Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhajan Singh vs Union Territory on 29 July, 1999
Equivalent citations: (2000)125PLR485
Author: Swatanter Kumar
Bench: Swatanter Kumar
JUDGMENT Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. Vide award dated 6.12.1997 learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, answered 44 references while awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,35,600/- per acre with statutory benefits, to the claimants. All these 44 references were answered in the case of Joginder Singh and Ors. versus Union Territory, Chandigarh, LAC No.284 of 1996.
2. Number of appeals have been preferred by the claimants praying for enhancement of the amount awarded to them by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh. It is contended by the claimants in all the appeals arising from this award dated 6.12.1997 that there was sufficient evidence before the learned Additional District Judge to grant compensation of more than Rs. 10 lacs per acre to the claimants. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration that there were no basis before the learned trial Court for awarding the amount of compensation granted. In fact the Court should have sustained the compensation awarded by the Collector.
3. As the evidence was led in Joginder Singh's case and learned counsel appearing for the claimants have adopted the arguments addressed in Joginder Singh's case, I propose to deal with this case as the lead case. The common facts applicable to the appeals arising from this award are that the Chandigarh Administration had acquired land measuring 51.15 acres in the revenue estate of village Kajheri vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, dated 22.5.1992. This land was acquired for the public purpose, namely, rehabilitation of labour colony in the Union Territory of Chandigarh. This was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act on 24.7.1992. Having heard the claimants and adopting the procedure prescribed, the Collector vide his award dated 27.8.1992 granted compensation to the claimants at a flat rate of Rs. 2 lacs per acre.
4. The claimants were totally dis-satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded to them and they preferred references under Section 18 of the Act praying for the enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded to them. As already noticed, the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh having afforded the parties opportunities to lead evidence and upon considering the cumulative effect of the evidence led; enhanced the compensation awarded to a sum of Rs. 4,38,600/- per acre i.e. nearly Rs. 90/- per square yard with statutory benefits.
5. The learned Judge while enhancing the compensation had basically relied upon Ex.A.13 which is copy of the award dated 2.9.1997 passed by the Judge himself on an earlier occasion in relation to acquisition of the land from the same village. At this stage, it would be relevant to revert to the facts of Bhajan Singh's case i.e.Ex.A.13 (Bhajan Singh v. U.T. Chandigarh) in Joginder Singh's case, U.T. Administration, Chandigarh had issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act on 8.7.1988 intending to acquire 32.17 acres of land in village Kajheri for the purposes of development of third phase of Chandigarh City. Thereupon notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 4.7.1989. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award N.o.440 dated 26.3.1991 awarded same value for acquisition of the land as awarded by him in Joginder Singh's case i.e. "at the rate of Rs. two lacs per acre, apart from all statutory benefits. As references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act were preferred by the claimants for claiming enhancement of the awarded amount, the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, answered 8 references vide judgment dated 2.9.1997 in LAC No.53 of 1996, Bhajan Singh v. Union of India. Vide judgment dated 2.9.1997 the learned Judge enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 3,87,200/- per acre in addition to the statutory benefits. The claimants have preferred appeals before this Court claiming further enhancement of the amount awarded to them on account of acquisition of their respective lands.
6. It must be noticed at the very out-set that the U.T. Administration, Chandigarh has not preferred any appeals or across objections against the award in the case of Bhajan Singh respectively (supra).
7. As is clear from the above narrated facts, the land was acquired in Bhajan Singh's case by the Administration at earlier point of time. The Section 4 notification is of 8.7.1988 while in the case of Joginder Singh the notification is dated 2.5.1992. It will be thus appropriate to deal with the case of Bhajan Singh as that judgement itself has been relied upon by the learned Judge in the case of Joginder Singh. As common law and facts arise in all the appeals, I would prefer to dispose of all the appeals together taking Bhajan Singh's and Joginder Singh's case as lead cases by the common judgment.
8. DISCUSSION IN BHAJAN SINGH'S CASE:-
The claimants had examined as many as 9 witnesses to support their case and had produced on record amongst others, sale instances, Ex.A.15, A.16, A.17, A.20, A.21 and A.22. Ex.A.3 to A.6 were the documents including letter of transfer, exchange between the Government and the public departments, produced by the claimants allegedly written by the Government authorities in relation to value of the acquired land at the relevant time. Ex.A.7 is the brochure issued by the Chandigarh Housing Board showing the placement of the acquired land in comparison to the other developed sectors, Ex.P.14 is the Index Map of village Kajheri.
9. The respondents did not lead any evidence orally and the learned counsel appearing for the State on 29.8.1997 made a statement closing his evidence while tendering Ex.R.1 and R.2 in evidence. Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2 are the sale instances placed by the respondents on record.
10. It is a commonly conceded case of the parties that neither the vendor or the vendee were examined nor any appropriate officer from the concerned department was produced to prove the authenticity of the sale instances by the respective parties. In this view of the matter the sale instances are inadmissible in accordance with the law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. P. Venkaiah and Ors., A.I.R. 1997 Supreme Court 2600 and Special Deputy Collector and Anr. v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and Ors., A.I.R. 1997 Supreme Court 2625. In other words none of the parties to the lis can, take advantage of the sale instances produced by them on record in support of their respective claims.
11. Next, this Court has to consider the location and potential of the acquired land. PW7 Rattan Singh had produced and proved Ex.P.14. Nothing substantial has come in the cross examination of this witness which could persuade the Court not to rely upon Ex.P.17. This witness specifically disputed the suggestion that he had prepared the map at the instance of the land owners. On the contrary, he stated that the map was as per the site. According to Ex.P.14 the acquired land is behind Sectors 42 and 43 which are abutting the National Highway. This land is also close to the village abadi of village Kajheri and is adjacent to the boundary of the village Lambe and Phase VII of Estate of S.A.S Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.
Ex.A.1 and A.2 reflect the Chandigarh Urban Complex which shows the present acquired land of 31.17 acres.
12. Ex.A.7 is a material document. As already noticed, this is a brochure issued by Chandigarh Housing Board declaring the pertinent features of its housing scheme. On the back of the cover of Ex.A.7 "Site Plan extracted from Chandigarh Master Plan" has been printed. This is a document which practically is not in conflict with Ex.A.14. The acquired land has been shown in red colour and abuts Sector 61, Mohali, Phase VII and the inter-section roads of the Sectors.
13. Above documentary evidence seen in the light of the oral evidence led by the claimants leaves no doubt in mind that the acquired land has potential for residential and commercial development and infact the land itself had been acquired for developing third phase of Chandigarh. Hardly any doubt should be entertained to the fact that the land has potential and is surrounded by already developed areas.
What should be the market value of the acquired land at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act:- As already noticed, the learned Judge mainly relied upon Ex.A.23, Ex.A.23 is the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in R.F.A. No.2853 of 1986. Vide this judgment dated 18.1.1989, the High Court had awarded Rs. 1,75,000/- per acre as amount of compensation payable to the claimants for acquisition of their respective lands vide notification dated 4.2.1981 in the revenue estate of village Kambali, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar. This land had been acquired for the development and extension of Industrial Focal Point, Mohali, S.A.S. Nagar. The learned Judge giving an increase of 12% per annum on the amount awarded as the notification is Bhajan Singh's case was dated 8.7.1988 calculated the amount payable at Rs.4,37,370/-, but ultimately awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.3,87,200/- per acre (Rs.90/- per square yard).
14. Before this Court, great emphasis was placed by the learned counsel for the claimants upon documents Ex.A.3 to A.6 to contend that the Government itself had sold the undeveloped land from the acquired land at a rate of Rs.500/- to Rs.750/r per square yard during the same period. Thus, the learned counsel contended that the amount awarded to them by the learned Additional District Judge is required to be enhanced. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the U.T. Administration argued at some length that claimants cannot take advantage of these exhibits and in any case they do not reflect the correct market value as it includes other components as well. It was also contended that the claimants are obliged to discharge the onus placed on them in regard to proving the value of the land.
15. I am afraid the contention raised on behalf of the State is not sustainable. Ex.A.3 to A.6 are the documents "which have been exchanged between the Chandigarh Administration and the Chandigarh Housing Board. In fact Ex.A.6 is a document written by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh to the Chairman, Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh giving the terms and conditions of transfer of the land as per decision taken by the Government vide Ex.A.4 and Ex.A.5. At this stage it may be pertinent to notice the contents of letter dated 4.9.1991 Ex.A.5 (in Bhajan Singh's case). The relevant extracts reads as under:-
"It has been decided by the Chandigarh Administration vide its Memo No.30/l/F-3/8328 dated 16.8.1991 to allot the following pieces of land of the Chandigarh Urban Complex Plan to the Chandigarh Housing Board on chunk basis for further allotment to the eligible Cooperative Housing Building Societies at the rate of Rs.500/- per sq. yard on lease hold basis for 99 years.
Sector 61 32.17 acres
Sector 63 62.97 acres
____________
Total 95.14 acres
____________
The tentative premium of the aforesaid land works out to Rs.23,02,38,800/-. In addition to the premium of land, the Ground Rent at the usual rising scales shall be chargeable as under:-
For 1st 33 years 2.5% of the total premium per annum
For next 33 years 3.75% - do -
For remaining 33 years 5% - do -
xx xx xx"
The Chandigarh Housing Board shall abide by the all decisions of the Chandigarh Administration in all matters relating to allotment of land to eligible Coop. Housing Building Societies and development of land as well as the construction of houses on the lands."
16. The obligation of the Chandigarh Housing Board to develop the lands and give it further to the societies on different rates after taking the land on the rates quoted in these letters is also clear from the various documents placed on record. In fact the documents placed and proved on record show that the Administration was practically acquiring the land and passing the same on to the Chandigarh Housing Board. The following contents of Ex.A6 of Bhajan Singh's case and Ex.A4 and Ex.A7 in Joginder Singh's case establish this fact on record:-
"The provision of facilities and estate services within the land allotted to society shall be the responsibility of the society itself which shall also be responsible for the maintenance and up keep of common areas/services as also for the collection and depositing of individual water, electricity dues etc. to the concerned authorities."
"The Chandigarh Housing Board shall not be responsible for levelling the uneven land"
17. In my opinion the State Administration cannot run away from this fact. However, this per se would not entitle the claimants to receive such high amount of compensation for acquisition of their respective lands. No person would buy such huge lands and as such it cannot be treated as a normal instance of a purchaser and seller in the normal course of business. The State acquired such huge chunks of land for social welfare purposes i.e, to develop colonies, industrial complexes, and roads which ultimately would prove of great utility to the public at large. As such this may at best be a mere indication towards the value of the land but is not a sole determining factor for fair market value of the acquired land.
18. As already noticed, it is true that the sale deeds have not been proved by either party in accordance with law and, therefore, they are debarred from claiming any benefit based upon such sale instances. A document may be inadmissible and incapable of being read in evidence for the benefit of the party tendering the document in evidence as the party has failed to prove this document in accordance with law, but certainly, the other party can always take benefit and advantage of the said letter or document. A party having tendered a document in evidence which even if had not been proved in accordance with law, cannot itself go back from the correctness of the said document, though at the same time, may not be able to take benefit of the said document in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Venkaiah (supra).
19. The claimants had produced on record sale-deed Ex.A.22. By this sale-deed the vendor had sold land measuring about 9 Kanals 13 Marias for a total consideration of Rs.3,61,875/- in May/June, 1988 in village Kajerhi (U.T. Chandigarh). In this way the value of the land comes to Rs.3,17,086.53 per acre. The other evidence produced by the parties is not admissible against the other or relates to the period of - 1977 like Ex. A25 which can hardly be taken into consideration.
20. As far as Ex.A24 is concerned, the same cannot be made the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land at the relevant time. Firstly, Ex.A-20, which is an award, relates to the land situated in village Mohali, which is the part of State of Punjab and not of Union Territory, Chandigarh. Secondly, the subject matter of Ex.A24 is the land situated in village Mohali which was acquired vide Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 27.12.1988. This notification is more than an year after the notification in Bhajan Singh's case (which is dated 8,7,1988). Ex.A24 being much subsequent to the date of acquisition of the land, subject matter of the present appeals, will not be a relevant factor for determining the fair market value of the land in the year 1988. I would have no hesitation in sustaining the view of the learned Additional Judge in not considering Ex. A24 as basis for required determination of price of the land.
21. It is not disputed before me that Ex.A23 had already attained finality between the parties. Thus, Ex.A23 being a judicial pronouncement of this Court can be safely relied upon for computation purposes. Granting 12% increase per year cannot be adopted as an universal rule, as each case would have to be decided on its own merits. But in the cases where there is hardly any evidence to come to any other independent conclusion, and more particularly where the evidence has become inadmissible because of subsequent events (law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court of India), it will be appropriate to apply this principle of uniform annual increase in the facts and circumstances of the present cases. The learned Additional District Judge had applied this principle. No doubt there are judgments to the contrary but it has been observed in those judgments that flat increase at the rate of 12% per annum cannot be adopted as a universal rule or "in each and every acquisition" for grant of compensation to the claimants. But obviously there could be no absolute bar in adopting such criteria especially where it is founded on a judicial pronouncement which are the best piece of evidence to be relied upon by the Courts in determining the compensation payable to the subsequent parties. In this regard, reference can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Kheda and Anr. v. Vasudev Chandrashankar and Anr., 1998(1) All India Land Acquisition and Compensation Cases 234.
22. The ancillary question that fall for determination is whether keeping in view the potential and location of the acquired land, the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, was justified in reducing the amount or applying the principle of deduction. Some element of conjecture may be permissible but the element of conjecture must be reduced or minimised keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. Once the learned Judge had made Ex.A23 as basis for applying the formula of 12% increase per year, then principle of deduction would hardly have any applicability to the present case. It will be more so, for the reasons that as per Ex.A3 to Ex.A6, the lands were allotted on chunk basis and totally undeveloped to the Chandigarh Housing Board and in turn to the societies on much higher value. There is no evidence on record to show that the administration has to develop those lands to receive the amount per square yard, as indicated in these exhibits. The obligation to develop the land even internally was upon the Chandigarh Housing Board and of the internal area allotted to the societies it was on the societies. Even if it is assumed that the administration has ensured sewerage system or outer road, it is indicated in the letter that additional amount of Rs.237/- per square yard would be taken. Despite that even if the amount of Rs.500/- is reduced by any amount as argued by the learned counsel for the State, still the amount indicated would be more than Rs.80/- per square yard in any case. The court cannot over look the fact that by documentary and oral evidence it has been proved on record that the area has potential and is surrounded by already developed areas like Sectors 44, 52 and 53. When the area is already developed and the land has been transferred to the Chandigarh Housing Board out of the acquired land or adjacent land vide Ex.A-6, I am of the considered view that no amount need be deducted from the amount so determined on the basis of judicial pronouncement. The amount in Ex.A-23 was determined on the basis of sale nstances and that too after reducing the compensation from Rs.2,81,065/- per acre to Rs. 1,40,532.50 ps. per acre by applying the principle of deduction to the extent of nearly 50% on sale instances. The claimants would obviously be not entitled to the compensation at the rate as specified in Ex.A-3 to Ex.A-6 and the fact that the acquired land has potential and is surrounded by developed area, of which the acquired land itself is going to be a part and parcel but it is the duty of the Court to grant to the claimants a reasonable and fair compensation based on record produced before it. In face of the documents produced by the claimants themselves they cannot be held to be entitled to the compensation as stated in Ex.A-3 and Ex.A-4 i.e. at the rate of Rs.500/- or Rs.750/-per square yard for the reasons aforestated.
23. The cumulative effect of the above discussion is that the claimants would be entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs.4,33,370.00 per acre.
24. DISCUSSION ON JOGINDER SINGH'S CASE: I have already noticed that the evidence in both these cases was common despite the gap of more than three years between the two notifications. In Bhajan Singh's case, notification under Section 4 of the Act is dated 8.7.1988 while in the case of Joginder Singh it is of dated 22.5.1992 under Section 4 of the Act. The learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, while awarding compensation to the claimants in this case had mainly relied upon Ex.A-13 proved on record. Ex.A-13 is the judgment dated 2.9.1997 in Bhajan Singh's case. Ex.A-3 to Ex.A-6 have already produced on record in this case in addition to the various judgments including Ex.A-23 and Ex.A-25. Certain other exhibits have also been produced on record. Ex.A-8 is the same map which was produced by PW-7 as Ex.A-14 in the case of Bhajan Singh. Ex.A-14 is an award passed by the same learned Additional District Judge in relation to the acquisition of the land vide notification dated 29.7.1988 where the compensation was enhanced to Rs.4,35,600/- per acre.
25. As the main basis of the impugned judgment is Ex.A-13 (judgment in Bhajan Singh's case where the Court has enhanced the compensation). Thus, inevitable would be the result in the present appeal that the claimants would be entitled to a higher amount than the one awarded to them by the learned Collector. The land though has been acquired more than 3 years later than the land acquired in Bhajan Singh's case but it relates to the revenue estate of the same village and is adjacent to the already acquired land. Keeping in view the fact that the land was acquired in May, 1992 the claimants would be entitled to proportionate increase from the land acquired in July, 1988.
26. It is obvious that the claimants in Joginder Singh's case would be entitled to a higher compensation than the claimants in Bhajan Singh's case, because the acquisition in the earlier case is of 1992 while in the later it is of the year 1988. Therefore, the claimants covered by the judgment in case of Joginder Singh would be entitled to a compensation of Rs.4,87,540.25 per acre.
27. The Administration has not assailed the correctness of the amount awarded by the learned Additional District Judge, vide his impugned judgment dated 2.9.1997 (Bhajan Singh's case).
28. The result of the above discussion is that the above two appeals (Joginder Singh and Bhajan Singh) and all other connected appeals of the claimants are partly allowed. However, all the appeals preferred by the State of Joginder Singh and other connected cases thereto are dismissed, without any order as to costs. The claimant shall be entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation with all statutory benefits permissible to them under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act.