining to sale deeds executed by the parties before and after the date i.e. 26.11.1982; sale transactions of village Ghanauli; and copy of the award given in another case of village Thali; relied upon the instances of sale as reflected at serial Nos. 2, 4 and 7 of the chart framed; and so enhanced the amount of compensation to be paid to the claimants at the following rates:-
Chahi : @ Rs. 35,000/- per acre.
Barani of all types : @ Rs. 27,000/- per acre.
However, compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector qua Banjar Qadim and Gair Mumkin was held to be adequate. Other benefits in the nature of interest, solatium etc too were granted to the claimants.
Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned District Judge, State of Punjab as well as the present appellants preferred appeal. Learned Single Judge re-examined the matter on fact, placed reliance upon the sale deeds Exhibits P2/A, P3/A and P4/A corresponding to mutations Exhibits P-2 to P-4 and especially the sale deed Exhibit P3/A, sale transaction executed on June 14, 1982 for an area measuring 2 Kanals 6 Marlas of Bagh Barani Land situate in village Saini Majra for a valuable consideration of Rs. 23,000/- i.e. at the rate of Rs. 80,000/- per acre. Since this sale transaction pertained to a small area, a cut of 1/3rd was applied which thus comes to Rs. 53,334/- per acre but this figure was rounded off and so the Court determined the market value of all types of Barani land at Rs. 50,000/- per acre. Similarly, in respect of Chahi land, sale transactions Exhibit P2/A and P4/A were taken into consideration and value of these transactions were determined at Rs. 76,000/- per acre, again on applying a cut of 1/3rd in view of smallness of the land sold vide the aforesaid sale transactions, the value of the land acquired was determined at Rs. 64,280/- per acre. This amount to again was rounded off and the acquired Chahi land was evaluated at Rs. 60,000/- per acre.
5. Regarding the contention of the claimants that they be also awarded compensation at the same rate as has been awarded in respect of the acquired land of village Thali, the Court came to the conclusion that the acquired land of village Thali has better potential than the acquired land of village Saini Majra and so declined to place any reliance upon the same. The Court also noticed that in respect of the acquisition of land situate in village Thali, even the District Collector had suggested the rate of Chahi land at Rs. 2,28,078/- per acre and of Barani land at Rs. 29,855/-, whereas Makhloot quality of land at Rs. 39,897/- per acre. A Learned Single Judge also discarded the award Exhibit R-5 pertaining to land of village Inderpura as there was no evidence to suggest that the land of village Inderpura was similar to the land of village Saini Majra. Thus, the learned Single Judge awarded compensation for Barani land at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- and for chahi land at the rate of Rs. 60,000/-per acre.
6. Still not satisfied with the amount of compensation determined by the learned Single Judge, appellants have preferred these two appeals. Almost same arguments have been pressed into service which did not find favour with the District Judge or learned Single Judge. The precise submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the land of village Thali too had been acquired for identical purpose i.e. construction of Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal, where even the Collector recommended the price of the land acquired at the rate of Rs. 2,28,078/- per acre. The award given in the aforesaid case i.e. regarding acquisition of land of village Thali having attained finality, learned Single Judge erred in law in ignoring the award and so deprived the appellants and other rightful claimants to get enhanced compensation of the acquired land. Besides it, the counsel argued that this Court should keep in view the solemn promise given by the then Chief Minister of Punjab regarding awarding of compensation to the claimants of various villages of District Ropar. In fact, the then Chief Minister entered into a Settlement with the members of the Action Committee set up by the agitating affected farmers whereupon it was settled that the Chahi land will be evaluated at the rate of Rs. one Lac per acre. Besides, the government promised that a family member of the claimant shall be given government job or job in any public undertaking and even a plot would be offered at reserve price at Mohali or at other Urban Estate. According to the counsel, on the aforesaid two grounds i.e. award of village Thali and solemn undertaking given by the then Chief Minister, Punjab, the appellants are entitled to enhanced amount of compensation. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision in case reported as The State of Punjab v. Surjan Singh etc., (1990-1)97 P.L.R. 278; Special Land Acquisition Office, Broach v. Punjabhai Narshibai Patel and etc., AIR 1991 Gujarat, 161; and K. Periasami Sub-Tehsildar (Land Acquisition), (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 180.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants, perused the judgment of learned Single Judge and that of the District Judge. Factual aspects have been noticed above. The claimants in support of their claim adduced in evidence sale transactions which took place in between June, 1982 to April 1984. Vide sale deed dated 14.6.1982, an area measuring 2 Kanals 6 Marlas of Bagh Barani was sold for a sum of Rs. 23,000/- i.e. at the rate of Rs. 80.000/- per acre. Learned Single Judge imposed a cut of 1/3rd on account of small-ness of the area sold vide the aforesaid sale deed and so determined the price of all types of Barani land at Rs. 50,000/- per acre. Similarly, while determining the price of Chahi land, learned Single Judge placed reliance upon two sale transactions of land measuring 4 Kanals 19 Marla and 5 Kanals sold on 23.4.1984 i.e. 1-1/2 years after the notification under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 27.11.1982. Taking the rise in price of land to be approximately 10% every year, worked out the price of Chahi land as on 27.11.1982 at Rs. 64,280/- per acre. Giving an allowance for little variance on account of the situation of land acquired, determined the price of Chahi land at Rs. 60,000/- per acre.
8. Under Section 23 of the Act, while determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for the land acquired, the Court is to keep in view (i) the market value of the land on the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1); (ii), damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops or tress which may be on the land at the time of the Collector's taking possession thereof; (iii) damage on account of severance of land from the other land; (iv) damage which the claimant has suffered qua his other movable or immovable property or his earnings; (v) change of residence on account of acquisition; and (vi) diminution of profits of the land between the date of publication of declaration under Section 6 and the time the collector takes to get possession of the land. It is well settled that market value of the land acquired is what a needy buyer is ready to pay for the land. This is best reflected in the sale transaction nearer to the date of acquisition. All the same, it has been found that there is an element of guess work while determining the price of land acquired for the reason that no two sale transactions can be said to be identical regarding quality of land, its location and such other factors. The apex Court had the occasion to examine this aspect of the matter time and again and the Court has held that price is to be determined keeping in view the parameters as given in Section 23 of the Act. The apex Court in case reported as Raghubans Narain Singh v. The Uttar Pradesh Government, through Collector of Bijnor, AIR 1967 S.C. 465, held as under:
".... Market value on the a basis of which compensation is payable under Section 23 of the Act "means the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for a property having due regard to its existing condition, with all its existing advantages, and its potential possibilities when laid out in its most advantageous manner, excluding any advantage due to the carrying out of the scheme for the purposes for which the property is compulsorily acquired. As observed in South Eastern Rail Co. London Country Council, (1915)2 Ch 252:
"The Value to be ascertained is the price to be paid for the land with all its potentialities and with all the use made of it by the vendor."
9. The apex Court in case reported as Smt. Tribeni Devi and Ors. v. The Collector, Ranchi, AIR 1972 S.C.1417 held that the compensation payable to the owner of the land is the market value which is determined by reference to the price which a seller might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser, but as this may not be possible to ascertain with any amount of precision, the authority charged with the duty to award compensation is bound to make an estimate judged by an objective standard. The land acquired thus has to be valued not only with reference to its condition at the time of declaration under Section 4 of the Act but its potential value also must be taken into account. Dealing with the question as to the proportion in which a cut in the price of the land is to be applied on account of same being small in area, the court held that a smaller area such as this on a main road would certainly fetch a higher price compared to a larger undeveloped area even though it may have a frontage on the main road. In order to develop that area at least the value of 1/3 of the land will have to be deducted for roads. Drainage and other amenities. On this basis, the value of the land at Rs. 2,08,135.70 per acre would, after deduction of 1/3, come to Rs. 1,38,757/- per acre.
10. The apex Court again in case reported as Smt. Kausalya Devi Bogra and Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad and Anr., AIR 1984 S.C. 892 held as under:-
"Two principles relating to the matter of fixation of compensation relevant for the present purpose may be kept in view. When large tracts are acquired, the transaction in respect of small properties do not offer a proper guideline. Therefore, the valuation in transactions in regard to smaller property is not taken as a real basis for determining the compensation for larger tracts of property (see Prithvi Raj Taneja v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977) 2 CCR 633 : (AIR 1977 SC 1560); Padma Uppal v. State of Punjab, (1977) 1 SCR 329 (AIR 1977 SC 580). In certain other cases this Court indicated that for determining the market value of a large property on the basis of a sale transaction for smaller property a deduction should be given. In Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore v. T. Adinarapyan Setty, (1959) Suppl. (1) SCR 404; (AIR 1959 S.C. 429), a reduction of 25% was indicated while there are certain other cases where the view of that the reduction should be to the extent of 1/3. Again, in the very scheme for fixation of compensation provided by the Land Acquisition Act there is bound to be some amount of arbitrariness. The acquisition is deemed to be a statutory purchase and on the basis of evidence the law requires an assumed consideration to be determined....."
11. These decisions are invariably kept in view while determining the price of the land acquired. Learned Single Judge in the instant case whereas imposed a cut of 1/3rd in the price on account of smallness of the plot, somehow, inadvertently, did not adhere to this principle while determining the price of Chahi quality of land. In respect of Chahi land as there was no sale transaction was taken into consideration and by imposing a cut of 10% for every year, assessed the likely price of Chahi land at Rs. 64,280/-. However, giving some allowance for little variance in the situation of the land acquired vis-a-vis the sale transaction, determined the price at Rs. 60,000/- per acre. State has not filed the appeal/objections. Since an element of guess work is invariable in such like cases, it can be taken that the Court determined the price of Barani land at Rs. 50,000/- per acre and Chahi land at Rs. 60,000/- per acre. The Court having imposed cut of 1/3rd in the market price of the sale transactions relied upon has further reduced the same by rounding off the figure to Rs. 50,000/- in respect of Barani land. There is no explanation for reducing the figure of Rs. 53,334/- to Rs. 50,000/-. Since there is no hard and fast rule as to what percentage of deduction is to be made on account of smallness of the plot which ranges between 20% to 33-1/2% we are of the view that no further deduction ought to have been made by the learned Single Judge on determining the price to be paid the claimant, more so when the claimant is being deprived of his property.
12. Before determining the price which should have been paid to the claimant, it would be appropriate to deal with the appellant's two main contentions, namely, (i) award in respect of village Thali should have been made basis to determine the compensation payable to the claimants of village Saini Majra; and (ii) the settlement arrived at between the former Chief Minister of Punjab and the Action Committee set up by the persons whose land sought to be acquired. Much emphasis has been made by the learned counsel upon the award pertaining to the claimants of village Thali. This decision is in personam and so only binds the parties. Such a decision can not be termed to be a judgment in rem. At best, it can be considered to be a piece of evidence and so evaluated on facts of a particular case. No evidence has been adduced to substantial that lands of village Thali and that of village Saini Majra, in fact, fetch equal market value. A bare look of the sale transactions of village Saini Majra given in a tabulated form by the District Judge in his judgment bring out the falsity of the claim set up by the claimants. All the transactions relied upon by the claimants of village Saini Majra from 1982 to 1984 (though acquisition is dated 27.11.1982) reflect a price of Rs. 64,280/- per acre. As noticed earlier two sale transactions dated 23.4.1984 pertaining to sale of land of Chahi quality reflect a price of Rs. 76,000/- per acre. This being the factual position, learned Single Judge rightly declined to place any reliance upon an award pertaining to another village (though the land had been acquired for the same purpose). Other wise too, there is falsity in the argument of learned counsel for the appellants that as the land of various villages had been acquired for the same purpose, claimants in all villages are entitled to the same price. Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal passes through various villages of Punjab and so to determine the price of the land so acquired at a uniform rate would indeed be violating the yard stick as given in Section 23 of the Act and the decisions of the apex Court.
13. Similarly, we find no substance in the plea of the appellants that as the former Chief Minister of Punjab had agreed to award compensation at the rate of Rs. one lac per acre in respect of Chahi land, the compensation amount needs to be enhanced. Admittedly, so called agreement has not been placed on record. Moreover, no such agreement has any binding effect. Before any such contract can be enforced, the same has to comply with Article 299 of the Constitution of India. It may be mentioned here that this argument has been advanced by the appellants for the first time before this Court and that too without any foundation. We have no hesitation in discarding the same. We, however, find that the learned Single Judge after imposing a cut of 1/3rd in view of smallness of the plot, determined the price of Barani land at Rs. 53,334/- per acre but rounded off the same to Rs. 50,000/- per acre. Similarly, in case of Chahi land after arriving at a figure of Rs. 64,280/- per acre, determined the market value of Chahi land at Rs. 60,000/- per acre. Since the claimant is being deprived of his right in the property on account of acquisition proceedings. Somewhat beneficial view ought to have been taken. Thus, if two views are possible, one favouring the claimant should have been preferred. We are thus of the view that the compensation amount should not have been reduced merely to round it off. We thus determine the market value of the Barani land acquired at Rs. 55,000/- and Chahi land at Rs. 65,000/-. The appellant, of course, will be entitled to other benefits, like interest, solatium as per provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as already awarded.
14. We thus partly allow both the appeals with proportionate costs.