Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baldev Raj And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 1 March, 2012
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
RFA No. 2585 of 2004 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RFA No. 2585 of 2004 (O&M)
Date of decision : March 01 , 2012
Baldev Raj and others .. Appellants
vs
State of Haryana and another ... Respondents
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. S. P. Khatri, Mr. A. P. Bhandari, and
Mr. Ankit Goel, Advocate for
Mr. Govind Goel, Advocate, for the landowners.
Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate, for the Market Committee.
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. This order shall dispose of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 2585 of 2004, 602, 724, 725, 1770 to 1774, 2461 of 2005, as common questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals.
2. In the appeals filed by the land owners, they are seeking enhancement of compensation awarded to them for the acquired land, whereas in the appeals filed by the Market Committee, the prayer is for reduction thereof.
3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the Government of Haryana, vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') on 17.11.1998, sought to acquire land measuring 12 acres and 7 kanals, situated within the revenue estate of village Gohana, Hadbast No. 32, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat, for construction of New Fruit and Vegetable Market at Gohana. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 19.2.1999. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the Collector') vide award dated 4.5.1999 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 3,50,000/- per acre upto the depth RFA No. 2585 of 2004 [2] of one acre on Gohana- Sonepat Road, beyond that ` 2,00,000/- per acre for nehri/chahi, ` 1,25,000/- per acre for barani and ` 1,00,000/- per acre for banjar kind of land. The land owners being dissatisfied with the award of the Collector filed objections which were referred to the learned Court below. On reference, the learned Court below assessed the compensation of the acquired land @ ` 113/- per square yard upto the depth of one acre on Gohana- Sonepat Road, beyond that ` 75/- per square yard for nehri/chahi, ` 50/- per square yard for barani and ` 35/- per square yard for banjar kind of land. Aggrieved against the award of the learned court below, the landowners and the Market Committee are in appeal before this court.
4. Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the evidence led by the landowners. The sale consideration shown in the sale-deeds, Ex. A-3 to Ex. A-9, has not been appreciated appropriately and cut has been applied twice and that too @ 65%, which cannot be said to be justified under any circumstance. The average sale consideration paid in the sale-deeds is ` 650/- to ` 700/- per square yard. Even if a cut @ 65% is applied thereon, the value comes to ` 245/- per square yard. The land pertaining to the aforesaid sale-deeds was merely about 2 kilometers away from the acquired land which is abutting the municipal limits. Subsequently, even the acquired land was also merged in the municipal limits.
5. Besides the sale-deeds, the landowners have also produced on record two agreements to sell, Ex. A-10 and Ex. PW5/1 (LAC No. 236/2001). Agreement to sell (Ex. PW5/1) was executed prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act i.e. on 9.4.1998. It was pertaining to the land part of which was acquired and adjoining thereto. It was for a big chunk of land measuring 21 kanals 8 marlas of land sold at an average price of ` 17,50,000/- per acre. Another agreement to sell, Ex. A-10, was entered into on 24.11.2000, after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act for a big chunk of land measuring 46 kanals 15 marlas @ ` 1,00,00,000/- per acre. The aforesaid two agreements to sell show the value of the land in the area. In support of the submissions, reliance was placed upon Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai (deceased) through RFA No. 2585 of 2004 [3] his heirs and LRs and others vs State of Gujarat (1989) 4 SCC 250.
6. It was further submitted that the city was expanding on that side. The land was fit for urbanization. A Canal Rest House constructed much prior to the acquisition of land, was located just opposite the acquired land. It was further submitted that application of belting system and categorization of land while assessing the value of the acquired land on the main road and as chahi, nehri, banjar and barani kinds of land, is not appropriate. Once the value of the land on the main road was increased, there should have been corresponding increase for the land on the back side as the purpose for which the land was acquired was the same. There should not be any categorization. No evidence has been led by the State in support of the award of the Collector.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Market Committee, submitted that none of the sale-deeds produced on record by the landowners can be considered relevant for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land for the reason that these pertained to small plots purchased by the parties for commercial purposes i.e. shops. These are located in the heart of the town. The acquired land was located outside the municipal limits about two kilometers away therefrom. Principle of cut is applicable only in case the sale-deeds are relevant but are pertaining to small plots. In the present case the sale-transactions are not relevant at all, as the same cannot be compared regarding their location and advantages. The agreements to sell sought to be relied upon by the landowners are also not relevant for the reason that it has not been proved on record that any sale-deed was registered in pursuance thereof. Once all the sale-deeds placed on record by the landowners are found to be irrelevant, there is no evidence. The award of the learned court below be set aside and that of the Collector be upheld.
8. The site plan, Ex. A-1, has been placed on record by the landowners, in LAC No. 236 dated 13.9.2001 titled Mehar Chand and another vs State of Haryana and another. Though the note on the site plan has been given that it has been prepared with the help of Shijra Aks Taken from Halqa Patwari and Site Inspection, however, there is no note thereon as to whether the site inspection was carried out with prior notice to the RFA No. 2585 of 2004 [4] State and as to whether the plan is to the scale. The land pertaining to sale-deeds Ex. A-3 to Ex. A-9, has been shown located close to old abadi of Gohana Town in the Automobile Market. He further submitted that the sale deeds produced on record by the State have not been considered at all.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record.
10. The land owners in the present case have produced on record sale deeds (Ex. A3 to Ex. A9) and two agreements to sell (Ex. A10 and Ex. AW5/1) (LAC No. 236 dated 13.9.2001), the details of which are as under:
"Sr. No. Exhibit Area sold Date of purchase Valuation in ` ...............................................................................................................................
1. A-3 1 marla 30.12.1996 24,000/-
2. A-4 14/15 marlas 28.05.1997 33,500/-
3. A-5 70 sq. yards 28.06.1995 46,000/-
4. A-6 33.33 sq. yards 23.12.1996 30,000/-
5. A-7 33.33 sq. yards 21.05.1996 30,000/-
6. A-8 1 marla 24.12.1996 24,000/-
7. A-9 1 marla 14.01.1997 24,000/-
9. A-10 46 kanals 15 marlas 24.11.2000 1,00,00,000/-
(agreement)
10. AW5/1 21 kanals 8 marlas 09.04.1998 17,50,000/-
(agreement) .............................................................................................................................."
11. There are two site plans produced on record by the land owners in LAC No. 236 dated 13.9.2001, i.e., Ex. A1 and Ex. PW7/1. Ex. A1 is a plan prepared by an Architect on 6.1.2003. Though a note has been appended thereon that the same has been prepared with the help of Shijra Aks taken from Halqa Patwari and site inspection, but whether it is to the scale or not is not clearly specified. When Mahender Singh Bhardwaj, who prepared the site plan, appeared in the witness box as PW-1, he did not state as to whether the site plan is as per the actual position on the site as on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The land pertaining to five of the sale deeds produced by the land owners is located just close to old abadi of Gohana City near the drain in the commercial hub and in automobile market. The site plan does not depict RFA No. 2585 of 2004 [5] exhibit numbers of the sale deeds. These are identified as `A' to `I'. When compared with the sale deeds, which are exhibited on record, the details given in the site plan could be matched only with four sale deeds, namely, Ex. A4, Ex. A6, Ex. A8 and Ex. A9, which are corresponding to `C', `E', `G' and `D'. As far as land pertaining to sale deed (Ex. A5) is concerned, the same has been shown at two different places in site plans (Ex. A1 and Ex. PW7/1). The acquired land is stated to be about two kilometers towards eastern side from the drain, which is located quite close to the city. Old abadi of the city is on the western side of the drain. In his cross- examination, RW2-Mahender Singh, Secretary, Market Committee, Gohana admitted that the acquired land is abutting Sonepat-Gohana road. Forest Office is located just adjoining to the acquired land and on the opposite side of the road is the Canal Rest House. One school and some shops are also stated to be located in the vicinity. He further stated that when he got his statement recorded in the court, i.e., 21.9.2004, the area had been included within the municipal limits, though at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the same was outside the municipal limits.
12. As far as two agreements to sell produced on record by the land owners are concerned, the same cannot be relied upon for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land for the reason that the agreement to sell (Ex. A10) is dated 24.11.2000. Even though the last date for registration of the sale deed mentioned therein had already expired when the aforesaid agreement to sell was produced in evidence but it was not specified as to whether any sale deed was registered on the basis thereof or not. The earnest money paid therein was in cash. Considering the aforesaid fact, the same cannot be relied upon.
Another agreement to sell (Ex. PW5/1) dated 9.4.1998 has been produced vide which 21 kanals and 8 marlas of land had been agreed to be sold at an average price of ` 361.57 per square yard. Part of the aforesaid land is stated to be the acquired land. The last date for registration of the sale deed in the agreement is mentioned as 10.4.1999, but nothing has been produced on record to show as to whether any sale deed was registered or not. Apparently, both the agreements to sell were RFA No. 2585 of 2004 [6] created for producing in evidence in the case in hand. These do not show the valuation of the land in the area.
13. Now coming to the sale deeds produced on record by the land owners. As has already been noticed above, these pertain to small plots measuring one marla to 70 square yards located in the commercial hub or on the main road nearby. The average sale consideration paid therein is ` 966/- per square yard. The aforesaid transactions cannot be said to be comparable piece of evidence vis-a-vis the acquired land, the valuation of which is under consideration in the present set of appeals. It cannot be said that these are simply sale transactions pertaining to small plots and the acquired land is a big chunk and merely a cut is to be applied to assess the value of the acquired land. There is qualitative difference in the location thereof. Distance thereof from the acquired land is also stated to be two kilometers. Though this court does not approve the formula, which has been adopted by the learned court below for the purpose of assessment of compensation for the acquired land, but still there cannot be mathematical precision in the assessment of compensation in land acquisition cases. Though in some cases, sale deeds are produced on record which are pertaining to the acquired land or located nearby giving appropriate guidance for assessment of compensation, but in some cases seeing the totality of circumstances, even thumb rule has to be applied. In my opinion, the case in hand is such where thumb rule has to be applied. It is not disputed that the acquired land is located adjoining to already existing Forest Office and opposite Canal Rest House. Some developments always take place in the vicinity where any government office or rest house is constructed. At the time when the land in question was acquired for setting up of fruit and vegetable market, the surrounding area generally must be quite open as the selection of area is considering the fact that there would be substantial vehicular movement.
14. Considering the aforesaid factors, in my opinion, the assessment of compensation @ ` 113/- per square yard for the land upto the depth of one acre on Gohana-Sonepat road does not call for any interference by this court. However, entire land beyond that is assessed @ ` 75/- per square yard considering the fact that development activities in RFA No. 2585 of 2004 [7] the vicinity had already started and the land was fit for urbanisation. The land owners shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available to them under the Act.
15. The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above.
( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge March 01, 2012 mk