Punjab-Haryana High Court
Multan Singh And Ors. vs State Of Haryana Through Collector on 16 March, 2000
Equivalent citations: (2000)126PLR763
Author: Swatanter Kumar
Bench: Swatanter Kumar
JUDGMENT Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. Regular First Appeal No. 2014 of 1993 titled as Multan Singh and others Versus State of Haryana and others was listed before this Court for final hearing. During the course of hearing it was noticed that the judgment in this case was totally based upon Ex.A-13 and the learned reference Court had awarded the same compensation that had been awarded by the other reference Court vide Ex.A.13 Ex.A.13 is the Award dated 19.10.1991 in the case of Net Ram v. State of Haryana, R.F.A. No. 2900 of 1992 and vice-versa. Resultantly, vide order dated 16.2.2000 of this Court the registry was directed to list these appeals together as the fate of Multan Singh's case was totally dependent upon the fate of Net Ram's case. This is how these 46 regular first appeals have been listed together.
2. The Government of State of Haryana issued a notification on 12.8.1986, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, intending to acquire 47 acres 1 kanal 14 marlas of land in the revenue estate of village Baldi, District Karnal. In furtherance thereto, notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 6.8.1987. This land was acquired for strengthening the Regional Research Station, Uchani. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award No. 2/1989-90 dated 1.5.1989 awarded the following compensation to the claimants depending upon the nature of the land :
Chahi/Nehri lands : Rs. 96,000/- per acre.
Gair Mumkin lands : Rs. 80,000/- per acre.
3. The claimants felt totally dis-satisfied with the extent of the compensation awarded to them for acquisition of their respective lands and preferred reference under Section 18 of the Act to the Court of learned District Judge, Karnal. 16 Claimants had preferred references in all. The learned Additional District Judge, Karnal vide his judgment dated 19.10.1991 answered one reference (Net Ram's case) and enhanced the compensation on uniform basis to the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre. Remaining 15 references were answered by the learned Additional District Judge vide his judgment dated 29.3.1993 while following Net Ram's case and awarding the same compensation to the claimants. In other words, vide two different judgments dated 19.10.1991 and 29.3.1993 the learned Additional District Judge answered ail the 16 references and awarded the same amount of compensation to all the claimant on uniform basis. The 16 claimants including Net Ram filed regular first appeals before this Court for further enhancement of the compensation awarded to them while 16 appeals have been filed each by the State of Haryana as well as Haryana Agricultural University praying for reduction of the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants and restoration of the award of the Collector. This is how these 48 appeals arising from common notification are taken up together and it will be appropriate to dispose of all these appeals by a common judgment.
4. It must be noticed at the very out-set that the documentary and oral evidence produced by the parties in both Net Rain's case as well as in Multan Singh's case is more or less similar. In Net Ram's case the claimants examined eight witnesses AW 1 to AW 8 and tendered on record Ex.A-7 to Ex.13, which are the copies of jamabandies. Aksshijra and scheme of consolidation etc. They also produced on record Ex.A.3 to A.5 sale-deeds in relation to sale of the land in the same village Ex.A.3 to Ex.A.5 were produced by the Registration Clerk AW 2 during the course of his statement in Court. Ex.A.12, Ex.A.14 and Ex.A.15 were the sale instances tendered by the claimants in evidence. Respondents only examined one witness i.e. RW 1 Jagdish Chand who submitted his report Ex.R.1 for fixing the price of the land and produced no other evidence whatsoever.
5. In the case of Multan Singh the claimants examined same eight witnesses and also produced on record Ex.A.3 to Ex.A.5 the sale deeds as well as Ex.A.8. In addition to this they mainly relied upon Ex.A.13 the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge dated 19.10.1991 in Net Ram's case (supra). They also produced the site plans Ex.A.11 and Ex.A.12 on record in relation to experts report. The respondents examined two witnesses and tendered Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.3. Ex.R.1 the site plain in relation to super structures as in the case of Net Ram and Ex.R.3 the copy of the sale deed dated 26.6.1984.
6. As is evident from the above narrated facts on record, the sale deeds in both the cases are common and even the oral evidence is more or less similar in both these cases. At this stage, it will be relevant to refer to the following discussion and conclusions arrived at by the learned reference Court in RFA No. 2900 of 1992, titled Net Ram and others Versus State of Haryana :-
"Apart from the documentary evidence, the petitioners have also examined AW 9 Vipin Gupta Architect who prepared the site plan Ex.Al of the acquired land. According to the witness he has shown the disputed land with red colour and he has also shown the location of the land which was sold by Rati Ram, Nanu and Kishan Singh etc. and same has been shown in green colour in the site plan. According to the witness the acquired land abuts G.T. Road and Indri Road. There are various industries near the acquired land and he has shown the land which was acquired by the Govt. for the creation of Sector 16 and it has been shown at point 5 of the site plan. AW2 Amrit Lal Registration Clerk proved the copies of sale deeds Ex.A.2, Ex.A.3 and Ex.A.5 which are correct according to the originals. AW3 Jai Singh Patwari stated that the award of Sector 16 was announced on 16.2.1989. The land of Sector 16 is situated near Namstay Chowk, Karnal and the distance of acquired land from Sector 16 is of 2 K.M."
The rates fixed in 1990 of various lands situated in and around Karnal cannot be taken into consideration because the acquisition took place in the year 1989 and as per the law laid down in various authorities the sale deeds of about one year either prior to the acquisition or after the acquisition would be taken into consideration. Similarly sale deeds namely Ex.A.3, Ex.A.4, Ex.A.5, Ex.A.12, Ex.A.14 and Ex. A.15 cannot be taken into consideration because very small pieces of land were sold by virtue of these sale deeds. Moreover, sale deeds Ex. A.3 and Ex. A.4 and Ex. A. 12 relate to the period prior to the acquisition whereas sale deed Ex. A.5 relates to December, 1986 remaining sale deeds relate to the years 1989-90. Possibly these cannot be taken in consideration. Similarly agreement Ex. A.6 took place in the month of May, 1989 and by virtue of this agreement only 4 acres of land was leased out for the consideration to Metro Motors and it was situated on the main road and, therefore, this cannot be taken into consideration."
It has also come in evidence that various industries have come up near the acquired land. Certain residential buildings have also come up near the acquired land. Although the Govt. acquired the land in dispute for strengthening the Agriculture Research Centre but the land could have also been used for industrial Purpose. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded the compensation only observing that the acquired land is an agricultural land and he did not keep in mind the potentiality of the acquired land. From the evidence adduced, it has been proved that the acquired land had the potentiality of being developed for Industrial purpose. Therefore, taking all the facts in consideration, I determine the market value of the acquired land at the time of acquisition at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- (one lac and fifty thousand only) per acre. So, this issue is decided accordingly."
7. In order to determine the correctness of the above conclusion arrived at by the learned reference Court, the first and fore-most question that falls for determination before this Court is that what are the relevant and material pieces of evidence which should be considered by this Court.
8. The respondents have only produced one sale deed in both these cases i.e. Ex. R.3. The claimants have produced on record Ex. A.3 to Ex. A.5, Ex. A.12, Ex. A.14 and Ex. A. 15 in Net Ram's case and Ex. A.3 and Ex. A.5 in Multan Singh's case which are same in Net Ram's case and Ex. A.8, the sale deed dated 13.3.1984. Learned counsel for the claimants as well as the State fairly conceded that the sale deeds which have been merely tendered by the parties in evidence are inadmissible in evidence in accordance with the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of A. P. State Road Transport Corporation v. P. Venkaiah and Ors., AIR 1997 S.C. 2600 and Special Deputy Collector and Anr. v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and Ors., AIR 1997 S. C. 2625. Resultantly Ex. A.12, Ex. A.14, Ex. A.15 and Ex. R.3 are ex-facie inadmissible in evidence.
9. The learned counsel for the claimants contended that Ex. A.3 to Ex. A.5 have been proved in accordance with law as AW 2 proved them in his statement, Ex. A.3 to Ex. A.5 are the sale deeds which were produced by AW2 who is Registration Clerk from Tehsil Office, Karnal. This witness is neither the vendor or vendee nor was attesting witness of the sale-deeds in question. The sale-deeds were not even executed in the presence of this witness. As such it is very difficult to say whether proving the document by this witness would be a sufficient compliance of the law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P. Venkaiah (supra). In any case as far as Ex. A.5 is concerned, it is post-notification. The land in the present case was acquired on 12.8.1996 while Ex. P.6 is dated 15.2.1986. Even on this ground Ex. A.5 cannot be looked into for determining the fair market value of the land at the relevant point of time. I am of the considered view that Ex. A.3 and Ex. A.4 are not admissible in evidence in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court, but I would still shortly proceed to discuss the fair market value of the land even on the strength of these documents even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that they are admissible in evidence.
10. As is apparent from the reasoning given the learned reference Court after rejecting all the documentary evidence on one ground or the other including A.2 which was the list of rates published by the Deputy Commissioner in the year 1990 in relation to prices of the land for the purposes of registration of sale-deed. These rates are nearly four years subsequent to the date of notification in the present case. Finding that the land in question on the basis of its location and potential could not be treated as an agricultural land, the learned reference Court has fixed the compensation payable to the claimant at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre i.e. at the rate of approximately Rs. 31/-per square yard. It will be, thus, appropriate to discuss the location and potential of the acquired land. Site plan Ex. A.1 in Net Ram's case clearly show that acquired land is surrounded by G.T. Road on the one side and Indri road on the other. Opposite to the acquired land at some distance are various industries, while on the other side of the G.T. Road there are Government offices and institutional buildings. Sale instances have also been shown in this document which are near the road on Delhi bye-pass road. In addition to this, the oral testimony of AW2 to AW4 is also relevant. AW4, the Patwari, has stated that the acquired land is nearly 4-5 killas away from the Octroi post. These witnesses had referred to other surroundings afore noticed. There respondents produced no evidence to show that the documentary and oral evidence on record was in any way incorrect or unreliable. The cumulative effect of this discussion is that the acquired land has a great residential and commercial potential. The land itself was acquired for strengthening the Regional Research Centre Uchani which shows that the land was surrounded by other developed areas and was not agricultural land simplicitor. Thus, this finding of the learned reference Court does not call for any interference.
11. The increase given by the learned Additional District Judge in Net Ram's case, though based upon some guess work, cannot be faulted with on the ground of being unreasonable, unjust or excessive. The Collector himself had awarded sum of Rs. 80,000/-per acre to Gair Mumkin land and Rs. 96,000/- to chahi land. The increase given by the learned Judge is not in any way, unreasonably excessive so as to call for interference by this Court. The finding arrived at on the basis of evidence on record cannot be said to be perverse.
12. The basis of Ex. R.1 in Net Ram's case have not been disclosed nor any evidence was produced to show that the said value was correctly based on the principle of transaction of free buyer and free seller. The respondents in fact produced no evidence and the Collector appears to have simply accepted the contents of Ex.R.1 and pronounced his award. Acquisition of land is based upon the principle of compulsory acquisition and a citizen whose land is acquired by the authorities concerned in exercise of its statutory power, must be awarded just, fair and equitable market value in lieu of his acquired land. Truly the compensation awarded should not be unreasonably excessive, but more true is that it should no way be detrimental to the interests of owners of the land.
13. I have already discussed that Ex.A.5 is not a relevant piece of evidence as it relates to a period quite post-notification. Vide Ex.A.3 land measuring about 2 kanals 17 marlas was sold on 21.11.1984 for a sum of Rs. 49,000/- in village Baldi. On this basis of rate of the land per acre would come to nearly Rs. 1,37,543.85. It is obvious that this land was sold about two years prior to the date of notifications. For the intervening period of less than two years even if the claimants are given some element of increase as it is indicated by various exhibits including Ex. A.5 and the oral statements of the claimants that there was increase in the value of the land, even in that event, awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre would be just, fair and equitable award.
14. Ex. A.4 is again not a relevant piece of evidence because the land was sold on 27.5.1986 while notification under Section 4 was issued on 12.8.1986 in the present case and everybody in the village had known by that time that the land was being acquired. As such it is not very safe to rely upon this document Even if Ex. A. 14 is relied upon, there would hardly be any change in the net result of the computation.
15. I have already noticed that in the case of Multan Singh there was identical evidence and all documents in Net Ram's case had been exhibited in Multan Singh's case as well in addition to Ex. A.6. The learned Judge in Multan Singh's case had relied upon the Award dated 19.10.1991 Ex. A. 13 (Net Ram's case) and awarded the same compensation. I have already discussed above that the compensation awarded in Net Ram's case does not call for any interference by this Court from any point of view on the basis of the evidence on record. Even if Ex.A.6, the additional document is taken on record, though it is also not proved in accordance with the judgment of Supreme Court, it hardly improves the case of the claimants. As per Ex. P.8. 10 marlas of land was sold for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 13.3.1984. In other words, the land was sold at the rate of Rs. 1,60,000/- per acre in 1984. Even if the claimants are held to be entitled to some element of increase, large extent of cut would have to be applied because the land, subject matter of Ex.A.6, is a very small piece of land and appears to have been sold obviously for a purpose other than agriculture. Even on this basis the compensation cannot be awarded higher than the one which was awarded by the learned reference Court. Result of the above discussion is that all the appeals preferred by the claimant as well as the State are liable to be dismissed.
R.F.A. No. 2900 of 199216. The learned counsel appearing for Net Ram contended that the findings of the learned reference Court in relation to apportionment of the awarded amount of compensation is not correct and is contrary to the record. He contended that out of the total land acquired" measuring about 10 acres 5 kanals 7 marlas. compensation for 79 kanals 13 marlas has been given to Net Ram, while compensation in regard to remaining 5 kanal 14 marlas has been awarded in favour of the Panchayat. He relied upon the judgments of this Court to contend that a passage kept by the owners for their use does not vest in Panchayat for acquisition or other wise, and as such the compensation could not have been awarded to the Panchayat, I do not consider it appropriate to go into detail of this contention either on the basis of evidence or the law governing the subject. In para No. 10 of the judgment, the learned reference Court has noticed that the learned counsel for Net Ram had given a concession in favour of the Panchayat. In face of such concession and there being no specific ground made out that the counsel had no authority or that the counsel did not make a statement before the Court. I see no reason to interfere even in this finding.
No other point was pressed in any of the appeals.
Consequently, all the appeals preferred by the claimants including. Net Ram appellant, as well as by the State are dismissed without any order as to costs.