Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Dera Baba Ram Dass Ji on 23 February, 1999
Equivalent citations: (1999)122PLR681
Author: Swatanter Kumar
Bench: Swatanter Kumar
JUDGMENT Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. CM. No. 5353-CI of 1998 was filed by the Union of India-appellant with the averments that the respondent-claimants have filed execution applications and the execution applications were entertained by the learned executing court and, in fact, warrants of attachment had been issued against the property of the Union of India for the recovery of the enhanced amount of compensation awarded by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala.
2. Notice on the application was issued by the court to the counsel for me non-applicant for 16.2.1999. The parties agreed that they would address the arguments on merit of the case. In order to avoid repetition of arguments at the time of regular hearing, with the consent of the counsel for the parties, the appeal itself was taken up for hearing. Learned counsel for the parties addressed arguments at length. Today the matter was fixed in Court for further hearing of the matter and the learned counsel for the parties have concluded their submissions and thus, I proceed to record the judgment on merit of the appeal.
3. The State of Punjab with the intention to acquire the land for the benefit of the Union of India to set up Indo Tibetan Border Police Battalion Head Quarter at village Chaura, issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 29th March, 1988 published on 9th April, 1988. The land acquired under this notification was measuring about 186 Bigha 10 Biswas. In furtherance to the notification under Section 4, notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued prior to acquisition and taking possession of the land in question. It is not disputed that the possession of the acquired land has been taken by the authorities concerned. The Land Acquisition Collector vide award dated 30th December, 1989 awarded a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- per acre for the acquired land measuring 4 bighas 16 biswas, which was adjacent to the Patiala-Rajpura road and further awarded a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- per acre for the Chahi land measuring 181 Bighas 14 Biswas, which is subject matter of acquisition belonging to the same claimants. However, no compensation on account of severance was allowed. Dissatisfied from the amount awarded by the Collector, the claimants preferred objections under section 18 of the Act, which in turn, were referred to the learned District Judge, Patiala. In all, four references were disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala vide common judgment dated 1st October, 1997. Vide this award, the learned Judge felt that application of belting system was not proper and resultantly he awarded universal compensation to the extent of Rs. 1,30,000/- per acre for the entire acquired land with statutory benefits specified in the judgment.
4. The Union of India for whose benefits the land was acquired and was in fact, required to pay the compensation for the acquired land, being dissatisfied with the amount awarded by the learned Additional District Judge, vide award dated 1st October, 1997, to the claimants have preferred four Regular First Appeals, being R.F.A. No. 1336 of 1998 to 1339 of 1998, while the claimants have preferred two Regular First Appeals, being R.F.A. No. 702 and 1537 of 1998 and in two Regular First Appeals they have filed Cross-Objections, being Cross Objections No. 168 and 169-CI of 1998.
5. As all the above appeals and cross-objections arise out of the same judgment, it will be appropriate for this Court to dispose of these appeals by a common judgments.
6. The submissions of the learned counsel for the Union of India is that the adoption of the belting system by the Collector was fully in consonance with law and there was no ground available before the learned Additional District Judge to award similar amount of compensation to the landowners at the rate of Rs. 1,30,000/- per acre by abolishing the belting system.
7. In this regard he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Mangatu Ram and Ors., (1998-1)118 P.LR. 160 (S.C.). He further contends that if the belting system was not to be made applicable then the claimants would be entitled, at best, the compensation at the rate of Rs. 1 lac per acre and not Rs. 1,30,000/- per acre, as awarded by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants has vehemently argued that on the basis of sale deeds produced and proved on record, the claimants are entitled to enhancement of amount and they should be given compensation to the extent of Rs. 3,07,200/- per acre preferably without any deduction and/or in the alternative with a reasonable deduction or cut, as the case may be. In alternative, the learned counsel for the claimants contended that recommendation of the Commissioner in relation to the value of the land in question ought to have been accepted by the learned Additional District Judge and, as such, compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre without any cut or deduction should have been allowed to the claimants. According to the learned counsel, keeping in view the location and potentiality of the land in question and it being a compact batch, which was acquired for one and the same purpose, no question arises with regard to application of deduction or cut.
9. Another question raised on behalf of the claimants-Dera Baba Ram Dass (in R.F.A. No. 702 of 1998) is that the claimants were entitled to the compensation at the rate of 50% of the market value on the ground of severance and rendering the unacquired land of the claimants as waste.
10. In order to examine the merit of the rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties, it will be appropriate to make reference to the necessary documents and evidence, copies of which have been produced by the learned counsel for the parties during the course of hearing. Ex.A.2 is the site plan which shows the location of the acquired land. The acquired land abuts on the main Rajpura-Patiala road on one side on the north while Hira Bagh Colony, is on the west. There is a road, schools, cold-storage etc. on the east, while on the south side is the remaining part of the village Chuara. The claimants in addition to A.W.1 has made a statement that the land in question is surrounded by the developed land and is potentiality. This evidence though hardly could be rebutted on behalf of the Union of India clearly shows that the land in question is well located and have potentially for residential and commercial purposes. This may not be of great significance because the land itself was acquired for the public purpose, namely, for the construction of Indo-Tibetan Border Police Battalion Head Quarter at Village Chaura, but the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the area is surrounded by the developed area and the land has again been acquired for the development purpose. Thus, I have no hesitation in accepting the view expressed by the learned additional District Judge that the land has substantial potentiality.
11. The second question that falls, for consideration is that what should be the amount of compensation payable to the landowner-claimants.
12. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there were only four sale instances proved on record, which are exhibits A.4 to A.7.
They reads as under:-
Exhibit Date of Area Sold Sale Rate per Sale Consideration annum Ex.A.4. 19.04.88 420 Sq. Yds. Rs. 18,000/- Rs. 2,05714/-
(0-8 biswas) Ex.A.5. 30.06.88 4-1/2 biswas Rs. 9.635/- Rs. 2,05,546/-
Ex.A.6. 01.10.87 125 Sq. Yds. Rs. 8,000/- Rs. 3,07,200/-
Ex.A.7. 01.10.87 125 Sq. Yds. Rs. 8,000/- Rs. 3,07,200/-
13. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 9.4.1988, as such exhibit A.4 and A.5 cannot be considered as relevant or comparable sale instances for determination of fair market value of the land in question. Reasons for rejecting A.4 and A.5 would be more than one. Firstly, vendor and vendee were not examined nor the sale instances were proved in accordance with law. Secondly, these sale instances are post notification. Exhibits A.6 and A.7 are certainly relevant viewed from point of time, as they relate to 1987 but these sale instances are of small piece of land as only 125 square yards was sold under exhibits A.6 and A.7. Another factor is that vendor and vendee were not examined nor any person was summoned from the Registrar Office or revenue department to prove the genuineness and authenticity of these sale deeds. The cumulative effect of this discussion, keeping in view the principle of law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the sale instances, which are not proved in accordance with law shall be inadmissible in evidence, would render all these sale instances inconsequential for determining the fair market value of the acquired land. In this regard reference can be made to the cases. A P. State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad v. P. Venkaiah and Ors., A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 2600, Special Deputy Collector and Anr. v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and Ors., A.I.R. 1997 Supreme Court 2625, Baldev Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 498 and Meherban and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1997 Supreme Court 2664.
14. In view of the above discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that all these sale instances cannot be made the basis for determination of fair market value of the land at the relevant time, when the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued. Consequently, I reject these sale instances.
15. The only relevant piece of evidence on record is report of the Commissioner which he had sent after getting the survey conducted by the Deputy Commissioner to the Collector recommending payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre as compensation to the landowners for the land acquired. While dealing with this document, the learned Additional District Judge observed as under:-
" . . . . The Collector has also mentioned that the acquiring department vide its letter dated 25.3.1989 had intimated that as per its enquiries about land rates in the municipal area of Patiala and in the surroundings outside the municipal limits, rates within the municipal area, Patiala for the agricultural land were about Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre and for the land in the surrounding outside municipal limits rates were about Rs. 80,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre. On the basis of the aforesaid rates, conveyed by the Commissioner and the acquiring department, the Collector observed that there was no denying the fact that the acquired land was situated at a good spot and it could be converted into a residential enclave. At the time of acquisition it was agricultural land actually cultivated and sown. Even at the time of inspection by the Collector wheat crop was standing in the acquired land. The Collector observed that from the condition of the crop it appeared that the land was not of best quality.
The Collector has further observed that the transactions represented by 1st and 2nd categories as above could not be taken as guidelines for calculation of fair market price as per the settled case law, Govt. instructions and native intelligence of the people. He observed that only the transactions of the 3rd category could be relied upon for arriving at the correct market value, keeping in view the residential/commercial potential of the land under acquisition and the tendency of the people to undervalue their sale deeds to save stamp duty etc. He observed that if the average contained in the 3rd category was doubled, it came to Rs. 91,330/- per acre which incidentally in very close to the departmental offer and thus suggested the truth and reality about the prices. He, therefore, worked out the market value at Rs. 1 lac per acre for the acquired land except for one acre adjacent to the Patiala-Rajpura raod for which he assessed the market value of Rs. 1,30,000/- per acre.
As already observed, their sale deeds Ex.A.4 to A.7 cannot be taken into consideration for assessing the market value because these are of small plots whereas big chunk of agricultural land has been acquired and also because the vendors or vendee of these sale deeds have not been examined by the petitioners."
The learned Additional District Judge, practically maintained the findings recorded by the Collector except abolishing the belting system and gave higher award of compensation awarded by the Collector i.e. Rs. 1,30,000/- per acre. No specific reasons have been given as to why the value given to the Commissioner could not be taken into consideration or treated as relevant piece of evidence.
16. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants relies upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jaimal and Ors. v. Haryana State and Anr. (1994-2)107 P.LR. 417, to contend that the report of the Commissioner giving Rs. 2,50,000/- can be made basis for determining the market value of the land. On the contrary, learned counsel for the Union of India has relied upon the case K.S. Shivadevamma and Ors. v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer and Anr., A.I.R. 1996 Supreme Court 2886 to contend that report of the Commissioner cannot be looked into for determination of fair market value of the land in question.
17. It is true the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has settled that the list prepared by the authorities concerned for the purpose of Section 47-A of the Stamp Duty Act would not constitute a valid basis for determination of fair market value, unless evidence is produced to support that valuation otherwise. It is clear from the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge as well as the award of the Collector dated 30th December, 1989 that the report of the Commissioner was called for recommending the market value in relation of the acquired land. At this stage, it will be appropriate to make reference to the findings recorded by the Collector in his award dated 30th December, 1989:
"On the other hand Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala vide letter No. RA/6052 dated 24.5.1988 conveyed by Collector (D.C.), Patiala vide endst No. 396/Rates/DRA/AD-II/2200 dated 25.5.1988 has approved the market price @ Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre without giving any detail of the reasons for the same.
Under the circumstances detailed above and looking at the matter of fair market price with all permutations and combinations it was worked out as Rs. 1,00,000/- (One lakh) per acre except one acre adjacent to the Patiala-Rajpura road for which Rs. 1,30,000/- has been assessed."
In view of the detailed discussion in the award and the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge that no reason was given in the letter recommending the price of the acquired land nor any other evidence was produced to show that the recommended market value was otherwise genuine or fair, this Court cannot look into the letter of the Commissioner, which has not been relied upon either by the Collector or the learned Additional District Judge.
18. The resultant effect is that there is hardly any material evidence which could have direct bearing on the value of the land in question for deciding the fair market value of land in question. But it would also not be fair at this stage that after lapse of about 11 years the parties should be sent back to the learned Additional District Judge for afresh trial. This Court could safely rely upon the award of the Collector as well as the findings recorded by the learned Additional District Judge de hors the aforestated two questions. I am unable to see any merit in the contention raised on behalf of the Union of India that belting system ought to have been followed by the learned Additional District Judge.
19. In order to examine the correctness of the application of belting system to the present case, reference can be made to certain judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the case of Gulzara Singh and Ors. etc. v. State of Punjab and Ors., 1993 L.A.C.C. 612, after discussing the law at some length and giving the principle of retail and wholesale prices where the sale instances were available, the Court observed that adoption of belting system was not proper. The relevant observations are as under:-
"The principle of belting is perfectly legal and unexceptionable as the lands abutting the main road upto a specified depth, depending on factual material on record, would fetch higher market rate than the lands situated in interior area.
However, on facts of this case the belting is not warranted for the reason that as seen on three sides there exists a road cutting across the acquired lands. Therefore, there is not only access on three sides but also to interior lands. Thus in our view belting and fixation of differential rates of value is not justified."
Further in the case of Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority and Anr. v. M/s Dominion Land and Industries Ltd. and Anr., 1996 L.A.C.C. 132, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the question of belting sys- tern held as under:-
"Because of the availability of the said genuine and bona fide agreement to sell pertaining to the very land acquired under the LA Act which reflected the real market value of the acquired land at about the time of acquisition, i.e. November 2, 1978, there was no scope for determining the market value of the said acquired land by resorting to the method of Belting or hypothetical building layout or method of Comparable Sales in the vicinity of the acquired land or the like. Hence, in our view, the Tribunal as well as the High Court had committed a manifest error in adopting the method of Belting for determining the market value of the aforesaid land acquired under the LA Act, with the market value of which we are concerned here."
Applying the above principle to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the learned Additional District Judge has rightly held that all the claimants should be entitled to uniform rate of compensation payable to the landowners for the acquired land.
20. Coming to the question of compensation payable for the severance of the land belonging to the claimants, in exhibit A.3 it has been shown that the land which has not been acquired by the State Government has been left in two different parcels. One parcel abuts Patiala-Rajpura Road, while the other parcel falls at Patiala-Chaura road. There is a considerable distance between' the two left over parcels which is measuring 33.5 bighas.
21. In this regard reference can be made to the case of Smt. Bindu Garg v. The State of Haryana and Anr., R.F.A. No. 3192 of 1993 decided on 10.2.1999, wherein the Court held as under:-
"For this purpose, he has placed reliance upon the cases of Punjab State through Land Acquisition Collector, Punjab Colonization Department, Chandigarh v. Gurbachan Singh and Ors., (1988-2)94 P.L.R. 695; State of Punjab through Collector, Mukerian Hydel Channel Project, Talwara v. Amar Nath and Ors., 1988 L.A.C.C. 310; State of Punjab v. Mohan Lal and Ors., (1997-3)117 P.L.R. 845 and Smt. Narinder Kaur v. The State of Punjab and Ors., (1980)82 P.L.R. 473. In the above judgments this Court had taken the consistent view that where the acquired land had rendered the unacquired land completely inaccessible and a total loss, the measure of damages by severance, undoubtedly be the dimension in the value of the acquired land and the owner is entitled to at least 50% of the market rate of the unacquired land on account of damages."
According to the claimants access to these parcels of land has been blocked and both the parcels had been rendered useless inasmuch as no cultivation can be done here. AW.2 Navin Kumar, Patwari Halqa, who appeared in the witness box clearly stated that earlier there were three accesses to these parcels of land from two different sides, but now only approach is from the main road. He further stated that the land has become unfit for cultivation. The cumulative effect to this evidence, Exhibit A.3 seen in the light of statement A.W.2, which is a relevant witness for this purpose, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that rights of the present claimants have been effected and they ought to be entitled to some element of compensation on account of severance. Learned counsel for the claimants relied upon Jaimla's case (supra) to say that 50% should be amount of compensation payable in this count. I do not agree to this contention because in those cases the land was rendered inaccessible as well as unfit for cultivation or for any other purpose. Resultantly, the present case cannot be equated to the said judgment and the claimants cannot derive full advantage from the aforestated judgment of this Court. I think, interest of justice demands that some elements of compensation should be payable to the claimants on this count and it would be just and fair if 20% compensation amount is paid to the claimants in relation to the unacquired land.
22. Resultantly, all the appeals filed on behalf of the Union of India are dismissed, while the appeals preferred by the claimants are partly accepted. The claimants would be entitled to the same amount of compensation as has been awarded by the learned Additional District Judge i.e. Rs. 1,30,000/- per acre with statutory benefits provided under Section 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. The claimants would also be entitled to receive 20% of the compensation amount on their respective unacquired lands on account of compensation payable for severance in accordance with law. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.