Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana Through The ... vs Karim Ahmed & Ors on 3 November, 2021
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
RFA No.3630 of 2018(O&M)
and other connected cases -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RFA No.3630 of 2018(O&M)
and other connected cases
Date of decision:03.11.2021.
State of Haryana through the Superintendent of Police, Nuh
and others.
...Appellants
Versus
Karim Ahmed and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Randhir Singh Hooda, Advocate
for the appellants (in RFA-150-2019)
Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate
for the appellants (in RFA-2164 and 2166-2019)
Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate,
for the apepllants,
(in RFA-490, 491, 703, 1920 and 1009-2016)
(in RFA-5033, 5034, 5092, 5093 and 4971-2017)
(in RFA-3631, 3633 of 2018)
Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate
for the appellants (in RFA-7814 of 2013)
Mr. Arjun Atri, Advocate,
for the appellants (in RFA-3126-2017)
for the respondent (in RFA-3635-2018)
Mr. G.N.Malik, Advocate.
Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate.
Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, AAG, Haryana
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. The hearing of the case was held through video conferencing on account of restricted functioning of the Courts. In the considered opinion of 1 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 04:57:36 ::: RFA No.3630 of 2018(O&M) and other connected cases -2- the Court, the question which arises for consideration is:-
"Whether the exemplar Sale instances of the period post the date of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 can be relied upon while assessing the market value of the acquired land, particularly when the comparable exemplar sale instances of the contemporaneous period are available and have been produced"?
2. By this judgment, two different batches of appeals arising from acquisition of different parcels of the land, abutting each other, located in village Salamba, District Mewat, respectively, shall stand disposed of. It is important to note that the head quarter of District Mewat is at Nuh.
3. The State of Haryana has acquired two parcels of the land which abut each other. In fact, the rear boundary of both parcels of the land is common. The necessary particulars of both the acquisitions have been compiled in the following two tables.
Ist Acquisition.
Date of Notification under Section 4 06/02/08 Date of Notification under Section 6 04/07/08 Total land acquired 63 acres 4 kanals 9 marlas ( 508 Kanals 9 Marlas) Village Salamba Tehsil &District Nuh, Mewat Purpose Building of Police Lines &staff quarters., Nuh Award passed by Land Acquisition No.10, dated 10.08.2010 Collector( LAC) Market value Assessed by LAC Rs.16,00,000/- per acre Impugned Reference Court Awards Dated 01.02.2017 &12.03.2018 Market Value Assessed by Reference Rs.27,45,096/- per acre. Court 2 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 04:57:36 ::: RFA No.3630 of 2018(O&M) and other connected cases -3- 2nd Acquisition Date of Notification under Section 4 19.11.2008 Date of Notification under Section 6 17.11.2009 Total land acquired 232 kanals 9 marla (29 Acres 9 Marlas) Village Salamba Tehsil & District Mewat Purpose District Jail, Nuh LAC award No.6/2011 dated 09.11.2011 Market value Assessed by LAC Rs.20,00,000/- per acre Impugned Reference Court Awards Dated 16.09.2015 Market Value Assessed by Reference Rs.27,45,098/- per acre. Court
4. The learned counsels representing the parties are ad-idem that both the appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment. Hereinafter, the acquisitions of the concerned parcels of land shall be referred to as the 1st Acquisition and the 2nd acquisition, respectively. It is noticeable that while assessing the market value of the land pertaining to the 1st acquisition, the Land Acquisition Collector has assessed the market value as on 06.02.2008 @ Rs.16,00,000/- per acre, whereas with respect to the 2nd acquisition initiated vide notification dated 19.11.2008, the market value has been assessed @ Rs.20,00,000/-. It is significant to note that the Reference court in the 2nd acquisition arising from the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dated 19.11.2008, assessed the market value @ Rs. 27,47,098 vide award dated 16.09.2015. The Reference Court decided the petitions u/s 18 of the 1894 Act arising from 2nd acquisition before the decision of reference applications under the Ist acquisition. While assessing the market value of the land in the 2nd acquisition, the Reference Court has relied upon the sale exemplar dated 07.06.2011 pertaining to the land measuring 7 kanals and 13 marlas situated in village Salamba sold for a total 3 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 04:57:36 ::: RFA No.3630 of 2018(O&M) and other connected cases -4- sale consideration of Rs.52,50,000/-. In other words, the land was sold @ Rs.54,90,196/- per acre. The reference Court, after noticing that the said sale deed is post the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by more than 2 years and 9 months, has applied a cut and discounted the price to arrive at a figure of Rs.27,45,098/-.
5. On the other hand, the Reference Court while deciding reference applications arising from the Ist acquisition of land, for construction of police lines, has relied upon the judgment passed with respect to the 2nd acquisition vide notification dated 19.11.2008.
Before proceeding to adjudicate the matter, it would be appropriate to notice the evidence produced.
6. Oral Evidence:-
6.1 In the cases arising from 1st acquisition, the landowners examined Sajid Ali, (Clerk in the office of District Town Planner) who appeared as PW1 and proved the layout plan of Control Area Nuh. Mukhtiar Singh, Reader in office of Sub Registrar, Nuh, while appearing as PW2 has produced the copies of the various exemplar sale deeds from Ex. P-1 to P-
10. Ganga Vishnu (Patwari) while appearing as PW3 has proved a copy of Aks Sizra (Revenue Layout plan). Jagan while appearing as PW4 has proved the contents of the petition. Hasin Ahmed, Draftsman while appearing as PW5 has proved the site plan (Ex. PW5/A). Mukesh Patwari, while appearing as PW6, has proved the record of the amount received by the landowners. Jai Chand while appearing as PW7, has proved the contents of the petition. On the other hand, the State has examined Mukesh Patwari as RW-1. Apart from the oral evidence, both the parties have also relied upon 4 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 04:57:36 ::: RFA No.3630 of 2018(O&M) and other connected cases -5-
some exemplar sale instances which have noticed in the later part of the judgement.
6.2 In the cases arising from 2nd acquisition, the landowners have examined Dhrambir Singh, WBN, Tehsil Office Nuh as PW1. He produced and proved the various exemplar sale deeds (Ex. P-1 to P-15). Vijay Kumar Jain, Clerk, Municipal Committee, while appearing as PW2 has produced the Draft layout plan of the area and stated that the area of Municipal Committee is spread out to the area of village Ferozpur Namak. He has further stated that Municipal Area is adjacent to the area of Ferozepur Namak where a Judicial Complex has been constructed. While appearing as PW3, Ashok Kumar, Patwari of the Area has stated that the revenue estates of villages Ferozepur Namak and Salamba are adjoining and Delhi Alwar and Nuh-Palwal roads pass through the area of Village Salamba. While appearing as PW4, Sh. Khushal Sharma has produced the site plan (Ex. P-
16). Sh. Karim Ahmed, Landowner and Rahim Bux while appearing as PW5 and PW6, respectively, have deposed about the potential and market value of the acquired land. On the other hand, the State in its evidence examined Dalbir Singh (Asst. Superintendent of Prison) as DW1 apart from producing a copy of the award as Ex. DW1/B. This Bench has heard the learned counsels representing the parties and with their able assistance perused the paper book as also the record of the court below which was requisitioned in both the sets of appeals. It may be noted here that the State of Haryana as well as the owners have filed various appeals.
7. Arguments of Learned counsel representing the parties:-
5 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 04:57:36 ::: RFA No.3630 of 2018(O&M) and other connected cases -6- 7.1 The various learned counsels representing the owners, while relying upon the judgment in Akbar vs. State of Haryana, dated 28.08.2012, (Ex.P-19) with respect to assessment of the market value of the acquired land located in village Ferozepur Namak, contends that Supreme Court has upheld the assessment of market value of the acquired land @ 64,80,000/-
per acre as determined by the judgment dated 16.04.2018 in Mohammad Yusuf and others Etc. Etc. vs. State of Haryana and Others (civil Appeal No.3807-3825 of 2018). They contend that in Akbar's case, the notification u/s 4 of the 1894 Act, was issued on 18.10.2005, whereas in the present case, the notifications under Section 4 have been issued on 06.02.2008 and 19.11.2008, respectively. They contend that since the acquired parcels of land vide notification dated 18.10.2005 is comparable in all respect with the parcels of land acquired by the notifications under consideration in Mohammad Yusuf's case, therefore, 12% per annum increase should be given over and above the amount of Rs.64,80,000/- assessed by the Supreme Court in Mohammad Yusuf (supra) case.
7.2 They have further submitted that while deciding Civil Appeal No.2903 of 2021, the Hon'ble Supreme court in Banwari Lal and another vs. State of Haryana and others (Civil Appeal No.2903 of 2021), vide order dated 14.07.2021, has assessed the market value of different villages located in District Faridabad, which is just across the Canal, in the following manner:-
First Notification dated 01.05.2006 Village Rate Badoli Rs.645/- Per Sq. Yds Pehladpur Rs.645/- Per Sq. Yds 6 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 04:57:36 ::: RFA No.3630 of 2018(O&M) and other connected cases -7-
Bhatola Rs.645/- Per Sq. Yds
Murtzapur Rs.645/- Per Sq. Yds
Sihi Rs.1351/- Per Sq. Yds
Second Notification dated 07.02.2008
Village Rate
Bhatola Rs.2396/- Per Sq. Yds
Neemka Rs.2186/- Per Sq. Yds
Fajjupur Mazra Neemka Rs.2509/- Per Sq. Yds
Faridpur Rs.1778/- Per Sq. Yds
Murtezapur Rs.2376/- Per Sq. Yds
Badoli NO appeal has been filed, However, Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed that land owners are free to take recourse to appropriate summery.
Third Notifiction dated 14.08.2008 Village Rate Baselva Rs.3704/- Per Sq. Yds Mawai Rs.2000/- Per Sq. Yds Badoli Rs.2577/- Per Sq. Yds Pahladpur Rs.2577/- Per Sq. Yds Wazirpur Rs.2000/- Per Sq. Yds Palwali Rs.2000/- Per Sq. Yds Badshapur Rs.2000/- Per Sq. Yds Bhatola Rs.2558/- Per Sq. Yds Murtazapur Rs.2661/- Per Sq. Yds Neemka Rs.2186/- Per Sq. Yds Fajjupur Mazra Neemka Rs.2509/- Per Sq. Yds Faridpur Rs.2132/- Per Sq. Yds Kheri Kalan Rs.2665/- Per Sq. Yds Bhupani Rs.1600/- Per Sq. Yds Riwajpur Rs.3165/- Per Sq. Yds Tikawali Rs.2038/- Per Sq. Yds Kheri Khurd Rs.2814/- Per Sq. Yds Budhena Rs.3073/- Per Sq. Yds 7.3 Per contra, the learned counsel representing the State of Haryana has contended that reference court has erred in relying upon the exemplar sale deed dated 07.06.2011 which was after the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He, hence, contends that the judgment passed by the reference Court is liable to be set aside.
7 of 22
::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 04:57:36 :::
RFA No.3630 of 2018(O&M)
and other connected cases -8-
Before this Bench proceeds to analyze the arguments of the learned counsels representing the parties, it would be appropriate to compile the information with regard to the sale exemplars (sale deeds) produced by the owners as well as the State, in both the batches of appeals, and the same are extracted as under:-
8. Exemplar Sale Deeds 1st Acquisition ( Table A) (Produced by the landowners) Sr. Exhi- Sale Dated Area sold Sale Rate per Village Nature of Remar-
(Sq. Consider acre land ks
No. bit No. Deed
Yard) -ation
No.
P-1 3965 18.02.2008 01 k09M 5,25,000 28,96,551 Salamba Agricultural Post
dated
1
P-2 1114 18.06.2012 0K 10M 3,00,000 48,00,000 Salamba Residential Post
dated
2
P-3 1907 13.10.2008 0K 17M 3,57,000 33,60,000 Salamba Residential Post
3
dated
P-4 815 25.05.2007 01K 00M 3,60,000 28,80,000 Salamba Agricultural
4
P-5 1348 12.08.2009 0K 01M 1,35,000 2,16,00,000 Firozpur Residential Differe-
Namak nt
village
and
post
5 dated
P-6 617 28.05.2007 0K 05M 2,31,000 73,92,000 Firozpur Residential Differe-
Namak nt
6 village
P-7 3758 01.02.2008 0K 05M 3,00,000 96,00,000 Salamba Residential
7
P-8 2176 25.11.2009 0K 2.5M 4,70,000 3,00,80,000 Nuh Residential Differe-
nt
village
and
post
8 dated
P-9 1572 03.09.2009 0 K 07M 9,00,000 2,05,71,428 Nuh Residential Differe-
1 nt
village
and
post
9 dated
P-10 4328 20.03.2008 0 K 01M 1,35,000 2,16,00,000 Firozepur Residential Differe-
Namak nt
village
and
post
10 dated
8 of 22
::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 04:57:36 :::
RFA No.3630 of 2018(O&M)
and other connected cases -9-
8.1 The sale exemplars (sale deeds) produced by the State of
Haryana are extracted as under:-
Table B(Produced by the State)
Sr. Exhi- Sale Dated Area sold Sale Rate per Village Nature of Remar-
(Sq. Consider acre ks
No. bit No. Deed land
Yard)
-ation
No.
1 R-2 1453 27.08.2008 09K 05M 18,50,000 16,00,000 Salamba Agricultural Post
dated
2 R-3 1929 16.10.2008 07K 10M 15,00,000 16,00,000 Salamba Agricultural Post
dated
3 R-4 3774 04.02.2008 02K 00M 1,75,000 7,00,000 Salamba Agricultural
4 R-5 1234 05.08.2008 16K 00M 32,00,000 16,00,000 Salamba Agricultural Post
dated
8.2 2nd Acquisition (Table C)(Produced by the landowners)
Sr. Exhib Sale Dated Area Sale Rate per Rate per acre Village Nature of Remar-
acre land ks
No. -it No. Deed sold Consider ( calculated by
(wrongly this Court
No. (Sq. -ation calculated
Yard) by the
Reference
Court
1 P-1 740 07.06.2011 4313.6 52,50,000 54,90,196 58,90,671 Salamba Barani Post
dated
land/
Agricultural
2 P-2 & 815 25.5.2007 600 3,60,000 28,80,000 29,04,000 Salamba Residential
land
P-7
3 P-3 & 3965 08.02.2008 875 5,25,000 28,96,551 29,04,000 Salamba Residential
land
P-8
4 P-4 & 3758 01.02.2008 150 3,00,000 96,00,000 96,80,000 Salamba Residential
land
P-12
5 P-5 1114 18.06.2012 300 3,00,000 48,00,000 48,40,000 Salamba Residential Post
land dated
6 P-6 1907 13.10.2008 510 3,57,000 33,60,000 33,88,000 Salamba Residential
land
7 P-9 & 1348 12.08.2009 30 1,35,000 2,16,00,000 2,17,80,000 Firozpur Residential Differen
Namak land t village
P-18 &post
dated
8 P-10 & 617 18.5.2007 150 2,31,000 73,92,000 74,53,600 Firozpur Residential Differen
Namak land t village
P-15
9 P-11 & 4328 20.3.2008 30 1,35,000 21,60,000 2. 17,80,000 Firozpur Residential Differen
Namak land t village
P-17
10 P-13 738 17.6.2011 665.5 3,75,000 20,00,000 27,27,272 Kirnaj Barani Differen
t village
Land and post
9 of 22
::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 04:57:36 :::
RFA No.3630 of 2018(O&M)
and other connected cases -10-
dated
11 P-14 2895 03.10.2012 4331.8 5,07,29,250 5,20,30,000 5,66,80,726 Raisika Barani Differen
t village
Land and post
dated
Note: In Table 'C', the Reference Court has committed an error while
calculating the rate per acre. The correct figure is shown in the adjacent column of the figure noticed by the Reference Court. In the 2nd acquisition, the State of Haryana did not produce any exemplar sale deed.
Discussion: -
9. In these two batches of appeals, the crucial date for the assessment of the market value of the land regarding the first acquisition is 06.02.2008, whereas with respect to the second acquisition, the crucial date is 19.11.2008. Therefore, the reference court has erred in relying upon the exemplar sale deed (Ex.P1), dated 07.06.2011. It is well settled that the exemplar sale deed which is after the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, should not be ordinarily relied upon. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Maya Devi (Dead) through Legal Representative and Others v. State of Haryana and Others (2018) 2 SCC 474. The relevant discussion is in para 5, which is extracted as under:-
"5. So far as the first contention is concerned, the sale deed relied upon by the appellants/claimants dated 27.12.1988 is post notification. Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act provides that the compensation to be awarded shall be determined by the reference court, based upon the market value of the acquired land at the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1). In Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority v. Gobinda Chandra Makal and Anr. (2011) 9 SCC 207, it was held that the relevant date for determining the compensation is the date of publication of the notification 10 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 04:57:36 ::: RFA No.3630 of 2018(O&M) and other connected cases -11- under Section 4(1) of the Act in the Gazette. In para (34), it was held as under:-
"34. One of the principles in regard to determination of the market value under Section 23(1) is that the rise in market value after the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act should not be taken into account for the purpose of determination of market value. If the deeming definition of "publication of the notification" in the amended Section 4(1) is imported as the meaning of the said words in the first clause of Section 23(1), it will lead to anomalous results. The owners of the lands which are the subject-matter of the notification and neighbouring lands will come to know about the proposed acquisition, on the date of publication in the Gazette or in the newspapers. If the giving of public notice of the substance of the notification is delayed by two or three months, there may be several sale transactions in regard to nearby lands in that period, showing a spurt or hike in value in view of the development contemplated on account of the acquisition itself."
Applying the ratio of the above decision, we are of the view that the post notification instances cannot be taken into consideration for determining the compensation of the acquired land".
9.1 Thus, the reference court has erred in placing reliance on a determination of market value with respect to a notification which relates to the period subsequent to the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act particularly when the exemplar sale deed of comparable parcels of land of the Contemporaneous period have been produced. 9.2 Now let's examine the judgments relied upon by the learned counsels representing the owners. In Mohammad Yusuf 's case (supra), the Supreme Court had assessed the market value of the acquired land measuring 372 kanals and 2 marlas which was acquired for the construction of Mini Secretariat for District Nuh. The acquired land in that case is located 11 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 04:57:36 ::: RFA No.3630 of 2018(O&M) and other connected cases -12- in the area of Village Ferozapur Namak. The location of both the parcels of land is at a sufficient distance from each other. No doubt, where the boundary of Ferozepur Namak comes to an end, the area of village Salamba begins. As per the draft development plan of controlled areas, 2020-21 AD, (Ex. PW1/A), it is apparent that village Ferozepur Namak is towards Nuh which is the district headquarter whereas the area falling in the village Salamba starts after the boundary of village Ferozepur Namak comes to an end. While acquiring the land for constructing a Mini Secretariat, the Government has acquired a parcel of land located in the Western side of village Ferozepur Namak which abuts the area of city-Nuh, whereas the land which is the subject matter of acquisition in the present case is located at a distance from the land in the previous acquisition in village Ferozepur Namak. It may be noted here that as per the development plan, once we start from the Western side and travel towards the Eastern side, firstly, the area of revenue estate of Nuh comes, thereafter, the area of village Ferozepur Namak comes and finally, the area of village Salamba, which is in question, is located. In fact, the land acquired for constructing Mini Secretariat is a part of the city whereas the acquired parcels of the land, in the present two batches of appeals, is at a distance from the city. Hence, the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Yusuf's case (supra) cannot be applied in the present case.
9.3 It may be noted here that the reliance placed by Sh. Adarsh Jain, Advocate, on the judgment in Banwari Lal and another's case ( Supra) is misplaced as in the aforesaid case the acquisition is of the land located in various villages in a different district-Faridabad. In fact, the Hon'ble 12 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 04:57:36 ::: RFA No.3630 of 2018(O&M) and other connected cases -13- Supreme Court has assessed the market value of the land located in various villages, which were acquired by different notifications, by a common judgment. In the absence of evidence to prove that the land located in those villages in District Faridabad is comparable with the location of the acquired land in the present cases, with greatest respect, it is not appropriate to rely upon the assessment made by the Supreme Court.
9.4 At this stage, it is appropriate to note the sale exemplars produced by the parties.
9.5 With respect to the 1st acquisition, the owners have produced 4 exemplar sale deeds regarding plots of land located in the village Salamba. All these 4 sale deeds are with respect to sale of small plots measuring less than 2 kanals. The land measuring 1 acre is equivalent to 8 kanals of land which in turn is equivalent to 160 Marlas of land. In other words, one acre of land which normally consist of 4840 Sq. Yards of land can be subdivided into 160 Marlas. The sale exemplar dated 18.06.2012 & 13.10.2008 are post the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, i.e. 06.02.2008. Only one exemplar sale deed (Ex.P-4) in table A with respect to a plot measuring 1 Kanal appears to be relevant which shall be discussed later on. The remaining sale deeds are with respect to the parcels of the land located in other villages.
9.6 On the other hand, in the first acquisition, the State has produced 4 exemplar sale deeds. The reference court although noticed the exemplar sale deeds produced by the State, however, did not discuss the same on the ground that the price reflected in the aforesaid sale deeds is lesser than the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. The 13 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 04:57:36 ::: RFA No.3630 of 2018(O&M) and other connected cases -14- aforesaid opinion of the reference court is erroneous. Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, does not debar the reference court from taking into consideration the sale deeds of market value lower than the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , only debars the reference court from reducing the market value below the value as assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lal Chand vs. Union of India and another (2009) 5 SCC 769.
9.7. Further, in the 2nd acquisition, the owners have produced as many as 11 exemplar sale deeds. Most of the sale deeds with respect to property at village Salamba produced by the owners are common. The Reference Court relies upon the Sale exemplar Ex.P1 dated 07.06.2011, which is post the date of notification u/s 4 of the 1894 Act. This sale deed is after the period of 2 years and 7 months from the date of notification u/s 4 (19.11.2008) of the 1894 Act. Once comparable sale instances of the same period were available on the record, the Reference Court has erred in relying upon the exemplar sale deed post the date of notification. From a careful reading of Section 23 and 24 of the 1894 Act, it evident that the exemplar sale deed after the date of notification u/s 4 should not be relied upon, particularly when the other relevant evidence is available. 9.8 From a bare perusal of the sale exemplar produced by the State in the first acquisition, it is apparent that the per acre price of the agricultural land, at the relevant time, was hovering around Rs.16,00,000/- per acre. The exemplar sale deed (Ex.R2) is post the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with respect to the first acquisition, in 14 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 04:57:36 ::: RFA No.3630 of 2018(O&M) and other connected cases -15- which the land measuring 9 kanals and 5 marlas has been sold @ 16,00,000/- per acre. Similar is the position with regard to the sale exemplar R-3 and Ex.R-5. Further, the sale exemplar Ex.R-4 suggests that the price is only Rs.7,00,000/- per acre.
9.9 On the other hand, if the court takes into consideration, the sale of smaller plots, it is apparent that 1 kanal of plot has been sold vide sale deed Ex.P4 (table A), for Rs.28,80,000/- in the village Salamba. This piece of land is very small when compared with the area acquired. If it is to be relied upon, 33% cut is required to be applied as the size of plot is very small. Hence, after applying a cut of 33%, the per acre price comes to Rs.19,29,600/-, whereas, the Land Acquisition Collector has assessed the market value @ Rs.16,00,000/- per acre.
9.10 Moreover, it is apparent from Table-C that the sale deed Ex.P1 and Ex.P5 are post the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The sale exemplar Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-7 ( Table-C) is with respect to a very small plot measuring 1 Kanal only. Similarly, if Ex. P-3/P-8 and Ex.P-12/P-4 (Table-C)) are taken into consideration, the per acre rate of the plot comes to Rs. 29,04,000/-. Since this piece of land is also less than 2 Kanal, therefore, the possibility of usage of such small plots for agricultural purposes is very remote. Hence, before placing reliance on the same, a cut of 1/3rd has to be applied. Thus, the price would come nearly to Rs. 19,45,680/-.
9.11 It has further been noticed that the Land Acquisition Collector itself has assessed the market value @ Rs.20,00,000/- per acre with respect to the second acquisition. On perusal of the lay out plan, it is apparent that both the parcels of land in acquisition no.1 and 2 adjoin each other from the 15 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 04:57:36 ::: RFA No.3630 of 2018(O&M) and other connected cases -16- rear side. The parcel of land acquired for constructing Police Lines is located on Delhi-Alwar Road, whereas the parcel of land acquired for District Jail is located on the road which goes from Alwar to Palwal. In fact, the acquired land in acquisition no.1 and 2 are sandwiched between two roads, namely, Delhi-Alwar Road and Alwar Palwal Road.
9.12 It is a well settled rule that if the exemplar sale deeds are available, the court must prefer the sale exemplars. The reliance, on the assessment made by the court with respect to different acquisition, cannot be placed unless court comes to a conclusion that both the parcels of land in the first acquisition and the subsequent acquisition are geographically comparable as regards its market value. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar etc. vs. State of Haryana and others (2018) 13 SCC 96, has specifically denounced the practice of the courts to mechanically rely upon the previous assessment made by the court diclaring it as unsafe. The relevant discussion is in paras 11 to 14, which are extracted as under:-
"11. In our opinion, the High Court could not have placed an outright reliance on Swaran Singh case [Swaran Singh v. State of Haryana, 2012 SCC OnLine P&H 19044] , without considering the nature of transaction relied upon in the said decision. The decision could not have been applied ipso facto to the facts of the instant case. In such cases, where such judgments/awards are relied on as evidence, though they are relevant, but cannot be said to be binding with respect to the determination of the price, that has to depend on the evidence adduced in the case. However, in the instant case, it appears that the land in Swaran Singh case [Swaran Singh v. State of Haryana, 2012 SCC OnLine P&H 19044] was situated just across the road as 16 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 04:57:36 ::: RFA No.3630 of 2018(O&M) and other connected cases -17- observed by the High Court as such it is relevant evidence but not binding. As such it could have been taken into consideration due to the nearness of the area, but at the same time what was the nature of the transaction relied upon in the said case was also required to be looked into in an objective manner. Such decisions in other cases cannot be adopted without examining the basis for determining compensation whether sale transaction referred to therein can be relied upon or not and what was the distance, size and also bona fide nature of transaction before such judgments/awards are relied on for deciding the subsequent cases. It is not open to accepting determination in a mechanical manner without considering the merit. Such determination cannot be said to be binding.
12. We have come across several decisions where the High Court is adopting the previous decisions as binding. The determination of compensation in each case depends upon the nature of land and what is the evidence adduced in each case, may be that better evidence has been adduced in later case regarding the actual value of property and subsequent sale deeds after the award and before preliminary notification under Section 4 are also to be considered, if filed. It is not proper to ignore the evidence adduced in the case at hand. The compensation cannot be determined by blindly following the previous award/judgment. It has to be considered only a piece of evidence, not beyond that. The court has to apply the judicial mind and is supposed not to follow the previous awards without due consideration of the facts and circumstances and evidence adduced in the case in question. The current value reflected by comparable sale deeds is more reliable and binding for determination of 17 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 04:57:36 ::: RFA No.3630 of 2018(O&M) and other connected cases -18- compensation in such cases award/judgment relating to an acquisition made before 5 to 10 years cannot form the safe basis for determining compensation.
13. The awards and judgment in the cases of others not being inter parties are not binding as precedents. Recently, we have seen the trend of the courts to follow them blindly probably under the misconception of the concept of equality and fair treatment. The courts are being swayed away and this approach in the absence of and similar nature and situation of land is causing more injustice and tantamount to giving equal treatment in the case of unequals. As per situation of a village, nature of land, its value differ from distance to distance, even two to three kilometre distance may also make the material difference in value. Land abutting highway may fetch higher value but not land situated in interior villages.
14. The previous awards/judgments are the only piece of evidence on a par with comparative sale transactions. The similarity of the land covered by previous judgment/award is required to be proved like any other comparative exemplar. In case previous award/judgment is based on exemplar, which is not similar or acceptable, previous award/judgment of court cannot be said to be binding. Such determination has to be outrightly rejected. In case some mistake has been done in awarding compensation, it cannot be followed; on the ground of parity an illegality cannot be perpetuated. Such award/judgment would be wholly irrelevant."
9.13 From a bare perusal of the lay out plan produced by the parties, it is apparent that the location of the land acquired for Mini Secretariat which was the subject matter of assessment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Yusuf's case (supra) was much superiorly located. The 18 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 04:57:36 ::: RFA No.3630 of 2018(O&M) and other connected cases -19- aforesaid parcel of land is located inside the town, Nuh, whereas the parcels of land acquired vide acquisition no.1 and 2, in the present cases, are located in a village which is towards the Eastern side of the town. If the court relies upon Ex.P-2/P-7 and P-3/P-8, the sale deeds dated 25.05.2008 and 08.02.2008, respectively and applies a development cut of 1/3rd, the amount comes to nearly Rs.19,45,680/-, whereas if the Court examines the sale exemplar(sale deeds) produced by the State, the average price comes to Rs.16,00,000/-. In fact, the highest sale exemplar of the agricultural land shows that the land was being sold @Rs.16,00,000/- per acre, only. 9.14 The landowners should be granted the benefit of the best sale exemplar (sale instance). Reliance in this regard can be placed on Mehrawal Khewaji Trust Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 5 SCC 432. 9.15 Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, this court is of the opinion that with respect to the first acquisition for construction of Police Lines, the market value is assessed @ Rs.19,45,680/- per acre by applying a cut of 1/3rd on the sale exemplars (Ex.P-2 and Ex. P-3 from table-C). The market value of the land with respect to the Ist acquisition has been assessed while keeping in view the fact that in the second acquisition, the Land Acquisition Collector has itself assessed the market value @ Rs.20,00,000/- per acre. There is gap of 9 months, in the notifications u/s 4 the 1894 Act, in both the acquisitions. With respect to the second acquisition, the price assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector i.e. @ Rs.20,00,000/- per acre is confirmed. Therefore, the order of determination made by the Reference Court in both the acquisitions, respectively, is set aside. It is being declared that while assessing the market value of the acquired land, the exemplar sale instance 19 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 04:57:36 ::: RFA No.3630 of 2018(O&M) and other connected cases -20- subsequent to the date of notification u/s 4 of the 1894 Act should not be relied upon except where the court comes to the conclusion that there is no other relevant evidence available.
9.16 Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the appeals filed by the State of Haryana are allowed, whereas the appeals and the cross-objections, if any, filed by the land owners are ordered to be dismissed. The landowners shall be entitled to market value @ Rs.19,45,680/- with respect to Ist acquisition whereas Rs.20,00,000/- per acre with respect to the 2nd acquisition for the acquried land alongwith all the statutory benefits as per amended Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.
November 03, 2021 (ANIL KSHETARPAL) nt JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Sr. Case No. Party Name No. 1. RFA-3630-2018 STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH THE SUPERINTENDENT OF (Main case) POLICE NUH AND OTHERS V/S KARIM KHAN & OTHERS 2. RFA-3631-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER V/S JAI CHAND AND OTHERS 3. RFA-3633-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS V/S DEEN MOHD. & OTHERS 4. RFA-3634-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS V/S JAI CHAND AND ANOTHER 5. RFA-3635-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS V/S RAM CHAND & OTHERS 6. RFA-5065-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS V/S AASH MOHAMMAD & OTHERS 7. RFA-5066-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS V/S CHAW KHAN & OTHERS 8. RFA-5067-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS V/S RATTI KHAN 9. RFA-5068-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS V/S HAMID & OTHERS 10. RFA-5069-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS V/S KHURSHID & OTHERS 20 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 04:57:36 ::: RFA No.3630 of 2018(O&M) and other connected cases -21-
11. RFA-5070-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS V/S REHMAT (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS & OTHERS
12. XOBJR-14-2019 THE STATE OF HARYNA AND OTHERS V/S REHMAT (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS AND OTHERS
13. RFA-5071-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS V/S ALI MOHAMMAD & OTHERS
14. RFA-5072-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS V/S JUMME KHAN & OTHERS
15. RFA-5073-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS V/S ABDUL SALAM
16. RFA-5074-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS V/S RAHIM BUX & OTHERS
17. RFA-5238-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS V/S YASIN @ AASEEN
18. RFA-5239-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS V/S ISHA AND OTHERS
19. RFA-5240-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS V/S ALI MOHAMMAD
20. RFA-5241-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS V/S SULEMAN AND OTHERS
21. RFA-5243-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS V/S IBRAHIM AND OTHERS
22. RFA-5244-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS V/S FAKRU AND OTHERS
23. RFA-5245-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS V/S AKBAR AND OTHERS
24. RFA-5246-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS V/S MOHD. HANIF AND OTHERS
25. RFA-5247-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS V/S SAMSU AND ANOTHER
26. RFA-5248-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS V/S NIYAZ MOHAMMAD AND OTHERS
27. RFA-5249-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS V/S MOHD. AYYUB
28. RFA-5250-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS V/S AKBAR AND OTHERS
29. RFA-5251-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS V/S MOHD. ISHAK
30. RFA-6358-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS V/S NIYAZ MOHD. AND OTHERS
31. RFA-6359-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS. V/S USMAN AND OTHERS.
32. RFA-3126-2017 RAM CHAND & OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
33. RFA-5033-2017 KARIM AHMAD AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
34. RFA-5034-2017 JAI CHAND AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
35. RFA-5092-2017 DEEN MOHD AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
36. RFA-3053-2018 MOHD HANIF AND OTHERS. V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS.
37. RFA-3054-2018 NIYAJ MOHAMMAD AND OTHERS. V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS.
38. RFA-3055-2018 KHURSHID AND OTHERS. V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS.
39. RFA-3056-2018 FAKRU AND OTHERS. V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS.
40. RFA-4019-2018 ALI MOHAMMAD AND OTHERS. V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS.
21 of 22
::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 04:57:36 :::
RFA No.3630 of 2018(O&M)
and other connected cases -22-
41. RFA-4020-2018 ISHA AND OTHERS. V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS.
42. RFA-4021-2018 SULEMAN AND OTHERS. V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND
OTHERS.
43. RFA-4022-2018 AKBAR AND OTHERS. V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS.
44. RFA-4023-2018 MOHAMMAD ISHAK V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS.
45. RFA-4024-2018 MOHAMMAD AYYUB V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS.
46. RFA-4025-2018 AKBAR AND OTHERS. V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS.
47. RFA-4026-2018 JUMME KHAN AND OTHERS. V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND
OTHERS
48. RFA-4027-2018 ABDUL SALAM V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS.
49. RFA-8511-2018 SAMSU AND ANR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
50. RFA-8512-2018 ALI MOHAMMAD V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
51. RFA-5093-2017 JAI CHAND AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND
OTHERS
52. RFA-150-2019 NIYAZ MOHD. AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND
OTHERS
53. RFA-395-2019 USMAN AND OTHERS V/S THE STATE OF HARYANA AND
OTHERS
54. RFA-1798-2019 RAHIM BUX AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND
OTHERS
55. RFA-2164-2019 HAMID AND OTHERS V/S THE STATE OF HARYANA AND
OTHERS
56. RFA-2166-2019 CHAW KHAN (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS AND
OTHERS V/S THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
57. RFA-447-2020 AASH MOHD AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
58. RFA-490-2016 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER V/S ABDUL REHMAN @ CHAW KHAN
59. RFA-491-2016 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER V/S KARIM AHMED & OTHERS
60. RFA-703-2016 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS V/S RAHIM BUX AND OTHERS
61. RFA-1920-2016 KARIM AHMED AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
62. RFA-1009-2016 RAHIM BUX @ CHAW KHAN AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
63. RFA-4971-2017 ABDUL REHMAN DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER (ANIL KSHETARPAL) JUDGE 22 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 04:57:36 :::