Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tara Devi vs State Of Haryana And Anr. on 31 May, 2005
Equivalent citations: (2005)141PLR606
Author: Viney Mittal
Bench: Viney Mittal
JUDGMENT Viney Mittal, J.
1. This order shall dispose of Regular First Appeals bearing R.F.A. Nos. 2574, 2662, 2792, 3124, 2795 of 2002, 904 of 2003, 2656, 2017, 2660. 4056 of-2002, 1517 of 2003, 2664, 2796, 2665, 2728, 2655, 2658 of 2002, 2018 of 2003, 2653, 2791, 2668 of 2002, 903 of 2003, 2520, 2663, 2519, 2657, 2654, 3123, 2667, 2798, 2661, 2797, 2666, 2659 and 2794 of 2002, as all these appeals have arisen out of a common award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula.
2. Vide a notification dated May 4, 1995 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act'), land measuring 214.42 acres situated in village Jhuriwala and Bana Madanpur, in Tehsil Panchkula was acquired for a public purpose i.e. for development and utilisation of land as residential, commercial and institutional area in Urban Estate, Panchkula for development of Sectors 22 and 23 of Panchkula. Vide an award dated March 9, 1998, the Land Acquisition Collector categorised the land into various categories and assessed the market value of the Chahi land at the rate of Rs. 2 lacs per acre, Barani/Gair Mumkin at the rate of Rs. 1,05,000/- per acre in village Jhuriwala and for the acquired land in village Banna Madanpur, Ghair Mumkin land was assessed at the rate of Rs. 2.81 lacs per acrs. The claiment-landlowners were dissatisfied with the award of compensation and, accordingly, claimed a reference. The matter was referred under Section 18 of the Act.
3. Before the reference Court the claimant-land-owners led oral as well as documentary evidence to prove the market value of the acquired land. Similarly, oral as well as documentary evidence was led by the State with regard to the market value of the acquired land. After taking into consideration the aforesaid evidence, the learned reference Court held that acquired land was about one kilometre from Majri Chowk and was to be developed as Sectors 22/23 of Urban Estate, Panchkula. It was also observed that there was evidence on the record to show that the adjoining Sectors 25 to 28 had already been developed at the time of the present acquisition and it was further observed that Sectors 25 to 28 are further away from Majri Chowk as compared with the acquired land which can be said to be nearer to the heart of city of Panchkula as compared to Sectors 25 to 28. The various sale instances relied upon by the claimant-landowners as well as by the State were ruled out of consideration inasmuch as it was held that the same did not reflect the correct market value of the acquired land. The claimant-landowners had also relied upon two awards of the reference Court with regard to earlier acquisition in village Maheshpur as well as in village Bana Madanpur itself, i.e. Ex.P-53 and Ex.P-51, respectively. Both the aforesaid awards were also not taken into consideration by the learned reference Court by observing that as far as land in Ex.P-53 was concerned, the same was situated in village Maheshpur and there was no comparability of the aforesaid land of the said village vis-a-vis the acquired land. Ex.P-51 pertaining to acquired land in village Bana Madanpur itself was also ruled out of consideration by observing that in the aforesaid award no reasoning had been given to assess the market value at the rate of Rs. 250/- per sq.yard. However, the learned reference Court relied upon an award which was stated to be pertaining to land of village Bana Madanpur pertaining to a notification dated June 25, 1990. The present award of the learned reference Court shows that the aforesaid award pertaining to village Bana Madanpur was taken on record as Ex.C-1 vide which 1100 acres of land in village Bana Madanpur and village Ramgarh had been acquired vide a notification dated June 25, 1990 and the market value had been assessed to the rate of Rs. 3.5 lacs per acre. Keeping in view the aforesaid notification and the date of the present notification i.e. May 4, 1995, an increase of 12% per annum, was granted by the reference Court and consequently the market value of he acquired land 'n the present proceeding was assessed at the rate of Rs. 5,60,000/- per acre. Additionally, the claimants were also held entitled to statutory benefits as well.
4. The claimant-landowners have still felt dissatisfied and have approached this Court through the present appeals.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the respondents and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case.
6. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the reference Court has placed reliance Union an earlier award Ex.C-1 but on he (Sic) record no such award Ex.C-1 was available. Accordingly, it has been argued that the reference Court had completely erred in law (sic) placing reliance upon some evidence which was not available on the record and, therefore, the very basis of the award of the reference Court was non-existent.
7. This contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants was got verified from the Court staff and after verification of the entire record of these appeals, I find that there is no award Ex.C-1 available on the record of this Court, pertaining to the notification dated June 25, 1990, vide which lands in village Bana Madanpur and village Ramgarh had been assessed at the rate of Rs. 3.5 lacs per acre. Even the learned Advocate General could not point out anything from the record that any such award viz, Ex.C-1 existed on the record. Accordingly, it has to be held that the very basis of the award of the reference Court being non-existent, the assessment made by the reference Court with regard to the market value of the acquired land cannot be said to be based upon any evidence. After the aforesaid fact, the learned Counsel for the parties were heard or the question of the market value on the basis of the other evidence available on the record of the case.
8. Learned Counsel for the appellants have placed strong reliance upon an earlier award Ex.P-53 dated December 17, 1998 vide which market value of the acquired land in village Maheshpur, Tehsil Panchkula was assessed. The aforesaid land in village Maheshpur was acquired through a notification dated December 21, 1994 for the purpose of development and utilisation of land as residential and commercial area for Sector 21, Urban Estate, Panchkula. After taking into consideration the material available on the record in that case, the market value of the acquired land in the aforesaid village Maheshpur was assessed at the rate of Rs. 500/- per sq. yard. Learned counsel for the appellants have, on the basis of the aforesaid award Ex.P-53, claimed that the claimant-landowners in the present appeals were also entitled to the similar compensation inasmuch as village Maheshpur was the adjacent village to village Bana Madanpur.
9. Besides the aforesaid reliance, the learned Counsel for the appellants have also referred to the evidence available on the record vide which Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short "HUDA") itself had sold plots in Sector 25 of Urban Estate Panchkula at the rate of Rs. 1,172/- per sq. yard in January, 1994. On that basis, learned Counsel for the appellants have relied upon a judgment of this Court in R.F.A. No. 216 of 1989 decided on January 19, 2005, wherein it has been laid down by this Court that in the absence of any other evidence the sale price at which HUDA plots had been sold could also be taken into consideration. A further reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the appellants on the judgment of the Apex Court in 1998(1) L.A.C. 175 and also contended that even in such a situation, the sale price on which the private colonizers have sold the plots in a private colony could be taken into consideration.
10. With regard to the evidence available on the record, learned Counsel for the appellants have specifically referred to Ex.PX which is a sale-deed dated October 20, 1995 pertaining to 17 kanals 2 marlas of land in village Billa which was sold for Rs. 50,00,000/- i.e. at the rate of Rs. 483/- per sq.yard. It has been claimed that the aforesaid village was 17 kilometres away from Panchkula and if the land in the aforesaid distant village could bring the said price, then there was no reason to assess the acquired land, which was situated nearer to the city centre of Panchkula, at any lesser price. A reference has also been made to the statement of RW-1 Joginder Singh, Naib Tehsildar, who had prepared the site plan Ex.R-1 and Aks Shijra Ex.R-2, in which the said witness has admitted that the acquired land was the only land which remained for acquisition in the village, since all other lands in the said village had already been acquired for the purpose of establishment of various sectors of Panchkula.
11. To bring out the potentiality of the acquired land, learned Counsel for the appellants have pointed out that the acquired land was situated on National High Way No. 73, and in fact a part of the acquired land touched the aforesaid National High Way. Even the National High Way No. 22 was very nearby. To discard the evidence Ex.R-3 and R-13 vide which the lands had been sold at the rate of Rs. 31/- and Rs. 33/- per sq. yard, respectively, the learned Counsel for the appellants have pointed out that the aforesaid sale-deeds had been impounded, being under-valued and, therefore, had rightly been ignored by the learned Additional District Judge himself.
12. In contrast Shri H.S. Hooda, learned Advocate General, Haryana has supported the judgment of the reference Court and has contended that the reference Court had taken into consideration the earlier award Ex.C-1, and, therefore, had rightly assessed the market value at the rate of Rs. 5,60,000/- per acre. It has further been argued that even otherwise the aforesaid assessment was wholly justified and reflected the adequate compensation with regard to acquisition. The learned Advocate General has argued that Ex.PX, the sale-deed pertaining to sale of land in village Billa was wholly irrelevant inasmuch as the said village admittedly, was more than 17 kilometres away from Panchkula. It has further argued that even the earlier award Ex.53 pertaining to another village Maheshpur and, therefore, the said assessment with regard to the acquired land in village Bana Madanpur was also not relevant.
13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case very minutely.
14. First of all, it may be noticed that the only basis on which the assessment has been made by the learned reference Court in the present proceedings, is some award of the reference Court in earlier proceedings. The aforesaid award is shown to have been placed on record as Ex.C-1. However, as noticed above, there is no such document available on the record of the case. This fact has been duly conceded during arguments by the Advocate General also, although during the course of arguments, learned Advocate General stated that the copy of, the aforesaid document would be made available to the Court later on. A copy of an award dated December .12, 1998, in land acquisition case No. 353 of 1996 and other reference petitions rendered by Shri P.P. Chhabra, learned Additional District Judge, Ambala was produced by the learned Counsel, after the arguments, when the judgment in present case was kept reserved. However, from the perusal of the aforesaid award, I find that the said award pertains to some land in Village Ramgarh and, as such, is not the same award which was relied upon by the learned reference Court in the present proceedings. Accordingly, it has to be held that there is no document Ex.C-1 available on the record of the case. Consequently, the assessment of the market value on the basis of the aforesaid earlier award made by the reference Court has to be ignored. The market value has to be assessed afresh by this Court on the basis of the material available on the record.
15. The appellants have placed reliance upon the sale of plots by HUDA at the rate of Rs. 1,172/- per sq. yard in Sector 25 in the month of January, 1994. It has been contended that the aforesaid price should be taken into consideration for assessing the market value in the present proceedings. However, in my considered view, the aforesaid sale price of the plots of HUDA cannot be taken to be reflecting the market value of the acquired land at the time of notification inasmuch as the aforesaid plots were sold by HUDA after developing the same externally as well as internally. Various amenities have been provided. Roads have been laid down. Parks have been developed. In the face of the other material available on the record the said sale price could not be taken into consideration for determining the market value.
16. The appellants have further placed reliance upon Ex.PX which is a sale-deed dated October 20, 1995 pertaining to sale of 17 kanals 2 marlas of land in village Billa. It has been fairly conceded by the learned Counsel for the appellants, during the course of arguments, that the aforesaid village Billa was situated at a distance of 17 kilometres from the acquired land. Accordingly, the said sale instance also could not be said to be reflecting the market value of the acquired land on the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. This leaves me with only two awards i.e. award Ex.P-53 dated December 17, 1998 vide which market value of the acquired land in village Maheshpur, through a notification dated December 21, 1994 was assessed at the rate of Rs. 500/- per sq. yard. The said land had been acquired for development of Sector 23 at Panchkula. The other award is Ex.P-51 dated January 11, 1999 whereby land measuring 484.97 acres was acquired through a notification dated June 26, 1989 in village Bana Madanpur itself and was assessed at the rate of Rs. 250/- per sq. yard. The said award Ex.P-51 has been ignored by the learned reference Court by observing that no reasons have been given by the reference Court in the said award for making the assessment.
17. In my considered view the reasoning adopted by the reference Court in ruling out the aforesaid award Ex.P-51 is not legally sustainable. The reference Court in the present proceedings or even this Court in the present appeals is not sitting in appeal over the award Ex.P-51, which has attained finality. The acquired land measuring 485.97 acres in the aforesaid reference proceedings was assessed at the rate of Rs. 250/-per sq. yard. In these circumstances, there is absolutely no legal justification to deny the present claimant-landowners, the market value on the basis of the aforesaid assessment.
18. The statement of RW-1 Joginder Singh, Naib Tehsildar further shows that it had been clearly admitted by him that there was no other land available in village Bana Madanpur after the present acquisition since all other lands had earlier been acquired. It is, thus, apparent that after the earlier acquisition and overall development of the area by establishment and development of various sectors of Panchkula by HUDA, the market value of the acquired land would have definitely increased many folds. Even the award Ex.P-53 which pertained to the acquired land of village Maheshpur cannot be ruled out of consideration. It is well settled principle of law that one factor which the Courts have to take into consideration is that in huge acquisition and mass development, only normal compensation should be payable, irrespective of some distance for the location of the land, unless the location of the land is having a total definite distinct advantageous and potential, like being adjacent to National High Way etc. Further a judicial notice has to be taken of the fact that vast developments have taken place in the area after the development of various new sectors of Panchkula. In these circumstances, the short distance between the villages loses significance. It is further a matter of common knowledge that when huge colonies are developed, then small distances between the revenue estates of the village are wholly irrelevant. A large number of new sectors had been developed around the acquired land at the time of its acquisition in the year 1995. The aforesaid fact cannot be lost sight of by this Court. Accordingly, I have no hesitation in holding that the aforesaid two awards Ex.P-51 and Ex.P-53 are not only relevant but are almost binding precedent on the point and the claimant-land-owners are entitled to compensation on the basis of the aforesaid two awards. The award Ex.P-51 pertained to acquisition of land through a notification dated June 26, 1989. The aforesaid acquired land was also situated in village Bana Madanpur. The present notification is dated May 4, 1995. Thus, a period of six years had elapsed before the present notification was issued from the aforesaid earlier acquisition. It is settled principle of law that an increase of 12% per annum is the reasonable increase which is permissibly awardable to the claimants while assessing the market value of the land on the basis of some earlier acquisition. By applying the aforesaid increase on the earlier assessment made through Ex.P-51, the market value of the acquired land on May 4, 1995 comes to Rs. 430/- per sq. yards. If Ex.P-53 is further taken into consideration, then also the aforesaid assessment is found to be correct inasmuch as vide Ex.P-53, land in village Maheshpur was acquired on December 21, 1994 and was assessed at the rate of Rs. 500/- per sq. yard. Even if it holds that land in village Maheshpur was situated at a more advantageous position, still the assessment of Rs. 430/- per sq. yard for the present acquired land would be, in my considered view, an appropriate assessment.
Accordingly, the present appeals are allowed and it is held that the claimant-landowners in the present appeals would be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 430/- per sq. yard for the present acquired land. Beside the aforesaid compensation, the claimant-landowners would also be entitled to further statutory benefits as per the amended provisions of the Act.