Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dhandu Ram And Another vs State Of Haryana on 30 October, 2008
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
R.F.A. No. 1177 of 1991 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: October 30 , 2008
(1) RFA No.1177 of 1991
Dhandu Ram and another
....Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
(2) RFA No.1178 of 1991
Ramesh Kumar
....Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
(3) RFA No.1179 of 1991
Ram Avtar and others
....Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
(4) RFA No.1180 of 1991
Daya Nand and another
....Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
(5) RFA No.1306 of 1991
Khaili Ram and others
....Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
R.F.A. No. 1177 of 1991 [2]
(6) RFA No.1307 of 1991
Bhola Ram and others
....Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
(7) RFA No.1308 of 1991
Ram Singh and others
....Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
(8) RFA No.1309 of 1991
Karan Singh through LRs and others
....Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
(9) RFA No.1310 of 1991
Fateh Singh
....Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
(10) RFA No.1311 of 1991
Sushila
....Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
R.F.A. No. 1177 of 1991 [3]
(11) RFA No.1312 of 1991
Rameshwear Dayal and others
....Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
(12) RFA No.1313 of 1991
Bhola Ram and others
....Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
(13) RFA No.1314 of 1991
Har Bai and another
....Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
(14) RFA No.1315 of 1991
Gajanand and others
....Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
(15) RFA No.1316 of 1991
Nawal Kishore and others
....Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
(16) RFA No.1317 of 1991
Johari Lal and others
....Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
R.F.A. No. 1177 of 1991 [4]
(17) RFA No.1318 of 1991
Naresh Kumar and others
....Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
(18) RFA No.1319 of 1991
Ram Ratti and others
....Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
(19) RFA No.1320 of 1991
Gram Panchayat Tobra
....Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
(20) RFA No.1322 of 1991
Ram Nand and others
....Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
(21) RFA No.1323 of 1991
Mewa Devi
....Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
(22) RFA No.1545 of 1991
State of Haryana
....Appellant
Versus
Ram Avtar and others
...Respondent
R.F.A. No. 1177 of 1991 [5]
(23) RFA No.1546 of 1991
State of Haryana
....Appellant
Versus
Sushila
....Respondent
(24) RFA No.1547 of 1991
Haryana State
....Appellant
Versus
Mewa Devi
...Respondent
(25) RFA No.1548 of 1991
State of Haryana
....Appellant
Versus
Ram Ratti and others
...Respondent
(26) RFA No.1549 of 1991
State of Haryana
....Appellant
Versus
Daya Nand and another
...Respondents
(27) RFA No.1550 of 1991
Haryana State
....Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Kumar
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Prabodh Mittal, Advocate for the
appellants in R.F.A. Nos. 1177 to 1180, 1545, 1547,
1549 and 1550 of 1991.
R.F.A. No. 1177 of 1991 [6]
Mr. G.S. Hooda, Advocate for the appellants in
R.F.A. Nos. 1306 to 1323 of 1991.
Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Additional Advocate General,
Haryana for the State.
Rajesh Bindal J.
This order shall dispose of a bunch of 27 appeals, as the same arise
out of a common acquisition.
In R.F.A. Nos. 1177 to 1180, 1306 to 1320, 1322 and 1323 of 1991,
the land owners are in appeal before this Court against the award of the learned
Court below seeking further enhancement of the compensation for the acquired
land.
In R.F.A. Nos. 1545 to 1550 of 1991, the State is seeking reduction
in the amount of compensation awarded by the Court below.
The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 1177 of 1991.
Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 10.3.1986, issued
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), the State
of Haryana acquired 31.06 acres of land situated in the revenue estate of Tobra,
Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh for the construction of new Anaj Mandi at
Ateli. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') determined the
market value of land at Rs. 27,040/- per acre for chahi land, Rs. 25,120/- per acre
for barani land and Rs. 20,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. Aggrieved
against the same, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the
learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, who keeping in view the material
placed on record by the parties, awarded Rs. 35,000/- per acre except petitioner-
Sushila who was awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 35,000/-, Ramotar to the
tune of Rs. 27,000/-, Dayanand to the tune of Rs. 28,000/-, Mewa Devi to the tune
of Rs. 36,000/-, Ramesh Kumar to the tune of Rs. 33,000/- and Raghbir and
Ramrati to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-, in all.
Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the value of the
acquired land, as determined by the learned Court below, is not in conformity with
the evidence produced by the land owners on record. In fact, the best piece of
evidence in the form of sale deeds forming part of the acquired land, the
genuineness of which was never doubted, has been totally ignored. As against this,
the evidence in the form of sale deed (Ex. R1), merely tendered by the counsel for
the State appearing before the Court below, has been considered for the purpose of
determination of fair value of the land, whereas there is no site plan on record to
show even the location thereof. Even no witness has been produced to state about
R.F.A. No. 1177 of 1991 [7]
the location of the land forming part of sale deed (Ex. R1). Reference has been
made to sale deed dated 6.9.1984 (Ex. P.7), wherein land measuring 10 marlas
was purchased by Daya Nand (appellant in R.F.A. No. 1180 of 1991) at an average
price of Rs. 4,21,000/- per acre. He further referred to the fact that Sushila Devi
(appellant in R.F.A. No. 1311 of 1991) had purchased the plot measuring one
kanal for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- vide registered sale deed dated 1.6.1983 from one
Gaja Nand, which is situated on main Rewari-Narnaul road. Vide Ex. P13, land
measuring one kanal was purchased by Ram Autar (appellant in R.F.A. No. 1179
of 1991) vide registered sale deed dated 6.6.1983 for a sum of Rs. 24,000/-. Vide
sale deed dated 2.12.1985 (Ex. PW12/B), land measuring one kanal was purchased
by Ramesh Kumar (appellant in R.F.A. No. 1178 of 1991) for a sum of Rs.
30,000/-. Further reference has been made to Ex. PW11/A, whereby land
measuring one kanal was purchased by Rama Nand (appellant in R.F.A. No. 1322
of 1991) for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- vide registered sale deed dated 17.1.1983.
Further reference has been made to Ex. PW13/A, vide which land measuring one
kanal was purchased by Mewa Devi (appellant in R.F.A. No. 1323 of 1991) vide
registered sale deed dated 3.11.1982 for a sum of Rs. 30,000/-.
Referring to the aforesaid sale transactions, the submission is that
the land which was dealt with in the aforesaid sale deeds was forming part of the
acquired land, the fair value of which is to be determined in the present
proceedings. Any sale transaction forming part of the acquired land is the best
piece of evidence, which has been totally ignored by the Court below merely
opining that the transactions are for a small piece of land, whereas reasonable cut
could be imposed thereon for the purpose of arriving at a fair value of the large
chunk of land which was acquired for the purpose of construction of new Anaj
Mandi at Ateli.
As regards sale deed (Ex. R1) produced by the State, the submission
is that it was merely tendered by the counsel representing the State before the
Court below, It has no where come in the evidence as to where the land forming
part of sale deed (Ex. R1) is located, as there is no site plan on record to show the
location thereof. In the absence of that, the finding recorded by the court below
that the same was the best piece of evidence as it is more near to the point of
acquisition is totally perverse. Vide this sale deed dated 15.2.1985, 4 kanals of
land was sold for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- making at an average of Rs. 30,000/- per
acre. It was on this basis that the value of the land in the present case was
determined.
Learned counsel for the appellants in R.F.A. Nos. 1178, 1179,
R.F.A. No. 1177 of 1991 [8]
1180, 1311, 1322 and 1323 of 1991 further submitted that the land owners therein
were entitled to the actual cost of purchase of land by them including the cost of
stamp duty paid for registration of the sale deeds. In addition to this, increase at
least @ 12% per annum should be granted for the time gap between the date of
sale and the date of acquisition for the appreciation of prices in between. It is
further submitted that the learned Court below has failed to grant total amount
claimed by the land owners in the aforesaid cases on account of cost incurred for
improvement in the land after purchase and also for construction thereon for which
ample evidence was led.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the
value of the acquired land, as determined by the learned Court below, is in
conformity with the material on record. The transactions of small pieces of land, as
are sought to be referred to by the learned counsel for the land owners, cannot be
relied upon for the purpose of determination of fair value of the large chunk of
land. He further submitted that the reliance placed by the learned court below on
the sale deed (Ex. R1) is perfectly in order as the land forming part thereof was
situated in close vicinity of the acquired land. However, on a pointed query, he was
unable to show any oral or documentary evidence to exactly locate the land
forming part of sale deed (Ex. R1) vis-a-vis the acquired land. Referring to the
appeals filed by the State, the submission is that additional sum granted by the
court below on account of improvement in land and the construction raised thereon
is totally uncalled for as there was no evidence to substantiate such a claim by the
land owners.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
As far as the findings recorded by the court below, while determining
the fair value of the land, I am of the opinion that rejection of sale deeds ( Ex. P7,
Ex. PW11/A, Ex. PW12/B, Ex. P13 and Ex. PW13/A, which were registered much
prior to the acquisition of land and were forming part of the acquired land, have
been wrongly ignored by the learned court below merely for the reason that the
same were for a small piece of land. In fact, the sale transaction of any piece of
land which is ultimately acquired is the best piece of evidence for the purpose of
determination of fair value thereof. In case the transaction is of a small piece of
land, a reasonable cut can be applied thereon for determining the fair value of the
large chunk of land.
As regards reliance on sale deed (Ex. R1) by the State is concerned,
a perusal of the record shows that two sale deeds (Ex. R1 and Ex. R2) were
tendered by the counsel for the State before the Court below on 31.1.1991. There
R.F.A. No. 1177 of 1991 [9]
is no oral statement or the site plan on record produced by the State to show the
exact location of the land forming part of sale deeds (Ex. R1 and Ex. R2). Sale
deed (Ex. R2) has rightly been ignored by the learned Court below for the simple
reason that the same was dated 6.4.1988, whereas the land in question was
acquired on 10.3.1986. Reliance was placed upon sale deed (Ex. R1) which is
dated 15.2.1985. Without there being any material on record to show that the land
forming part of sale deed (Ex. R1) was similarly located and was almost equivalent
in value, accordingly the reliance thereon was totally misplaced.
A perusal of site plan (Ex. P3) on record shows the boundaries of
the acquired land. The same is located on main Narnaul-Rewari road on one side.
On the other side thereof, there is a road leading from Kanina to Kanti. The area in
the vicinity was urbanised. Railway Station was also not far off. The site for new
bus stand was situated just opposite the acquired land on one side whereas old bus
stand was situated opposite other end of the acquired land on the main Rewari-
Narnaul road. The land forming part of the sale deeds, which was ultimately
acquired, is situated on the main road leading from Narnaul to Rewari. Keeping
the location of the land, its potential for urbanisation cannot be disputed and
categorising the land as chahi, barani or gair mumkin will not be appropriate. A
perusal of the impugned award shows that the value of the land, as determined by
the learned Court below, is not in conformity with the settled principles of law.
Not only this, even the average price of the land per acre, as
determined in sale deeds ( Ex. P7, Ex. PW11/A, Ex. PW12/B, Ex. P13 and Ex.
PW13/A), is not correctly calculated considering the fact that those transactions
were for a small piece of land. The transaction in sale deed (Ex. P7) dated 6.9.1984
was for 10 marlas of land which was purchased for a sum of Rs. 23,000/-. The
average value, as calculated by the learned Court below, is Rs. 4,21,000/- per acre.
One acre has 8 kanals and one kanal contains 20 marlas. If the value of the land
forming part of sale deed (Ex. P7) is considered, the same would come out to Rs.
3,68,000/- per acre as against Rs. 4,21,000/- per acre calculated by the Court
below. As regards sale deed (Ex. PW11/A), the average value thereof would come
out Rs. 2,40,000/- per acre as in this transaction, one kanal was sold for Rs.
30,000/-. The average value of the land forming part of sale deed (Ex. PW12/B)
would come out to Rs. 3,04,000/- per acre, where 10 marlas of land was sold for
Rs. 19,000/-. The average value of the land forming part of sale deed (Ex. P13)
would come out to Rs. 1,92,000/- per acre, where one kanal of land was sold for
Rs. 24,000/-. Sale deed (Ex. PW13/A), the average value of the land would come
out to Rs. 2,04,000/- per acre as one kanal of land was sold for Rs. 31,000/-. It is
R.F.A. No. 1177 of 1991 [10]
not disputed that the land forming part of all these sale deeds is located on main
Narnaul-Rewari Highway (Block `A'), where these small pieces of plots were
purchased by various buyers for commercial use. The average of all these
aforesaid sale deeds comes out to Rs. 2,70,000/- per acre, which are tabulated as
under:
"Exhibit Date of sale deed Area dealt with Amount of Rate per
K M consideration acre
.....................................................................................................................................
Ex. P7 6.9.1984 0-10 23,000/- 3,68,000/-
Ex. PW11/A 17.1.1983 1-0 30,000/- 2,40,000/-
Ex. PW12/B 2.12.1985 0-10 19,000/- 3,04,000/-
Ex. P13 3.6.1983 1-0 24,000/- 1,92,000/-
Ex. PW13/A 3.6.1983 1-0 31,000/- 2,04,000/-
I am of the considered opinion that keeping in view the fact that the acquisition in the present case is of a large chunk of land measuring 31.06 acres for the purpose of setting up of new Grain Market and the sale transactions, relied upon by the land owners, are for small pieces of land abutting the main road which have been purchased by them for commercial purposes, a cut of 60% can very well be applied for the purpose of determination of fair value of land abutting the main road upto the depth of 100 meters. Accordingly, reducing a sum of Rs. 1,62,000/- from Rs. 2,70,000/- per acre, the value of the land upto the depth of 100 meters from Narnaul-Rewari road is determined at Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre. It is for the reason that the value of the land which abuts the main road is certainly higher than the value of the land which is behind it. As far as the land situated behind that, a cut of 15% further can be applied. Accordingly, after reducing a sum of Rs. 16,000/- from Rs. 1,08,000/- per acre, the value of the acquired land beyond 100 meters from the main road is determined at Rs. 92,000/- per acre (Block `B').
A perusal of the impugned award shows that the owners of the land, namely, Sushila, Ramotar, Dayanand, Mewa Devi, Ramesh Kumar, Raghbir and Ramrati had been granted compensation to the extent of the amounts spent by them on the purchase of land which was ultimately acquired. It was for the reason that genuineness of the sale deeds was not doubted. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the aforesaid land owners are further entitled to the amount spent by them on stamp duty and registration at the time of getting the sale deeds executed. This amount has not been awarded by the learned court below and it was only the face value of the sale deed, i.e., the consideration passed on to the vendor has been awarded. Further claim is for enhancement of amount spent by them on R.F.A. No. 1177 of 1991 [11] improvement of the land and raising the construction thereon, on which account assessment made by the learned court below is sought to be faulted with. In response to this claim of the land owners, learned counsel for the State submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that amount on stamp duty was paid by the buyers, i.e., the appellants and claim for enhancement for improvement on land and also the cost of construction is totally uncalled for as the evidence was not sufficient even to grant the amount which has already been granted by the court below. In fact, in a set of appeals, the State is impugning that part of the award.
As far as this claim of the parties is concerned, I find merit in the submissions made by the aforesaid land owners only to the extent of grant of amount spent on stamp duty and registration fee at the time of getting the sale deeds of the land registered which was ultimately acquired. It is always the vendee who purchase the stamp duty for the purpose of registration of sale deed. As far as the issue regarding compensation determined by the learned Court below on account of improvement of land and also the construction raised thereon is concerned, I do not find any merit in the submissions of either of the parties. On the basis of material on record, the learned court below has made very moderate assessment granting small amount on that account which neither calls for reduction nor increase.
For the aforesaid reasons, the appeals filed by the land owners are allowed with costs where they are held entitled to amount of compensation, as determined above, along with statutory benefits as available under the Act. As far as the appeals filed by the State are concerned, the same are dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge October 30, 2008 mk