Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhupinder Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 17 February, 2012
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
R.F.A. No. 2820 of 1992 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
R.F.A. No. 2820 of 1992 (O&M)
Date of decision: February 17, 2012
Bhupinder Singh
..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Punjab.
....... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate General with
Mr. Alok Jain, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate with
Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for Steel Strips & Wheels Ltd.
Rajesh Bindal J.
1. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 2820 to 2822, 2914 to
2916 of 1992, 1220 and 1352 of 1993, as common questions of law and
facts are involved.
2. The land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement
of compensation awarded to them by the learned court below for the
acquired land.
3. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 146 bighas and 9
biswas 9, situated in village Somalheri, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala was
sought to be acquired by Government of Punjab vide notification dated
1/3.6.1987, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for
short, `the Act') for setting up of a project of M/s Steels Strips and Wheels
Ltd.. The same was followed by notification dated 21.9.1987, issued under
Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the
Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land at ` 35,000/-
per acre for irrigated land; ` 30,000/- per acre for unirrigated land and `
25,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin kind of land. Feeling dissatisfied, the
learned owners filed objections. On reference, the learned court below
R.F.A. No. 2820 of 1992 [2]
upheld the award of the Collector.
4. Vide same notification, land measuring 46 bighas and 18
biswas, situated in village Lehali, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala was
acquired for the same purpose. The Collector assessed the market value
of the land at the same rates, as it was assessed for the land pertaining to
village Somalheri. Feeling dissatisfied, the land owners filed objections.
On reference, the learned court below assessed the market value @ `
44,400/- per acre for irrigated land; ` 40,000/- per acre for un-irrigated
land and ` 37,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. In some cases,
the learned court below assessed the market value @ ` 66,000/- per acre.
5. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that vide same
notification, the land pertaining to two villages, namely, Lehali and
Somalheri was acquired for the same purpose, namely, for setting up of an
industrial unit by Steel Strips and Wheels Ltd. The land is strategically
located on National Highway No. 22, Chandigarh-Ambala road between
Dappar and Lalru. Lot of pressure was there in the area as the land was
being purchased for setting up of industrial units. The evidence led by the
land owners on record has not been properly appreciated. Three sale deeds
(Ex. P1 to Ex. P3) (LAC No. 43T of 13.9.1988) pertaining to land of
village Lehali were produced on record in addition to other sale deeds. The
land pertaining to sale deeds (Ex. P1 to Ex. P.3) was forming part of the
acquired land. The sale deeds were registered on 29.6.1983, 30.6.1983 and
18.8.1983. It was for a big chunk of land. Notification under Section 4 of
the Act was issued on 1/3.6.1987. There was a gap of four years. In fact,
neither the acquired land nor the land pertaining to the aforesaid sale deeds
is located on National Highway No. 22. It is located on a link road leading
from National Highway No. 22. The learned court below, though has
granted increase for the time gap from the date of registration of sale deeds
till the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, but has wrongly
applied the cut.
6. He further submitted that as even the land pertaining to
village Somalheri was also adjoining. It being a compact block, the value
thereof should also have been assessed at the same rate. The learned court
below had gone wrong in rejecting the land references pertaining to land of
R.F.A. No. 2820 of 1992 [3]
village Somalheri. Even the sale deeds produced on record pertaining to
village Somalheri were registered prior to the issuance of notification
under Section 4 of the Act, but the same have been ignored by the learned
court below. The submission is that entire land should be assessed @ `
66,000/- per acre.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that the value, as assessed by the learned court below, does not
call for any interference by this court. The learned court below had gone
wrong in granting increase @ 12% per annum for the time gap from the
date of registration of sale deeds till the issuance of notification under
Section 4 of the Act pertaining to land of village Lehali for the period from
1983 to 1987, as it should not have been more than 5-6% per annum.
Considering the fact that the sale transactions pertained to small portions
of land, the cut should have been applied at least @ 50%. He further
submitted that the Collector had assessed the compensation for the
acquired land in terms of its quality, namely, Chahi, Barani and Gair
Mumkin, however, the learned court below, without there being any basis,
has done away with the categorisation of land. The land pertaining to
village Somalheri is quite in the back as compared to the land of village
Lehali. Both portions of land cannot be compared with each other.
8. He further submitted that in the evidence led in the cases
pertaining to village Somalheri, six bighas of land was sold for ` 25,000/-
on 11.3.1986 at an average price of ` 20,000/- per acre. Vide sale
transactions (Ex. A1 and Ex. A2) produced by the land owners, part of the
aforesaid land was sold vide two sale deeds dated 19.2.1987 and 21.5.1987
@ ` 96,000/- and ` 84,000/- per acre, respectively, which shows that the
value of land shown in the sale transactions was exaggerated with a view
to claim higher compensation. He also referred to sale deed (Ex. R3),
which was registered on 19.12.1989, showing average sale consideration
paid therein as ` 42,003/- per acre.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant
referred record.
10. From a perusal of the evidence produced on record by the land
owners shows that there are three sale deeds (Ex. P1 to Ex. P3) (LAC No.
R.F.A. No. 2820 of 1992 [4]
43T/13.9.1988) pertaining to revenue estate of village Lehali, which are
relevant for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land
considering the fact that the land pertaining thereto was acquired. The
same are as under:
Ex. Date of sale Area sold Sale price Average price per acre
in ` in `
.......................................................................................................................................................
P.1 29.6.1983 3 Bighas 7 Biswas 35,000/- 50,149/- P.2 30.6.1983 4 Bighas 14 Biswas 35,000/- 35,745/- P.3 18.8.1983 3 Bighas 8 Biswas 35,000/- 49,412/-
11. The land pertaining to sale deeds (Ex. P1 and Ex. P2) was purchased by two brothers. A portion of the land is abutting Chandigarh- Ambala Highway, whereas rest of the land is abutting a link road leading from Chandigarh-Ambala road to village Chandheri. There is another sale deed (Ex. P5) (LAC No. 43T/13.9.1988), which was registered on 19.2.1987, whereby 2 Bighas of land was sold at an average price of ` 96,000/- per acre. A perusal of the site plan (Ex. A12) (LAC No. 38T/14.9.1988) shows that the same is not abutting the main road. The State had sought to refer sale deed (Ex. R2) registered on 11.3.1986, whereby 6 Bighas of land was sold at an average price of ` 20,000/- per acre, part of which was sold subsequently vide sale deeds (Ex. A1 and Ex. A2) registered on 19.2.1987 and 21.5.1987 at an average price of ` 96,000/- and ` 84,000/- per acre, respectively. It was sought to be referred for the purpose that the aforesaid two sale deeds were got registered showing higher value, as otherwise the value of land cannot increase more than four times in a period of one year.
12. There is no site plan available on record showing the location of the entire acquired land, as it pertains to two different revenue estates though in a compact block. There are different plans on record showing location of the acquired land of two different revenue estates. A perusal of site plan (Ex. A12) (LAC No. 38T/14.9.1988) shows that the same is not abutting Ambala-Chandigarh Highway, as a portion of the land on the main road has been left out and thereafter the acquired boundaries started.
R.F.A. No. 2820 of 1992 [5]It is abutting a link road leading from Ambala-Chandigarh Highway to village Chandheri. Front of 12 acres abuts the aforesaid link road. The width of the acquired land towards Ambala-Chandigarh Highway is about four acres, though it is not abutting the same. The depth of the acquired land on the link road is also about 4-5 acres. It is a compact block, though land pertains to two different revenue estates.
13. The learned court below has assessed the value of land pertaining to village Lehali in the cases where land of some of the land owners whose sale deeds are sought to be relied upon, was part of the acquired land, @ ` 66,000/- per acre, whereas the land of other land owners was assessed as per its quality at different rates ranging from ` 37,000/- to ` 44,400/- per acre. For the purpose of assessment of value of the land owned by the vendees in sale deeds (Ex. P1 to Ex. P3), namely, Bhupinder Singh, Savinder Singh and Raminder Kaur, whose sale transactions were relied upon, the learned court below had applied a cut of 1/3rd and granted increase for the time gap of four years @ 12% per annum. The land owners in the present case had claimed that entire chunk of land should be valued @ ` 66,000/- per acre. However, I do not find any reason to grant that relief, considering the fact that a portion of land abutting the road and which is beyond that certainly has different value. However, keeping in view the development in the form of industrialization, which had started on Ambala-Chandigarh Highway, in my opinion, it would not be appropriate to categorise the land as irrigated, unirrigated or gair mumkin and value the same accordingly. In the present case as well, the land was acquired for the purpose of setting up of an industrial unit. Considering the depth of the acquired land from Ambala-Chandigarh Highway as well as on the link road, as has already been noticed above, in my opinion, it would be appropriate to assess the value of the acquired land upto a depth of two acres from Ambala-Chandigarh Highway and also on the link road @ ` 66,000/- per acre, whereas the rest of the land is assessed @ ` 44,400/- per acre, as is the highest rate assessed by the court below for the irrigated kind of land. The entire land abutting even on the link road has been assessed @ ` 66,000/- per acre for the reason that land pertaining to sale deed (Ex. P3) was abutting only on the link road at a R.F.A. No. 2820 of 1992 [6] depth of three acres from the main road and was also sold @ ` 49,412/- per acre way back on 18.8.1983.
14. To sum up, it is held that the land owners shall be entitled to compensation @ ` 66,000/- per acre for the acquired land upto the depth of two acres from Ambala-Chandigarh Highway and also on the link road (two acres depth shall be measured from the road and the compensation shall be payable for the acquired land leaving the unacquired portion on the road), whereas for rest of the land, they shall be entitled to compensation @ ` 44,400/- per acre. They shall also be entitled to the statutory benefits available to them under the Act.
15. The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above.
( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge February 17, 2012 mk