Punjab-Haryana High Court
The State Of Haryana Through Land ... vs Smt. Pushpa Devi Wife Of Shri Dharam Pal on 26 July, 2012
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
RFA No.3490 of 1992(O&M) [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RFA No.3490 of 1992(O&M)
Date of Decision: 26.07.2012
The State of Haryana through Land Acquisition Officer,
Haryana, PWD B&R Branch Ambala Cantt.
... Appellant
Versus
Smt. Pushpa Devi wife of Shri Dharam Pal, son of Achhar,
resident of C/o M/s Garag Furnance Ltd., Near Octroi Post G.T.
Road, Ludhiana.
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:Mr. Ashish Gupta, AAG, Haryana,
for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
*****
1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment? NO
2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the
digest? NO
K. KANNAN, J. (Oral)
1. The State is in appeal challenging the compensation awarded determining the value of the property `67,000/- per acre for acquired land. The acquisition had been through a notice issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 30.06.1980. The reference Court tabulated 6 sale deeds of various extents of property that dealt with the transactions of sales of 2 biswas to 8 biswas. The Court took the average value of the property at `1,400/- per biswa and considering the fact RFA No.3490 of 1992(O&M) [2] that 1 acre consisted of 96 biswas the average of price per acre land was determined at `1,34,000/-. Considering the fact that the property acquired was in khasra No.211, which was proximate to the land in khasra No.206 dealt with under the various sale deeds, it was observed that the valuation as spelt out under the various documents provided the same basis and having regard to the fact that the acquired land must for a larger extent applied a 50% cut and determined the compensation.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the State contends that the sale deeds of such small extents of property in range of 2 to 8 biswas ought not to have been taken as exemplars at all and if only the said documents could form the basis, the question of applying the cut arose. I am not able to wholly accept the argument in view of the fact the Court has held that when neither of the parties is able to produce documents of appropriate extent of the same dimension as the acquired property, the Courts need not to discard the documents that dealt with smaller extents but the appropriate safeguard must be provided by making a cut to secure the proper valuation. In this case, the reference Court has adopted a deduction of 50% for the relatively small portions of the property that had been dealt with in the data sales and has determined the compensation. When the State itself was not able to produce RFA No.3490 of 1992(O&M) [3] any particular document with appropriate dimension that could have provided a proper index for determination of the price, I will find no error in the approach of the reference Court in taking the valuation of small piece of land and applying a cut of 50%. The award under circumstances is required to be confirmed and accordingly confirmed.
3. The appeal is dismissed.
26th July, 2012 ( K. KANNAN ) rajan JUDGE