Punjab-Haryana High Court
Santokh Singh (Deceased vs State Of Haryana And Another on 14 March, 2013
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
RFA Nos.2358 and 1965 of 2002 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RFA No.2358 of 2002
Date of decision: 14.03.2013
Santokh Singh (deceased, through LRs) ..... Appellant
VERSUS
State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents
RFA No.1965 of 2002
State of Haryana and another .....Appellant
VERSUS
Santokh Singh (deceased, through Lrs) .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present: Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate, with
Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate,
for the appellant in RFA No.2358 of 2002 and
for the respondents in RFA No.1965 of 2002
Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG, Haryana, for the respondents in RFA
No.2368 of 2002 and for appellants in RFA No.1965 of 2002.
*******
K. KANNAN, J.(ORAL)
1. Both these appeals relate to assessment of compensation for property acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The details of acquisition and the assessment made are brought in a tabulation below:-
RFA Nos.2358 and 1965 of 2002 2
Date of notification u/s 4 5/04/1988 Village Naddah Total extent acquired 2.7 acres Purpose of acquisition Construction of Commando Training Collector's award Abpasi-Rs.61,600 per acre Irrigation Gair mumkin-Rs.10,266/- per acre Reference Court Gair Mumkin Rs.61,600/- per acre Sale Instances* Sr. Date Extent Consideration Value per Located in No. acre/sq.yd/sq.ft rough sketch /sq.mtr Yes/No By claimants. Nil By State Ex.R1 6.6.1987 2 B-10 B Nadah Rs.15000/- Previous award Award of District Village Notification u/s 4 Award of compensation Court or High per acre Court Ex.P/1 Mahespur 21.12.1994 Rs.500/- per sq. yard (17.12.1998) Ex.P/2 Kharak 2.7.1985 Rs.250/- per sq. yard (15.12.1998) Manjoli
2. The reference Court while adverting to the awards passed earlier rejected Ex.P-1 in view of the fact that it related to the village Maheshpur for an acquisition brought through the notification of the year 1994 which was post the period of acquisition. I find the rejection appropriate and I will find no reason to interfere with the said reasoning. While adverting to Ex.P-2, the reference Court found that the property which was dealt with under the said award was situated in RFA Nos.2358 and 1965 of 2002 3 village Karak Mangoli East of the National Highway Ambala-Shimla while the property which was acquired at Nadda was situated West of the highway. The Court observed that Ex.P-2 award itself was passed with reference to the valuation in another adjoining village in Judian and consequently a reference to Ex.P-2 would ultimately mean the value of Judian to apply to the property in Nadda. It found this unacceptable and therefore chose to rely on the award passed by the Collector in toto except for removing the classification which the Collector had adopted for a differential valuation for Abhasi at Rs.61600/- per acre and Rs.10266/- per acre for Gair Mumkin. Admittedly the property was Gair Mumkin but the reference Court adopted a uniform valuation of Rs.66600/- per acre. The State is in appeal objecting to the homogenous application of value for both categories of lands.
3. While, as a matter of general principle, a value in one village may not at all times reflect the value in adjoining village, a Court decides on the material brought before it and could have no other source of information. If the State was relying on a sale deed Ex.R-1 which was dated 06.06.1987 in respect of the same village for Rs.15000/-, one would expect that appropriate evidence had been brought to locate this property in some way proximate to the property acquired so that the valuation as given under Ex.R-1 could have operated as an exemplar for the determination for the property RFA Nos.2358 and 1965 of 2002 4 acquired. On the other hand no evidence was tendered by the State in support of the document or provided any information about the exact location of the property either by a rough sketch or by any other evidence. In the manner fixing the valuation the land-owner who loses the property has to be treated as a preferred party for obtaining the maximum bargain possible. It has been held to be so in a judgment of the Supreme Court in Chandershekhar Vs. Land Acquisition Officer 2012 (1) SCC Page 39. The Court has held that amongst the sale deeds the sale which has fetched the highest price must be taken. I will therefore find no reason to take the sale deed under Ex.R-1 as representative of the value of the property which is acquired and the only point that has to be seen is whether a valuation of a property on one side of a National Highway could be treated as appropriate for determining the valuation of just property on the other side of the Highway. If the location of a property as amenable for non-agricultural use and a prospect of increase of prices by the very fact that it was proximate to the city of Chandigarh and was on the way to another State capital Shimla, they were sufficient to provide for a homogenous valuation. I will not, therefore, find the valuation brought through Ex.P-2 as irrelevant. On the other hand, I will take that to be the best exemplar and consider the fact that the acquisition came three years later and will apply the maximum percentage of increase namely 15% per year for a period of 33 months and take the value to be Rs.332.50/- RFA Nos.2358 and 1965 of 2002 5 per square yard. This determination shall also be homogenous for both categories of land for the location of the property and the manner of use of the property for which it was acquired were all for non-agricultural purpose and therefore different categorization of the land before acquisition was hardly relevant. It would have made a very insignificant difference in the large scheme of things for overall development in the vicinity of Chandigarh. Consequently, I will find no error in reasoning of the reference Court that the properties were to be treated homogenously as regards valuation. The appeal by the landowner in RFA No.2358 of 2002 is allowed enhancing the compensation at Rs.332.50/- with all statutory benefits and dismiss the appeal in RFA No.1965 of 2002 filed by the State.
14.03.2013 [ K. KANNAN ] Diwaker Gulati JUDGE