Punjab-Haryana High Court
Subhash Chand And Another vs State Of Haryana on 13 November, 2009
Author: A.N.Jindal
Bench: A.N.Jindal
RFA No.2970 of 1994 (O&M) [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
...
RFA No.2970 of 1994(O&M) Subhash Chand and another ... Appellants VERSUS State of Haryana ... Respondent RFA No.2259 of 1994(O&M) State of Haryana ... Appellant VERSUS Som Nath and others ... Respondents RFA No.2260 of 1994(O&M) State of Haryana ... Appellant VERSUS Hari Chand and another ... Respondents RFA No.2261 of 1994(O&M) State of Haryana ... Appellant VERSUS Har Sarup and another ... Respondents RFA No.2970 of 1994 (O&M) [2] RFA No.2262 of 1994(O&M) State of Haryana ... Appellant VERSUS Punnu Ram ... Respondent RFA No.2263 of 1994(O&M) State of Haryana ... Appellant VERSUS Santosh Kaur ... Respondent RFA No.2264 of 1994(O&M) State of Haryana ... Appellant VERSUS Subhash Chand and another ... Respondents RFA No.2265 of 1994 and Cross Objections No.40-CI of 1995 (O&M) State of Haryana ... Appellant VERSUS Balbir Singh and another ... Respondents RFA No.2266 of 1994 and Cross Objections No.41-CI of 1995 (O&M) State of Haryana ... Appellant VERSUS Sohan Ram ... Respondent RFA No.2970 of 1994 (O&M) [3] RFA No.2267 of 1994 and Cross Objections No.104-CI of 2009 (O&M) State of Haryana ... Appellant VERSUS Krishan Lal ... Respondent RFA No.2268 of 1994 and Cross Objections No.47-CI of 1995 (O&M) State of Haryana ... Appellant VERSUS Raghu Nath ... Respondent RFA No.2269 of 1994(O&M) State of Haryana ... Appellant VERSUS Shakuntla Devi and others ... Respondents RFA No.2270 of 1994(O&M) State of Haryana ... Appellant VERSUS Raghu Nath Sarup and others ... Respondents RFA No.2271 of 1994 and Cross Objections No.42-CI of 1995 (O&M) State of Haryana ... Appellant VERSUS Panna Lal and another ... Respondents RFA No.2970 of 1994 (O&M) [4] RFA No.2272 of 1994(O&M) State of Haryana ... Appellant VERSUS Amar Nath and others ... Respondents Decided on : November 13, 2009 CORAM :
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.V.B.Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant land owner (RFA No.2970 of 1994).
Mr.Hawa Singh Hooda, Advocate General assisted by Ms.Mamta Singla, Assistant Advocate General for the State of Haryana.
A.N.JINDAL, J.-
These fifteen appeals bearing RFA No.2970 of 1994 and RFA Nos.2259 to 2272 of 1994 and the Cross Objections No.40-CI to 42-CI of 1995, 47-CI of 1995 and 104-CI of 2009 in respective appeals, having been arisen out of the references against the common award dated 1.4.1994 passed by Additional District Judge, Ambala, are being decided by way of one common judgment. By filing RFA No.2970 of 1994, the claimant - land-owner Subhash Chand and Cross-Objectors in respective appeals have sought enhancement in the compensation in lieu of acquisition of their land, while through the other fourteen appeals, the State of Haryana has challenged the compensation granted by the Additional District Judge.
Factual background of the case is that vide notification No.SE/PWD/B&R/CHD/534-R dated 29.6.1986, issued under Section 4 of RFA No.2970 of 1994 (O&M) [5] the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein for short `the Act'), the State of Haryana proposed to acquire 3.49 acres of land in village Naraingarh, Hadbast No.88, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala. Ultimately, on measurement, the land was found to be 3.21 acres. Thereafter, the State of Haryana vide notification No.SE/PWD/B&R/CHD/627 dated 11.2.1987 issued under Section 6 of the Act and published in Govt. Gazette on 16.2.1987, declared the aforesaid area of 3.21 acres as acquired. After seeking the objections, ultimately, the Collector vide his award dated 29.4.1987, assessed the market value of the land as under:-
(compensation per acre-in Rs.) "1. Chahi, Gair Mumkin Makan and plot 1,00,320/-
2. Barani, Banjar land inferior to Chahi Land 66,880/-
3. Barani Land 33,440/-
4. Banjar Land and Gair Mumkin Land 16,800/-
Feeling dissatisfied with the above compensation, the land owners - claimants (herein referred as `the claimants') preferred references before the Collector, which were referred to the District Judge for disposal. By way of their claim references, the claimants submitted that the acquired land has high potential value, having worth more than Rs.2000/- per marla and they were entitled to get compensation as per the actual market value of the land. It was further pleaded that some valuable trees were also standing, for which they were not paid any compensation.
While appearing in the references before the Additional District Judge, Ambala, the State submitted the reply, pleading that the RFA No.2970 of 1994 (O&M) [6] Collector had assessed the market value of the land as per fact situation at the spot, which was quite fair, reasonable and adequate, and the market value could not be assessed more than what was assessed by the Collector.
From the pleadings of the parties, the Additional District Judge framed the following issues:-
"1. What was the market value of the acquired land at the time of publication of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? OPP
2. Whether there were trees on the acquired land at the time of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, if so, what was the market value of those trees? OPP
3. Relief."
Both the parties led evidence. However, after appreciation of the same, the Additional District Judge awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.2000/- per Marla for the acquired land, without specifying any classification (along with other statutory benefits). However, no compensation was awarded qua the trees and the construction. Still, dissatisfied, the claimant Subhash Chand has filed the instant appeal i.e. RFA No.2970 of 1994, while the other connected fourteen appeals have been preferred by the State of Haryana, challenging the award of Rs.2000/- per Marla.
The crucial question involved in all the fifteen appeals is as under:-
"What was the market value of the acquired land at the time of RFA No.2970 of 1994 (O&M) [7] the notification under Section 4 of the Act i.e, on 29.6.1986?"
The claimants in order to establish the market value of the land examined Jagan Nath (PW1), Sat Pal (PW2) and Amar Nath (PW3), besides tendering into evidence the sale-deeds Ex.P1 to Ex.P5.
Per contra, the respondent - State examined Kali Ram, Kanungo (RW1) and tendered into evidence three sale-deeds Ex.R1 to Ex.R3.
Now, coming to the evidence of the claimants, it is noticed that Jagan Nath (PW1) proved two sale-deeds (Ex.P1 and P2), in order to establish that the value of the acquired land was not less than Rs.2000/- to 10,000/- per marlas. Sat Pal (PW2), one of the claimants stated that the price of the acquired land at the relevant time was not less than Rs.2000- 7500 per marls. During cross-examination, he admitted that he did not enter into any sale transaction at this rate. The third witness, namely Amar Nath (PW3) has also made a weak statement.
Now, coming to the documentary evidence i.e, five sale-deeds. Though, the Trial Court discarded those sale-deeds for the reason that the same were not proved according to the law, as neither any of the vendors, nor vendees of the sale-deeds or any of the attesting witnesses, has been examined. Therefore, the same cannot be taken into consideration. However, in view of Section 51-A of the Act, the sale-deeds were per-se admissible to prove the market value of the land and no formal proof by way of witnesses was required.
Now, I advert to assess the market value as per sale-deeds:-
Sr.No. Dt.of sale Area involved Rate per Marla (in Rs.) RFA No.2970 of 1994 (O&M) [8]
1.(Ex.P1) 13.12.1982 16 Marlas 70000/16 = 4375/-
2.(Ex.P2) 8.6.1985 1 Kanal 38000/20 = 1900/-
3.(Ex.P3) 8.6.1985 12 M 4 Sarsahi 30000/
4.(Ex.P4) 21.7.1986 1 K 1 Marla 70000/21 = 3333/-
5.(Ex.P5) 5.8.1986 5 Marlas 45000/5 = 9000/-
From the perusal of the aforesaid sale deeds, it transpires that the market value of the land situated nearby the acquired land on 8.6.1985 was about Rs.2000/- per Marla, whereas, the land in question was acquired on 29.6.1986. Thus, it was argued that 12% increase per annum was required to be made by the Reference Court, while assessing the market value of the land.
To the contrary, Mr.H.S.Hooda, Advocate General appearing for the State of Haryana has urged that since the sale-deeds in question pertain to small portions of land, therefore, the same cannot be treated as relevant instances for determining the market value of the land.
Having heard the rival contentions, it may be observed that there is no dispute with regard to the legal proposition as set up by the Advocate General, but at the same time, it will have to be observed that the same does not apply in this case as vide the notification in question, no large area was acquired, but only 3.21 acres of land was acquired, belonging to 18 persons. In other words, small pieces of land were acquired from different persons of the village. Therefore, the argument of the State has no merit that big chunk of land was acquired. Accordingly, it would not be unsafe to hold that the documents (Ex.P1 to P5) may be of RFA No.2970 of 1994 (O&M) [9] small pieces of land, but could be comparable instances and guide for the Court to determine as accurately as possible the market value of the acquired land.
As regards the potentiality of the acquired land, it may be observed that Jagan Nath (PW1) has stated that the land adjoins the bus stand of Naraingarh and is near to SDM office, Civil Hospital and the State Bank. Sat Pal (PW2) has also corroborated the version given by Jagan Nath (PW1). He has further added that one gate of the bus-stand opens towards the acquired land. Even Kali Ram, Office Kanungo (RW1) while stating that the compensation awarded by the Collector was accurate, did not deny about the potentiality of the acquired land. During cross-examination, he admitted that there is bus-stand, offices of the SDM, DSP and agriculture, a Bank, Higher Secondary School and a hospital near the acquired land. The sale-deeds (Ex.R1 to R3) as relied upon by the State are not proved to be of the area located nearby the acquired land, as such, the same cannot be taken into consideration.
Now, on appreciation of complete evidence on record, including the oral evidence of Jagan Nath (PW1), Sat Pal (PW2) and Amar Nath (PW3), as also the sale-deeds (Ex.P1 to P5), it comes out that the land had a high commercial and residential potentiality and the market value of the land situated nearby the acquired land on the date of the notification i.e, 29.6.1986 was Rs.2000/- per Marla. Thus, while adding increase at the rate of 12% per annum in the market value of the land and also keeping in view the high potentiality of the land, the market value of the land of the claimant on the relevant date comes to Rs.2300/- per Marla. RFA No.2970 of 1994 (O&M) [10]
Since no evidence has been led regarding the existence and the value of the alleged trees over the acquired land by the claimant, therefore, the Trial Court appears to have rightly declined to grant any compensation in this regard.
For the aforesaid reasons, the RFA No.2970 of 1994 and Cross Objections No.40-CI to 42-CI of 1995, 47-CI of 1995 and 104-CI of 2009 in respective appeals are partly accepted and the impugned award is modified to the extent that the market value of the acquired land of the claimant - appellant and the Cross-objectors is assessed at Rs.2300/- per Marla. Needless to state that the claimant - appellant and Cross-objectors shall also be entitled to the statutory benefits under Section 23-A of the Act.
In view of the above discussion, RFA Nos.2259, 2260, 2261, 2262, 2263, 2264, 2265, 2266, 2267, 2268, 2269, 2270, 2271 and 2272 of 1994, preferred by the State of Haryana are dismissed, being devoid of any merit.
However, the parties to bear their own costs.
November 13, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE