Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ved Parkash And Others vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 21 May, 2010
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
R.F.A. No. 1438 of 2003 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: May 21, 2010
(1) R.F.A. No. 1438 of 2003 (O&M)
Ved Parkash and others ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents
(2) R.F.A. No. 1677 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Ved Parkash and others ...... Respondents
(3) R.F.A. No. 1833 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Shisha Singh @ Shishan Singh and others ...... Respondents
(4) R.F.A. No. 1834 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Jharmal Singh and another ...... Respondents
(5) R.F.A. No. 1835 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Jarnail Singh and others ...... Respondents
(6) R.F.A. No. 1836 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Pal Kaur and others ...... Respondents
(7) R.F.A. No. 1837 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Amandeep Dutta and others ...... Respondents
R.F.A. No. 1438 of 2003 [2]
(8) R.F.A. No. 1838 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Pritam Singh and others ...... Respondents
(9) R.F.A. No. 1839 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Des Raj (since deceased) through LRs and others ...... Respondents
(10) R.F.A. No. 1840 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Pritam Singh and others ...... Respondents
(11) R.F.A. No. 1841 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Hardev Singh and others ...... Respondents
(12) R.F.A. No. 1842 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Santokh Singh and others ...... Respondents
(13) R.F.A. No. 1843 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Gram Panchayat Ajnali and another ...... Respondents
(14) R.F.A. No. 1844 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Teja Singh and another ...... Respondents
(15) R.F.A. No. 1845 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Nachhatar Singh and others ...... Respondents
R.F.A. No. 1438 of 2003 [3]
(16) R.F.A. No. 1846 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Joginder Singh and another ...... Respondents
(17) R.F.A. No. 1847 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Jagdish Chander and others ...... Respondents
(18) R.F.A. No. 1848 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Kapoor Kaur and others ...... Respondents
(19) R.F.A. No. 1849 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Avtar G.S. Bishan and others ...... Respondents
(20) R.F.A. No. 1850 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Karnail Singh and others ...... Respondents
(21) R.F.A. No. 1851 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Mohinder Singh and others ...... Respondents
(22) R.F.A. No. 1852 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Gurbachan Lal and others ...... Respondents
(23) R.F.A. No. 1853 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Mohinder Singh and others ...... Respondents
R.F.A. No. 1438 of 2003 [4]
(24) R.F.A. No. 1854 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Kartar Singh and others ...... Respondents
(25) R.F.A. No. 1855 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Vidya Wanti and another ...... Respondents
(26) R.F.A. No. 1856 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Bawa Singh and another ...... Respondents
(27) R.F.A. No. 1857 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Dhian Singh and others ...... Respondents
(28) R.F.A. No. 1858 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Nachhatar Singh and others ...... Respondents
(29) R.F.A. No. 1859 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Sukhwinder Singh and another ...... Respondents
(30) R.F.A. No. 1860 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Teja Singh and another ...... Respondents
(31) R.F.A. No. 1861 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Kartar Kaur and others ...... Respondents
R.F.A. No. 1438 of 2003 [5]
(32) R.F.A. No. 1862 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Manohar Lal and others ... Respondents
(33) R.F.A. No. 1863 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Surjit Singh and others ...... Respondents
(34) R.F.A. No. 1864 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Santokh Singh and others ...... Respondents
(35) R.F.A. No. 1865 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Krishan Lal and another ...... Respondents
(36) R.F.A. No. 1866 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Santokah Singh and others ...... Respondents
(37) R.F.A. No. 1867 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Kuldip Singh and others ...... Respondents
(38) R.F.A. No. 1868 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sheela Wanti and another ...... Respondents
(39) R.F.A. No. 1869 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Jarnail Singh and others ...... Respondents
R.F.A. No. 1438 of 2003 [6]
(40) R.F.A. No. 1870 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Bachan Singh and others ...... Respondents
(41) R.F.A. No. 1871 of 2003 (O&M) and
Cross Objection No.37-CI of 2005
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Jagdeep Kaur and others ...... Respondents
(42) R.F.A. No. 1872 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Jarnail Singh and others ...... Respondents
(43) R.F.A. No. 1873 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Karnail Singh and others ...... Respondents
(44) R.F.A. No. 1874 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Darshan Singh and others ...... Respondents
(45) R.F.A. No. 1875 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Smt. Usha Singhal and others ...... Respondents
(46) R.F.A. No. 1876 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Jag Singh @ Jagjit Singh and another ...... Respondents
(47) R.F.A. No. 1877 of 2003 (O&M)
Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant
Versus
Bachan Singh and others ...... Respondents
R.F.A. No. 1438 of 2003 [7]
(48) R.F.A. No. 1944 of 2003 (O&M)
Kulwinder Kaur and others ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents
(49) R.F.A. No. 1970 of 2003 (O&M)
Dhian Singh and another ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents
(50) R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2003 (O&M)
Manohar Lal and another ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents
(51) R.F.A. No. 1972 of 2003 (O&M)
Nachhattar Singh and others ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents
(52) R.F.A. No. 1973 of 2003 (O&M)
Faquir Singh ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents
(53) R.F.A. No. 1974 of 2003 (O&M)
Jagdish Chander and another ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents
(54) R.F.A. No. 1975 of 2003 (O&M)
Santokh Singh and another ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents
(55) R.F.A. No. 1976 of 2003 (O&M)
Avtar G.S. Bishan ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents
R.F.A. No. 1438 of 2003 [8]
(56) R.F.A. No. 1977 of 2003 (O&M)
Kuldeep Singh and another ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents
(57) R.F.A. No. 1978 of 2003 (O&M)
Santokh Singh and another ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents
(58) R.F.A. No. 1979 of 2003 (O&M)
Mohinder Singh and another ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents
(59) R.F.A. No. 1980 of 2003 (O&M)
Kartar Singh and another ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents
(60) R.F.A. No. 1981 of 2003 (O&M)
Sukhwinder Singh ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Punjab ...... Respondent
(61) R.F.A. No. 1982 of 2003 (O&M)
Des Raj and others ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents
(62) R.F.A. No. 1983 of 2003 (O&M)
Krishan Lal ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents
(63) R.F.A. No. 1984 of 2003 (O&M)
Amandeep Dutta ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents
R.F.A. No. 1438 of 2003 [9]
(64) R.F.A. No. 1985 of 2003 (O&M)
Nachhattar Singh and others ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents
(65) R.F.A. No. 1986 of 2003 (O&M)
Darshan Singh ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents
(66) R.F.A. No. 1987 of 2003 (O&M)
Gram Panchayat Ajnali ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents
(67) R.F.A. No. 1988 of 2003 (O&M)
Hardev Singh and others ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents
(68) R.F.A. No. 1989 of 2003 (O&M)
Pal Kaur and others ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents
(69) R.F.A. No. 1990 of 2003 (O&M)
Bawa Singh ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents
(70) R.F.A. No. 1991 of 2003 (O&M)
Bachan Singh ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents
(71) R.F.A. No. 1992 of 2003 (O&M)
Bachan Singh and another ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents
R.F.A. No. 1438 of 2003 [10]
(72) R.F.A. No. 1993 of 2003 (O&M)
Mohinder Singh and another ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents
(73) R.F.A. No. 1994 of 2003 (O&M)
Jarnail Singh and another ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents
(74) R.F.A. No. 1995 of 2003 (O&M)
Jarnail Singh and another ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents
(75) R.F.A. No. 1996 of 2003 (O&M)
Jag Singh @ Jagjit Singh ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents
(76) R.F.A. No. 1997 of 2003 (O&M)
Jarnail Singh and another ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents
(77) R.F.A. No. 1998 of 2003 (O&M)
Karnail Singh and others ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents
(78) R.F.A. No. 1999 of 2003 (O&M)
Jharmal Singh ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents
(79) R.F.A. No. 2000 of 2003 (O&M)
Pritam Singh and others ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents
R.F.A. No. 1438 of 2003 [11]
(80) R.F.A. No. 2001 of 2003 (O&M)
Karnail Singh and others ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents
(81) R.F.A. No. 2002 of 2003 (O&M)
Pritam Singh and another ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents
(82) R.F.A. No. 2858 of 2003 (O&M)
Surinder Kaur ..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents
(83) R.F.A. No. 3593 of 2003 (O&M)
Balbir Kaur and others ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents
(84) R.F.A. No. 3594 of 2003 (O&M)
Pritam Singh and others ..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Sukhwinder Kaur, Mr. Sandeep Kumar Sharma and Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advoates for the land owners.
Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
Ms. Lisa Gill and Mr. Pradip Bhandari, Advocates for Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd.
Rajesh Bindal J.
This order shall dispose of above mentioned appeals, as common questions of law and facts are involved.
R.F.A. Nos. 1438, 1944, 1970 to 2002, 2858, 3593 and 3594 of 2003 have been filed by the land owners seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land.
R.F.A. No. 1438 of 2003 [12]R.F.A. Nos. 677, 1833 to 1877 of 2003 have been filed by the Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. (for short, `PSIEC') seeking reduction in the amount of compensation awarded to the land owners by the learned court below.
In R.F.A. No. 1871 of 2003, cross objections have been filed by the land owners seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land.
Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 209.55 acres, situated in village Ajnali and 4.39 acres, situated in village Ambe Majra (Mandi Gobindgarh), was acquired by the State Government vide notification dated 17.2.1992, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for setting up Industrial Focal Point, Mandi Gobindgarh. The same was followed by notification dated 8.9.1992, issued under Section 6 of the Act. Vide award dated 14.9.1994, the Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land in village Ajnali @ Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre and Rs. 80,000/- per acre for the land situated in village Ambe Majra. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned court below, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, assessed the market value of the part of the land situated in between the G.T. Road and the minor canal @ Rs. 1,80,000/- per acre, whereas for the remaining land situated beyond the minor canal was assessed @ Rs. 1,20,000/- per acre.
Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the learned court below has failed to consider the material placed on record by them while determining the amount of compensation, to which the land owners are entitled to. It has totally failed to take notice of the fact that the land was strategically located in Mandi Gobindgarh, which is called as Manchester of India or steel town of India. The entire area in the vicinity had already been developed as lot of industries had been set up there. The pressure for further expansion of the industries was on this side of the city, which is towards Ludhiana. Even beyond the acquisition boundaries, the industrial units had been set up. The land is located just on G.T. Road. It was acquired for the purpose of development as Industrial Focal Point. In fact, part of the acquired land was within the municipal limits, whereas the other was abutting it, which itself shows that the land had great potential for being used for industrial and residential purposes. It was abutting the abadi of village Ajnali. The land owners had produced two sale-deeds on record. Due weight has not been given to these sale deeds, namely, Ex. P1 and Ex. PW4/A. The learned court below, while assessing the compensation for the acquired land, R.F.A. No. 1438 of 2003 [13] applied a cut of 50% on the value as shown in the aforesaid sale deeds and thereafter averaged the same with the value of sale deeds produced by the State. It was a kind of double cut. The land pertaining to the sale deeds produced by the State had not been located on any site plan produced by the State on record. Even otherwise, the value shown therein being less than the award of the Collector deserves to be kept out of consideration. Even if cut of 50%, as was applied by the learned court on the value of the land shown in the sale deeds produced by the land owners, is considered to be appropriate, though the contention of the land owners is that it is on higher side, still the value of the land would come out to Rs. 11,95,000/-per acre, whereas the learned court below has awarded merely Rs. 1,80,000/- per acre for the land situated on G.T. Road till the minor canal and Rs. 1,20,000/- per acre beyond that. Reliance was placed upon The State of Punjab and others v. Gurbax Singh, 2009(5) RCR (Civil) 432. Learned counsel further submitted that no amount of compensation has been paid on account of acquisition of tubewells, super structures etc. existing on the acquired land.
On the other hand, learned counsel for PSIEC submitted that in fact the sale deeds produced by the State on record before the learned court below clearly show that the award of the Collector was justified and the same did not call for any interference, whatsoever. The contention of learned counsel for the land owners that the land pertaining to the sale deeds produced by the State had not been pointed out on any site plan is not correct, as the land pertaining to the relevant sale deeds (Ex. R4, Ex. R5 and Ex. R8) have been pointed out on site plan Ex. RW4/A. The land pertaining to sale-deeds (Ex. R4 and Ex. R8) is located just on G.T. Road, whereas the land pertaining to sale deed (Ex. R5) is situated just beyond the acquired land. The average sale price of the land situated on G.T. Road was about Rs. 72,500/- per acre, whereas for the land situated beyond the acquired land, it was Rs. 60,814/- per acre. The sale deeds produced by the land owners cannot possibly be relied upon for the reason that the land pertaining thereto cannot be compared with the acquired land. The land forming part of sale deed (Ex. P1) is situated on G.T. Road and admittedly half kilometer towards Gobindgarh city, whereas the land pertaining to sale deed (Ex. PW4/A) is a small plot of one biswa, which is located adjoining to the abadi of village Ajnali. It would not be justifiable to rely upon both the sale deeds for the purpose of assessment of compensation for big chunk of land measuring about 214 acres of land. It was further disputed by the learned counsel that any part of the acquired land is situated within the municipal limits of Mandi Gobindgarh, as there was no documentary evidence produced therefor, on record. It was merely the oral R.F.A. No. 1438 of 2003 [14] evidence led by the land owners. As far as small portion of land situated on G.T. Road is concerned, it was submitted that it was acquisition merely for passage to the Industrial Focal Point. The value thereof should also be assessed at the same rate at which the other land is to be assessed. As regards valuation of tubewells, super structures etc. is concerned, appropriate amount of compensation has been paid. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the land owners are not entitled to any increase therefor.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record.
The onus to prove that the compensation as assessed by the Collector was not adequate, is always on the land owners, who is in the position of a plaintiff. Reference for the purpose can be made to Para 28 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangunthala (Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar (L.A.) and Ors. 2010(2) Recent Apex Judgments 286.
"28. It is settled that the burden of establishing/proving the market value of the lands is always on the claimants. In Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 1991(1) R.R.R. 427 : AIR 1990 SC 2192, this Court held that it is the duty of the Court to determine just and fair market value. It was further held that the claimants should produce necessary evidence on the value of land since the burden of proof is on them to establish the higher compensation claimed. While agreeing with the judgment in Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd (Supra), this Court in the case of Special Deputy Collector & Another v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao & Others, (1997) 6 SCC 41, held that in a claim for enhancement of compensation the burden of proof was on the claimants that land was capable of fetching higher compensation. Further in the case of Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad Development Authority and another, 2004(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 3 : (2004) 10 SCC 745, it was held that the burden of proving that the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector is inadequate lies upon the claimant and he is in the position of a plaintiff."
In case titled as Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (D) By LRs. Vs. State of Gujarat, 2005(2) RCR (Civil) 492, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down certain R.F.A. No. 1438 of 2003 [15] broad principles for determination of compensation for the acquired land. Relevant paras are reproduced hereunder:-
17. Section 23 of the Act specifies the matters required to be considered in determining the compensation;
the principal among which is the determination of the market value of the land on the date of the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4.
18. One of the principles for determination of the amount of compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefor. It is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a willing and informed buyer would offer would be different in the cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the cases where he is not.
19. Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase. Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences have to be considered.
20. The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-a-vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. The positive and negative facts are as under :-
_______________________________________________________ Positive facts Negative factors _______________________________________________________
(i) smallness of size (i) largeness of area
(ii) proximity to a road (ii) situation in the interior at a distance from the road R.F.A. No. 1438 of 2003 [16]
(iii) frontage on a road (iii) narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth
(iv) nearness to developed (iv)lower level requiring area the depressed portion to be filled up
(v) regular shape (v) remoteness from developed locality
(vi) level vis-a-vis land under (vi) some special under acquisition disadvantageous factors which would deter a purchaser
(vii)special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage.
____________________________________________________
21. Whereas a smaller plot may be within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed preparing a layout plan, carving out roads, leaving open spaces, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers and the hazards of an entrepreneur. Such development charges may range between 20% and 50% of the total price."
In case titled as Haridwar Development Authority, Haridwar Versus Raghubir Singh etc., 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 301, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the issue as to whether entire chunk of land has to be valued at the same rate irrespective of its locational advantages/disadvantages or different rates can be awarded for different portions and opined as under:
"6. The question whether the acquired lands have to be valued uniformly at the same rate, or whether different areas in the acquired lands have to be valued at different rates, depends upon the extent of the land acquired, the location, proximity to an access road/Main Road/Highway or to a City/Town/Village, and other relevant circumstances. We may illustrate:
(A) When a small and compact extent of land is acquired and the entire area is similarly situated, it will be appropriate to value the acquired land at a single uniform R.F.A. No. 1438 of 2003 [17] rate.
(B) If a large tract of land is acquired with some lands facing a main road or a national highway and other lands being in the interior, the normal procedure is to value the lands adjacent to the main road at a higher rate and the interior lands which do not have road access, at a lesser rate. (C) Where a very large tract of land on the outskirts of a town is acquired one end of the acquired lands adjoining the town boundary, the other end being two to three kilometers away, obviously, the rake that is adopted for the land nearest to the town cannot be adopted for the land which is farther away from the town. In such a situation, what is known as a belting method is adopted and the belt or strip adjacent to the town boundary will be given the highest price, the remotest belt with be awarded the lowest rate, the belts/strips of lands falling in between, will be awarded gradually reducing rates from the highest to the lowest. (D)Where a very large tract of land with a radius of one to two kilometres is acquired, but the entire land acquired is far away from any town or city limits, without any special Main road access, then it is logical to award the entire land, one uniform rate. The fact that the distance between one point to another point in the acquired lands, may be as much as two to three kilometres may not make any difference."
In case titled as Thakur Kuldeep Singh (D) Thr. L.R. & Ors. Versus Union of India and Ors., 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 372, the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined as under:-
"6. Sections 23 and 24 of the Act speak about the matters to be considered and to be neglected in determining compensation. Let us consider whether the appellants are entitled to higher compensation than that of the one fixed by the High Court or Union of India is justified in seeking reduction of the market value/compensation for the acquired land. While fixing compensation, it is the duty of the Land Acquisition Collector as well as the Court to take into consideration the nature of the land, its suitability, nature of the use to which the lands are sought to be acquired on the R.F.A. No. 1438 of 2003 [18] date of notification, income derived or derivable from or any other special distinctive feature which the land is possessed of, the sale transactions in respect of land covered by the same notification are all relevant factors to be taken into consideration in determining the market value. It is equally to consider the suitability of neighbourhood lands as are possessed of similar potentiality or any advantageous features or any special characteristics available. The Land Acquisition Collector as well as the Court should always keep in their mind that the object of assessment is to arrive at a reasonable and adequate market value of the land. While doing so, imagination should be eschewed and mechanical assessment of evidence should be avoided. More attention should be on the bona fide and genuine sale transactions as guiding star in evaluating the evidence. The relevant factor would be that of the hypothetical willing vendor would offer for the land and what a willing purchaser of normal human conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market conditions prevailing in the open market in the locality in which the acquired lands are situated as on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. In other words, the Judge who sits in the armchair of the willing buyer and seek an answer to the question whether in the given set of circumstances as a prudent buyer he would offer the same market value which the court proposed to fix for the acquired lands in the available market conditions. The market value so determined should be just, adequate and reasonable."
[Emphasis supplied] It is in view of the aforesaid enunciation of law that the evidence led by the parties is to be considered to find out as to whether determination of compensation by the learned court below for the acquired land, is just and fair or not. Only two sale deeds have been relied upon by learned counsel for the land owners to substantiate their plea that the value, as assessed by the learned court below, deserves further enhancement, i.e., Ex. P1 and Ex. PW4/A. Sale deed Ex. P1 is for sale of land measuring 10 bighas, which is located on G. T. road about half kilometer towards Gobindgarh City from the acquired land. The aforesaid sale deed was registered on 5.12.1991 at an average price of Rs. 9,50,000/- per acre.
R.F.A. No. 1438 of 2003 [19]Another sale deed Ex. PW4/A dated 18.11.1991 is pertaining to a plot measuring one biswa, the average price whereof is Rs. 14,40,000/- per acre. The location thereof is adjoining the abadi of village Ajnali, which is near the acquired land. The submission of learned counsel for the land owners was that the learned court below has gone wrong in firstly by applying a cut of 50% on the value of land shown in the sale deeds produced by them and thereafter averaging the same with the value shown in the sale deeds produced by the State.
There are three sale deeds produced by the State on record, which were relied upon by learned counsel for the State at the time of arguments. The same are Ex. R4, Ex. R5 and Ex. R8. Vide sale-deed (Ex. R4), which was registered on 21.5.1991, 5 bighas and 18 biswas of land was sold at an average price of Rs. 72,911/- per acre. The same is not located on G.T. road. Vide sale deed (Ex. R5) dated 28.6.1991, land measuring 5 bighas and 10 biswas was dealt with at an average price of Rs. 60,814/- per acre. The location thereof is just behind the acquisition boundary. Vide sale deed (Ex. R8) dated 21.3.1991, land measuring 9 bighas was sold at an average price of Rs. 72,000/- per acre. The location of the land dealt with therein is on G. T. Road. The aforesaid sale deeds have been located on site plan Ex. RW4/A, produced by the State, meaning thereby the stand of learned counsel for the land owners that the sale deeds produced by the State having not been pointed out on any of the site plan produced on record, do not deserve consideration, has no legs to stand, as the same can very well be looked into.
In addition to this, the claim made by the land owners that part of the acquired land falls within the municipal limits of Mandi Gobindgarh city has not been proved on record as such as it is merely an oral statement made to that effect with no documentary evidence on record.
The sale deeds produced by the State on record show that the award of the Collector was even more than that. Even if the contention raised by learned counsel for the land owners is considered that the sale deeds produced by the State, which show the value less than the award of the Collector are to be ignored, still, in my opinion, the two sale deeds sought to be relied upon by the land owners cannot be said to be of the kind of land, the value of which is under determination. The land pertaining to sale deed (Ex. P1) is located on G.T. Road and that too about half kilometer towards the city from the acquired land. In the present case, it is only small portion of the land which is located on G.T. Road, i.e., merely a passage for the land which is situated beyond the canal and the land pertaining to sale deed Ex. PW4/A is merely a plot of one biswa, which is quite small, R.F.A. No. 1438 of 2003 [20] considering the acquisition of land in the present case measuring about 214 acres.
It cannot be disputed that the amount of compensation in case of land acquisition cannot be assessed with mathematical exactitude. The land located on G.T. Road will certainly fetch more price as it has all basic amenities, whereas the land which is located off the road will certainly fetch lesser, especially when it is a big chunk of land which for providing infrastructural facilities would need lot of expense and plotable area is also reduced considerably. A small plot will always fetch more price as the same is within the reach of many persons, whereas a big chunk will not fetch the same price because the same will have lesser buyer, but still the fact cannot be lost sight of that in Mandi Gobindgarh, there are lot of steel factories and the acquired land had future potential as well. Even the site plan produced on record by the land owners also shows that growth of industries was primarily along with G.T. Road, whereas the acquisition in the present case was not only beyond the G.T. Road but also beyond a canal, which was located after a belt of land abutting the G.T. Road. There was practically no industry beyond the canal. The small portion of land acquired on G. T. road was merely for the purpose of providing approach road to the big chunk beyond the canal. Unless a buyer of the land, which is to use the same for industrial purpose or even for agricultural purpose has some approach, he will not pay the same price. Land which is not connected with any approach road/passage will not fetch the same price, as a portion of the land with aforesaid facilities.
Considering the aforesaid factors, in my opinion, the value of the land, as assessed by the learned court below regarding the portion of land upto canal is concerned, the same will certainly deserves some increase. For the purpose, in my opinion, reliance to some extent can be placed upon sale deed (Ex. P1), the genuineness of which cannot be doubted. The sale consideration paid therein is @ Rs. 9,50,000/- per acre. Even if the same is closer to the city as compared to the acquired land, but still the difference in the value cannot be as much as has been determined by the learned court below for this portion of the land, which, in my opinion, should be Rs. 4,00,000/- per acre, as on account of distance from the city, the price of the land can be said to be on so much lower side, as compared to the land closer to the city. The land owners shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available to them under the Act. As far as land beyond the canal is concerned, in my opinion, though different formulas have been applied by the learned court below, but still considering the fact that Mandi Gobindgarh is an industrial town, where lot of industries were existing and have been set up. The State also recognizing and accepting that fact was out to develop R.F.A. No. 1438 of 2003 [21] a new Industrial Focal Point. In my opinion, the assessment of value of that portion of land by the learned court below cannot be said to be either on higher or on lower side and the same deserves to be upheld.
As far as prayer for enhancement of compensation for the tubewells and superstructure on the acquired land is concerned, the arguments raised by learned counsel for the land owners simply deserve to be noticed and rejected as there was nothing more than oral statements of the land owners to state that value of the tubewells and superstructure was more than what was assessed by the Collector. The learned court below has sufficiently compensated the land owners in that regard. In the absence of trustworthy documentary evidence, this court is not in a position to grant any further increase. Accordingly, the award to that extent is upheld.
The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge May 21, 2010 mk