Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Sukhdei And Others vs Haryana State And Others on 5 November, 2008
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
R.F.A. No.1930 of 2005 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: November 5 ,2008
1. R. F. A. No. 1930 of 2005 (O&M)
Smt. Sukhdei and others .... Appellants
vs
Haryana State and others .... Respondents
2. R. F. A. No. 1425 of 2005 (O&M) Dharam Chand and others .... Appellants vs Haryana State and others .... Respondents
3. R. F. A. No. 1426 of 2005 (O&M) Dariya and others .... Appellants vs Haryana State and others .... Respondents
4. R. F. A. No. 1427 of 2005 (O&M) Narshi Ram and others .... Appellants vs Haryana State and others .... Respondents
5. R. F. A. No. 1428 of 2005 (O&M) Mahabir and others .... Appellants vs Haryana State and others .... Respondents
6. R. F. A. No. 1429 of 2005 (O&M) Piyare Lal .... Appellant vs Haryana State and others .... Respondents
7. R. F. A. No. 1430 of 2005 (O&M) Rai Singh .... Appellant vs Haryana State and others .... Respondents
8. R. F. A. No. 1434 of 2005 (O&M) Chhabil Dass and others .... Appellants vs Haryana State and others .... Respondents R.F.A. No.1930 of 2005 [2]
9. R. F. A. No. 1787 of 2005 (O&M) Smt. Patroi and others .... Appellants vs Haryana State and others .... Respondents
10. R. F. A. No. 1788 of 2005 (O&M) Om Parkash .... Appellant vs Haryana State and others .... Respondents
11. R. F. A. No. 1927 of 2005 (O&M) Sheo Chand and another .... Appellants vs Haryana State and others .... Respondents
12. R. F. A. No. 1928 of 2005 (O&M) Gram Panchayat, Surewal .... Appellant vs Haryana State and others .... Respondents
13. R. F. A. No. 1929 of 2005 (O&M) Bhale Ram and others .... Appellants vs Haryana State and others .... Respondents
14. R. F. A. No. 1931 of 2005 (O&M) Arjun Singh and others .... Appellants vs Haryana State and others .... Respondents
15. R. F. A. No. 1932 of 2005 (O&M) Shishpal .... Appellant vs Haryana State and others .... Respondents
16. R. F. A. No. 1933 of 2005 (O&M) Ran Singh and others .... Appellants vs Haryana State and others .... Respondents
17. R. F. A. No. 1934 of 2005 (O&M) Smt. Gina and others .... Appellants vs Haryana State and others .... Respondents R.F.A. No.1930 of 2005 [3]
18. R. F. A. No. 1935 of 2005 (O&M) Mahender and others .... Appellants vs Haryana State and others .... Respondents
19. R. F. A. No. 2058 of 2005 (O&M) Pirthi .... Appellant vs The Land Acquisition Collector, Hissar and another .... Respondents
20. R. F. A. No. 2059 of 2005 (O&M) Sheo Lal .... Appellant vs The Land Acquisition Collector, Hissar and another .... Respondents
21. R. F. A. No. 2060 of 2005 (O&M) Ram Pal .... Appellant vs Haryana State and others .... Respondents
22. R. F. A. No. 2063 of 2005 (O&M) Basou and others .... Appellants vs Haryana State and others .... Respondents
23. R. F. A. No. 2573 of 2005 (O&M) Ram Kumar and others .... Appellants vs Haryana State and others .... Respondents
24. R. F. A. No. 3079 of 2005 (O&M) Market Committee, Uklana and another .... Appellant vs Om Parkash and others .... Respondents
25. R. F. A. No. 3080 of 2005 (O&M) Market Committee, Uklana .... Appellant vs Sheo Lal and others .... Respondents
26. R. F. A. No. 3081 of 2005 (O&M) Market Committee, Uklana .... Appellant vs Pirthi and others .... Respondents R.F.A. No.1930 of 2005 [4]
27. R. F. A. No. 3082 of 2005 (O&M) Market Committee, Uklana .... Appellant vs Rameshwar and others .... Respondents
28. R. F. A. No. 3083 of 2005 (O&M) Market Committee, Uklana .... Appellant vs Smt. Patroi and others .... Respondents
29. R. F. A. No. 3085 of 2005 (O&M) Market Committee, Uklana .... Appellant vs Dharam Chand and others .... Respondents
30. R. F. A. No. 3086 of 2005 (O&M) Market Committee, Uklana .... Appellant vs Dariya and others .... Respondents
31. R. F. A. No. 3087 of 2005 (O&M) Market Committee, Uklana .... Appellant vs Shishpal and others .... Respondents
32. R. F. A. No. 3088 of 2005 (O&M) Market Committee, Uklana .... Appellant vs Bale Ram and others .... Respondents
33. R. F. A. No. 3089 of 2005 (O&M) Market Committee, Uklana .... Appellant vs Ram Kumar and others .... Respondents
34. R. F. A. No. 3090 of 2005 (O&M) Market Committee, Uklana .... Appellant vs Narshi Ram and others .... Respondents
35. R. F. A. No. 3091 of 2005 (O&M) Market Committee, Uklana .... Appellant vs Mahnder and others .... Respondents R.F.A. No.1930 of 2005 [5]
36. R. F. A. No. 3092 of 2005 (O&M) Market Committee, Uklana .... Appellant vs Smt. Gina and others .... Respondents
37. R. F. A. No. 3093 of 2005 (O&M) Market Committee, Uklana .... Appellant vs Chabbil Dass and others .... Respondents
38. R. F. A. No. 3094 of 2005 (O&M) Market Committee, Uklana .... Appellant vs Basou and others .... Respondents
39. R. F. A. No. 3095 of 2005 (O&M) Market Committee, Uklana .... Appellant vs Piyare Lal and others .... Respondents
40. R. F. A. No. 3096 of 2005 (O&M) Market Committee, Uklana .... Appellant vs Arjun Singh and others .... Respondents
41. R. F. A. No. 3097 of 2005 (O&M) Market Committee, Uklana .... Appellant vs Smt. Yashoda and others .... Respondents
42. R. F. A. No. 3098 of 2005 (O&M) Market Committee, Uklana .... Appellant vs Arjun Singh and others .... Respondents
43. R. F. A. No. 3099 of 2005 (O&M) Market Committee, Uklana .... Appellant vs Rai Singh and others .... Respondents
44. R. F. A. No. 3100 of 2005 (O&M) Market Committee, Uklana .... Appellant vs Ran Singh and others .... Respondents R.F.A. No.1930 of 2005 [6]
45. R. F. A. No. 3101 of 2005 (O&M) Market Committee, Uklana .... Appellant vs Smt. Sukhdei and others .... Respondents
46. R. F. A. No. 3102 of 2005 (O&M) Market Committee, Uklana .... Appellant vs Karan Singh and others .... Respondents
47. R. F. A. No. 3103 of 2005 (O&M) Market Committee, Uklana .... Appellant vs Sheo Chand and another .... Respondents
48. R. F. A. No. 3104 of 2005 (O&M) Market Committee, Uklana .... Appellant vs Ram Pal and others .... Respondents
49. R. F. A. No. 3105 of 2005 (O&M) Market Committee, Uklana .... Appellant vs Om Parkash and others .... Respondents
50. R. F. A. No. 3106 of 2005 (O&M) Market Committee, Uklana .... Appellant vs Gram Panchayat, Surewala and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate for the land owners.
Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for Market Committee, Uklana.
Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the State.
Rajesh Bindal J.
This order will dispose of a bunch of above mentioned 50 appeals, as the same arise out of a common acquisition.
R.F.A. Nos. 1930, 1425 to 1430, 1434, 1787, 1788, 1927, 1928, 1929, 1931 to 1935, 2058 to 2060, 2063 and 2573 of 2005 have been filed by the land owners seeking enhancement in the compensation for the acquired land.
R.F.A. Nos. 3079 to 3083, 3085 to 3106 of 2005 have been filed by R.F.A. No.1930 of 2005 [7] Market Committee, Uklana seeking reduction in the compensation awarded to the land owners.
The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No.1930 of 2005. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 7.11.1997, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana acquired 60.02 acres in Village Surewala Hadbast No. 86, Tehsil and District Hissar for construction of New Grain Market, vegetable and fruit market at Surewala and Budha Khera, District Hissar. The same was followed by notification dated 8.6.1998 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide his award dated 7.6.2000, determined the market value at Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre of land situated on road upto one acre depth and after that @ Rs. 1,75,000/- per acre for nehri, gair mumkin land. The learned Additional District Judge, on reference under Section 18 of the Act, awarded compensation @ Rs. 2,40,000/- per acre of the land falling on National Highway upto the depth of one acre and Rs. 2,05,000/- per acre for the interior land.
Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the evidence led by the land owners in the present case has not been given due weight. The only reliance was placed upon sale deed ( Ex. P4), whereas other sale deeds (Ex. P3 and Ex. P5) have been totally ignored. Further Ex. P6 and Ex. P7, the rates at which the plots were sold by the Marketing Board in the mandi, have also been ignored. He further referred to the evidence on record to state that the land is situated quite close to Uklana Mandi on a main road. 1/3rd of the frontage of the acquired land is opposite the abadi of village Surewala. The main crossing of Chandigarh-Hissar Highway is approximately one kilometer away from the acquired land. Even the area in between was also being developed and there was great potential for its commercial and residential use. In the vicinity of the land, there was service station, saw mills, sugar industries and other factories.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the Market Committee submitted that as far as reliance on sale deed (Ex. P4) by the learned Court below is concerned, the same cannot be disputed for the reason that it forms part of the acquired land. However, it was submitted that the cut applied by the learned court below, i.e., 70% is lesser and cut to the extent of 85% should be applied for arriving at fair value of the acquired land on the date of notification. He further submitted that there was no question of any further enhancement in the value of the land, as is sought to be claimed by the land owners. Learned counsel for the State also supported the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the Market R.F.A. No.1930 of 2005 [8] Committee.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the relevant referred record.
A perusal of site plan (Ex. P1) shows that the land forming part of sale deed (Ex. P3) is located just at the crossing of roads leading from/to Sirsa- Ludhiana- Chandigarh-Hissar. As far as land forming part of sale deed (Ex. P5) is concerned, that is situated on the road towards the acquired land from the aforesaid crossing and as far as land forming part of sale deed (Ex. P4) is concerned, the same is part of the acquired land located just at the beginning thereof. Even the rates at which the land was sold in the three sale deeds (Ex. P3, Ex. P4 and Ex. P5) is also corresponding to their location. The land at the crossing of road leading from Sirsa-Ludhiana- Chandigarh-Hissar was dealt with at Rs. 15,60,000/- per acre, whereas the plot of 10 marlas of land which is part of the acquired land was dealt with at Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre and 10 marlas of land vide sale deed (Ex. P5) was dealt with at Rs. 12,80,000/- per acre. This sale deed was executed much after the acquisition of the land on 1.8.2000, whereas the land was acquired in the year 1997 and the location is also in between the above two sale deeds.
As is evident from the impugned award, the State produced as many as 63 sale deeds on record. The land forming part thereof in most of them were not shown on the site plan or were at far off place. On a perusal of the material on record, in my considered opinion, sale deed (Ex. P3) cannot possibly be considered for the purpose of determination of fair value of land for the reason of its strategic location on the crossing of road leading from/to Sirsa-Ludhiana-Chandigarh- Hissar. As far as sale deed (Ex. P5) is concerned, the same was registered on 1.8.2000 after the acquisition. Accordingly, it has no relevance. Similarly Ex. P6 and Ex. P7 also cannot be considered for the reason that the same were instances of sale of plots in New Grain Market which was developed after the acquisition. The only sale deed which is most relevant piece of evidence is sale deed (Ex. P4) dated 9.5.1995 which is a part of the acquired land. In this sale deed, merely one marla of land was sold for Rs. 5,000/- at an average rate of Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre.
Now the question is as to how much cut is to be applied for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land. The genuineness of sale deed (Ex. P4) is not doubted by the State. However, the fact cannot be disputed that the transaction therein was for one marla of land which necessarily was for commercial purpose and situated on the main road. Consider the fact that sale deed (Ex. P4) was executed on 9.5.1995 and the acquisition in the present is nearly 2-1/2 years thereafter, I deem it appropriate to grant 25% increase thereon R.F.A. No.1930 of 2005 [9] for this period and take the value thereof on the date of acquisition at Rs. 10,00,000/- per acre. As far as the cut applied by the learned Court below to the tune of 70% is concerned, I do not find any infirmity therein keeping in view the sale deed relied upon which is for one marla of land and the acquisition being 60.02 acres of land. Accordingly, applying cut of 70%, the value of the acquired land upto the depth of one acre is assessed at Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre as against Rs. 2,40,000/- per acre, awarded by the learned court below. The value of the land behind that is increased in the same proportion as was assessed by the learned court below and the same is assessed at Rs. 2,55,000/- per acre. The land owners shall also be entitled to the statutory benefits available under the Act.
For the reasons mentioned above, the appeals filed by the land owners are allowed, whereas the appeals filed by the Market Committee are dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge November 5, 2008 mk