Punjab-Haryana High Court
Atam Parkash And Ors. vs Haryana State And Ors. on 14 October, 1999
Equivalent citations: (2000)125PLR590
Author: Swatanter Kumar
Bench: Swatanter Kumar
JUDGMENT Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. The above two appeals along with connected 108 regular first appeals arise from one and the common judgment and award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, on 25.2.1999. All the cases are based upon common documentary and oral evidence, the lead case being Atam Parkash (supra) As common questions of fact and law arise for determination in all these appeals, it will be appropriate to dispose of all these appeals by a common judgment.
2. The State of Haryana issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, on 19.5.1992 intending to acquire 504-27 acres of land in the revenue estate of villages Satrod Khas, Satrod Khurd and Hissar. In furtherance thereto, notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued and published on 18.5.1993 for 478.44 acres of land, but ultimately only 304.28 acres of land formed the subject matter of the Collector's award dated 17.5.1995. This land was acquired for a public purpose, namely, development and utilisation of the land for industrial sectors 9 and 11 by Haryana Urban Development Authority, hereinafter referred to as HUDA.
3. The learned Land Acquisition Collector vide award No.2 dated 17.5.1995 after inviting objections from the claimants awarded compensation to the land owners at the rate of Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre. The claimants felt dis-satisfied from this award and, thus, preferred references under Section 18 of the Act claiming enhancement of compensation. The learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, after affording opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective cases vide award dated 25.2.1999 answered 100 references and enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants from Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre to Rs. 235/- per square yard for the lands falling in village Hisar and Rs. 135/- per square yard for the lands falling in villages Satrod Khurd and Satrod Khas. Pronouncement of this award resulted in filing of regular first appeals both by the State HUDA as well as the claimants. The claimants in their appeals pray for enhancement of the compensation awarded to them for acquisition of their lands, while the State/HUDA contends that the enhancement given by the learned Additional District Judge is unreasonably excessive and pray for restoration of the Collector's award. Out of all these appeals, 110 appeals have been listed before this Court, 48 being State/HUDA appeals and 62 of the claimants.
4. On behalf of the claimants it is contended that keeping in view the location and potential of the land and the public purpose that it was acquired for development of industrial sectors, the learned Judge ought not to have applied the belting system while awarding compensation to the claimants. It was further contended that on the basis of the evidence produced by the claimants on record including documentary and oral evidence, the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar ought to have awarded much higher compensation to the claimants than the one awarded by the impugned judgment. The claimants though claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per square yard, but they strenuously argued that the learned Judge himself had come to a finding that the market price of the land at the time of notification could not be less than Rs. 350/- per square yard, on no basis could have awarded compensation lessor than that amount.
5. The learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Haryana argued that the sale instances proved by the claimants do not reflect the fair market value of the land at the time of acquisition. It was contended on behalf of the State that keeping in mind the judicial pronouncements, there was no substantive evidence before the learned Judge to award such compensation. The learned Judge has not applied any deduction to the market value calculated and as such has fell in error while awarding enhanced compensation.
6. In order to examine the merits of the contentions raised on behalf of the respective parties. A reference to basic evidence brought on record would be inevitable. The claimants examined 43 witnesses i.e. PW1 to PW43, who produced and proved on record documents in the shape of judgments, sale instances, auction bids, maps and other documents being Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.133. The respondents examined on record site plan and sale instances, Ex.R.1 to Ex.R. 19.
Location and Potential of the acquired land:
The Claimants made an attempt before the learned Addl. District Judge, Hisar to prove that the acquired land has a valuable location and great potential so as to entitle the claimants for a higher compensation Ex.P.55 was proved on record by Shri Om Parkash PW 26. This map shows the location of the acquired land in comparison to the other developed areas situated in the same revenue estate. In the surrounding areas and even in the acquired land same amenities are available. This fact was stated on oath by PW 27 as well PW 30. In their cross-examination they were not even confronted that no such facilities were available on or around the acquired land. PW12 stated that the entire acquired land was situated within the municipal limits of City, Hisar. In this regard he proved Ex.P.45 and Ex.P.51. Ex.P.45 shows the municipal boundary of Hisar and the key development plan. This also identifies the various developed areas like railway station, bus stand, metalled roads and built up areas. Ex.P.51 shows the boundary of the City and reflects the acquired land. PW17 in his statement has stated that there were successive notifications right from 1972 till the notification in question keeping in view the fact that the area was developed from various sides and for various purposes.
7. The learned Judge while disbursing the location and potential of the land in question and emphasising the factors like situation and location, civil amenities, use of a neighbouring land and its potential, observed as under:-
"It may be notified that the acquired land which is situated in compact block is surrounded by various residential, commercial and industrial complexes which has been shown in map Ex.P.55 duly proved by Om Parkash PW 26. It is situated in an area which has already been developed as residential-cum-industrial area. On the Northern side, there is huge industrial area starting from Jindal Industries Ltd. till Bhanu Industries Ltd. on Delhi Hisar Road. The entries of the properties of the said industries have been proved on records by Shri Sita Ram Clerk PW 30 office of the District Industries Centre. The said industrial units are either registered as small scale industries or the large and medium scale industries-the list of the aforesaid industries has also been proved by this witness, namely, Sita Ram Clerk office of the General Manager District Industries Centre, Hisar, vide Ex.P.63.
"The acquired land is also served by the Hisar-Tosham Highway on its Western side, Jindal Hospital also on its Western side and Delhi-Hisar Sulemanki (DHS for brevity) road, as stated above, on its Northern side."
"The acquired land has all the civil amenities i.e. water, electricity telephone connections, sewerage all round it as stated by PW19 Banarsi Dass Gupta, PW20 Kamlesh Kumar, PW21 Ramesh Kumar, PW24 Birbal Kumar, PW27 Daulat Ram Clerk, Municipal Committee, Hisar and PW30 Sita Ram Clerk, Office of GM Industries Centre, Hisar. The sewerage, water, electricity were available in the area where the lands in question are situated and extension of its facilities would have developed the acquired land internally also.".
"The acquired land, as already stated, is situated in an area with the DHS road on its Northern side and Hisar-Tosham road and on its western side. It is adjoined on Western side by Industrial and residential colonies, such as Section 13 (Part) etc. as shown vide Ex.P.45 and site plan, Ex.P.55 as well as brochure, Ex.P.60 and P.161. Police lines area, Sector 15 is situated on the Western side of the Sector 13(Part). The said Model Town and Sector 13(Part) were already developed into residential-cum-commercial lay out before the notification of the acquired lands. The huge, residential and commercial area i.e. Urban Estate No. 11 was also developed towards the Northern side of the acquired land. The sales of residential and commercial plots in the Model Town, police Lines, Sector 13(Part), Urban Estate No. II were fetching very high rates in public auctions or otherwise on the relevant date. The development of the said Sectors with modern facilities such as schools, hospital, commercial shops had a great impact on the potentiality and market value of the acquired lands on the date of notification under Section 4 of the said Act."
8. The learned Advocate General submitted that the following observations of the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar would have a bearing in the matter in issue:-
"The said sale transactions also took place prior to the date of notification in the instant case. In view of the fact that the tail end area of the acquired land opening towards Hisar Tosham Road has the somewhat similar characteristic, nature and potentiality etc. vis-a-vis Sector 13, 16 and 17, inasmuch as both the aforesaid areas are situated at two sides of Hisar-Tosham State Highway, facing each other and adjoined by a Dabra minor towards their South, hence the sale instances which have taken place in the area acquired for Section 13 (Part), can be conveniently relied upon for the valuation of the acquired lands in question after giving suitable allowances for plus factors."
9. The cumulative effect of the discussion with reference to the evidence on record and the observation of the learned Addl. District Judge, Hisar is that one has to read Ex.P.55. As per Ex.P.55 the various sale instances, auctions etc., have been shown in different encircled numbers. Towards the South-West or the acquired land is Sector 13 (Part-II), Sector 15.(Part), Sectors 16 and 17(Part), which are already developed sectors. Towards the North-West various industries have already come up and at some distance even the colonies i.e. M.C. Colony, and Gobind Nagar have developed and Ex.P.117 and Ex.P.118 are the judgments relating to that points, which is at some distance from the acquired land. Immediately adjacent to the acquired land is the Water Works, HUDA, Jindal Metal Industries, Industrial Estate Development Colony and various industrial factories constructed between National Highway No.10 i.e. Delhi-Hisar-Sirsa road and the acquired lands towards the North and North-east. On these basis I have no hesitation in affirming the view taken by the learned Addl. District Judge, Hisar, that the acquired land has good location and substantial potential, which would have a material effect on the extent of the amount payable to the claimants on account of compensation.
Fair market value of the acquired land;
Number of sale instances, auctions and allotments of residential and commercial plots by HUDA to various persons have been proved on record. Various exhibits including Ex.P.30, P.77, P.78, P.79 and P.80 are the alleged sale instances which have been proved by different witnesses and relate to the land, plots commercial or residential, sold by HUDA or other public authorities around the acquired land in different sectors. At the very out-set it must be stated that there is no occasion for this Court to rely upon these instances. The reasons for the same are many-fold. Firstly they are developed plots and there is no direct-evidence to find out the land costs element in these instances. Secondly, this court had the occasion to discuss the reasons for not relying upon such instances While determining the market value of the land where huge acquisitions are effected by the Government in public interest. At this stage it will be appropriate to make reference to the judgment of this Court in the case of Partap Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr., RFA No. 1724 of 1998, decided on 23.9.1999, wherein it was held as under:-
"PW25 had proved Ex.P.71 to P.73 which are the auction sales conducted by the Rehabilitation Department on 7.2.1991 where lands of more than 4 kanals were sold at the rate of nearly Rs. 259.91 per square yard. While in the case of HUDA PW4 clearly admitted in his statement that HUDA had sold plots, No.612, 613 and 615 measuring about 14x30 metres at the average rate of Rs. 1,00,131.98 per square yard. I would not like to rely on any of these sale instances for determining the market value of the land for variety of reasons:-
a) Auction terms and conditions have not been proved on record.
b) these public auctions have essentially an element of gambling and uncertainty inbuilt in them. The payments are to be made normally in instalments and the auction , purchaser is not required to pay the amount instantly. No final sale deed of these plots and Rehabilitation Department had been produced on record by the claimants;
c) These are developed plots and it is not possible for this Court to find out exactly the land cost element out of the figure given by PW4. Admittedly HUDA had sold fully developed plots which include1 development cost, element of interest, prospective development, margin money of the departments providing and repeated maintenance etc. and general facilities.
d) Where preferential and direct evidence and admissible comparable relevant instance having a direct bearing on the controversy in issue like sale-deeds and judicial instances exist, the Court may not prefer to take recourse to such method and computation.
10. This Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Rajinder Kumar, R.F.A. No.2351 of 1998, decided on 3.6.1999 has already held that such auction/sale instances are normally not a preferential piece of evidence to be relied upon by the Courts. The Court held as under:-
"Serious expenditure and efforts are put in by the State or authorities like PUDA before the developed, residential or commercial plots are put to public auction. Cost of land is one of the components of the minimum auction price fixed by the authorities. Auction price is not the price indicative only of the cost of land. It includes various other factors and components in its composition. It is a matter of public knowledge that it includes maintenance, construction and maintenance of roads in times to come, element of interest payable under different heads and other ancillary factors. An auction/bid is primarily is a speculative feature. The minimum price is already fixed by the authorities and it is only commercial attitude which the bidder bids in such auctions. An offer or bid, at best, could be concluded as an agreement to. sell which creates no evidence and in face of the provisions of Section 51 of the Act and it cannot be treated admissible and more so in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court of India in the case of P. Ram Reddy v. LA.O. HUDA, Hyderabad, 1995 L.A.C.C. 184, held that what are the terms and conditions of an auction and whether they ultimately culminated into a sale deed, there is no such evidence on record. The auction or bid of a developed plot cannot be equated to acquisition of land which either may be agricultural or may have even come up as haphazardly developed colony."
For the reasons aforestated I would not like to rely upon any of the auction sale instances in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
11. Another very pertinent reason for not relying upon these instances is that there in sufficient, relevant, admissible and direct evidence available on record to determine the fair market value of the land. Sale instances have been proved on record and there-are even judgments of the Court in relation to the lands in the same revenue estates. It is a settled principle of law that the Court would normally rely upon the direct evidence like sale instances which are admissible relevant and comparable and then Judicial pronouncements and then other material evidence of the kind afore-referred. Therefore. I would not prefer to rely upon these references and would keep them out of the one of consideration for determining the fair market value of the acquired land on the date of notification. The only purpose that these exhibits are relevant as to show the increasing trend of prices of the acquired properties around the acquired land.
12. At this juncture it will be useful to discuss the boundaries and distance, between the land falling under three different revenue estates of Hisar, Satrod Khurd and Satrod Khas. As far as oral evidence is concerned, it has come on record that the land of the owners from these three different villages is in a compact unit. Ex.P.63 is the list of industries to whom the sheds were allotted by the General Manager, Industries Centre, Hisar. This industrial colony abuts part of the acquired land from all the villages. PW30, Sita Ram has stated that the industrial area was developed in the year 1962.
13. Ex.P.55 indicates no such features on pertinent points on the basis of which much of distinction could be drawn between the various parts of this land from three revenue estates which ultimately form a composite block which had been aqquired. All the lands acquired are hardly at a distance from the other revenue estate. To give an example, on the basis of Ex.P.55, Khasra No.5361, 5360, 5369 and 5366 have been acquired from H.B. No.146 in the revenue estate of Hisar while Khasra No.120/25, 150/328 in the revenue estate villages Satrod Khurd and Satrod Khas under Had Bast No. 154, 155 are at a distance of 1 to 2 inches (the scale adopted in Ex.P.55 being 1 inch = 500 feet). In the same manner various other Khasra numbers of different revenue estates are at a maximum distance of near 4000 feet to 5000 feet. Such small distances of the acquired land from different revenue estates which are even close in terms of Had Bast Numbers cannot be classified into such different categories that there would be considerable decrease in grant of compensation to the owners of the land in different revenue estates.
14. No doubt, the land in the Municipal limits of Hisar of Hisar revenue estate would be having a higher value than the lands of village Satrod Khurd and Satrod Khas which came into the Municipal limits of Hisar at a subsequent time. In other words the area of Hisar revenue estate must be developed earlier and would be having a little edge in terms of location, potential and value over the lands located in Satrod Khurd and Satrod Khas. But this does not certainly justifies the parity created by the learned Additional District Judge in allotting different compensations of such varied amounts to the claimants in these revenue estates.
15. It was contended on behalf of the claimants that the learned Additional District Judge has come to the conclusion based on Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7 that the value of the land should be Rs. 350/- per square yard, but has still awarded the claimants highest of value only to the extent of Rs. 235/- per square yard. I have already discussed that exhibited documents in relation to allotment and auction of residential or commercially developed plots would not be a safe-guide to determine the fair market value of the land in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Further more, Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.91 could not be relied upon to determine the just and fair market value of the acquired land for the reason that Ex.P.91 is a very small piece of land and Ex.P.7 is a sale of one day before the date of notification by which the present land was acquired. Thus, on these basis if the learned Judge has arrived at the market value of Rs. 350/- per square yard, the same in my opinion cannot be justified. The effect of Ex.P.6,1 would shortly proceed to discuss.
16. Main reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on Ex.P.6, Ex.P.7, P.25 and Ex.P.44. The learned counsel for the State did not dispute that these exhibits have already been proved on record in accordance with law, but I have already come to the conclusion that Ex.P.7 should not be taken into consideration because it gives an exaggerated value of the land because everybody would have known about the acquisition of land as the sale instance is only one day prior to the date of notification. As far as Ex.P.44 is concerned, it relates to a sale consideration and vacation charges paid to the lessee on 1.10.1985 for getting possession of 12 marlas of land. Thus, 1 would not consider Ex.P.7 as well as Ex.P.44 as relevant and comparable instances to ' determine the fair market value.
17. That leaves this Court with two sale instance Ex.P.6 and P.25. As far as Ex.P.25 is concerned, it gives the value of Rs. 259.88 per square yard for a sale of nearly 6 kanals 10 marlas dated 7.2.1991, Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.25 have been reflected on Ex.P.55 as sale instance No.29 and 22 respectively. Sale deed Ex.P.25 is immediately adjacent to the acquired land and therefore, can be stated to be safely a comparable instance in relation to point of time, size of plot, location and potential and, thus, is certainly a comparable instance. Average of these two sale instances comes to Rs. 253.94 per. square yard. The claimants would be entitled to the benefit of increase in the case of land as consistent increase in the prices has been brought on record even by documents produced on record by the claimants, even part of which are the documents of the respondents or its various departments. Thus, giving them increase of 12% for the one intervening year, the average title price would come to Rs. 484.42.
18. At least 20% deduction would have to be applied in the facts and circumstances of the case. Keeping in mind that surrounding areas are developed, industries are there and civic amenities and facilities are there, so higher element of deduction would not be justifiable. On this basis the claimants would be entitled to get nearly Rs. 229/- per square yard. The Court cannot ignore the fact that Hisar was a developing city in all sphere right from the year 1961 There is a rapid progress, just prior to the period of notification as is clear from the allotment letters and auction bids conducted by the respondents which have been placed on record. Thus, I see no error in the judgment of the learned trial Court in granting the claimants compensation at the rate of Rs. 235/- per square yard.
19. The only point of consideration is that there was no evidence on record to grant to the claimants whose lands were acquired from the revenue estates of villages Satrod Khurd and Satrod Khas, compensation of such low amount. There appears to be unreasonable gap between the amounts awarded on account of compensation to the claimants. While there is no direct or material evidence which would justify such high distinction between the two classes of land, more particularly, when they form more or less a compact piece of land, uninterrupted by any element or restriction.
20. For the afore-stated reasons, seen in the light of the above discussion, it would be just, fair and equitable that the claimants in village Satrod Khurd and Satrod Khas are granted higher compensation than awarded by the learned Court below. Giving some dis-advantage to the claimants of these two villages for location, potential and utility, it would be just and fair that they are awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 175/- per square yard.
21. The learned Advocate General, Haryana, placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors., etc v. Mangatu Ram etc., A.I.R. 1997 Supreme Court 2704 and another judgment of this Court in the case of Partap Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr., R.F.A. No. 1724 of 1998, decided on 23.9.1999. In the case of Mangatu Ram, lands were acquired in the year 1984 of villages Satrod and Melyar, while in Partap Singh's case lands were acquired in the year 1991 from revenue estate of Hisar itself.
22. It must be noticed that these judgments were never tendered before the Collector or before the learned Additional District Judge. They were not even referred in the arguments by the State. So the claimants never the had the opportunity to meet these judgments and to lead evidence to prove the distance of the land location and potentially of the land and other ingredients which would still justify grant of higher compensation. The acquisitions in the above two cases are much prior in point of time. Furthermore, the evidence which has been produced in these cases was not produced in the case of either Mangatu Ram or Partap Singh. Thus, I would not consider it appropriate to be guided by these precedents in determining the compensation payable to the claimants.
23. Learned counsel for the claimants while relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Smt. Shakuntalabai and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, J.T. 1995(8) S.C. 501, Harcharan v. State of Haryana, A.I.R. 1983 Supreme Court 43 and Punni Devi alias Basant Kaur v. Collector, Land Acquisition, Industries Department, Punjab, Chandigarh and Anr., (1992-1)101 P.L.R. 516 contended that judicial pronouncements be made, the basis for determining the compensation where they have been tendered and proved on record in accordance with law. Then he relied upon Ex.P. 117 and Ex.P. 118 to claim compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,100/- per square yard or even after application of principle of deduction at least Rs. 1,000/- per square yard. The principle of law advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be disputed, but these instances cannot be stated to be comparable .instances as they related to the acquisition of land of very small places in the heart of city of. Hisar where flyover bridge was to be constructed at Pahre Chowk, where two major roads were meeting. That land at the time of acquisition was not agricultural land but was a commercial place where by the side of the main highway claimants had constructed their shops, houses and in fact part of their constructed lands was acquired.
24. Ex.P. 115 can be taken into consideration which is Roop Basant's case, where the land was acquired in the year 1983 and the High Court in R.F.A. No.164 of 1992, decided on 24.2.1994 had awarded Rs. 120/- per square yard to the claimants in those cases. The Special Leave Petition against the said judgment was dismissed. In Roop Basant's case the land was acquired near Sector 13 (Part I) i.e. for development of Sector 13 (Part I) in the year 1983. Thus, awarding of Rs. 235/- to the claimants after lapse of more than 9 years would not be on any ground unjustified or unfair.
25. For the reasons afore-stated I am of the considered view that the claimants would be entitled to get a sum of Rs. 235/- per square yard where the lands are located in the Municipal limits of H.B. No. 146 in the revenue estate of Hisar, while the claimants whose lands were located in village Satrod Khurd and Satrod Khas and were within the Municipal limits of Hisar City would be entitled to get Rs. 175/- per square yard, with all statutory benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. I see no merit in the appeals preferred by the State.
26. As a result of the above discussion, all the appeals preferred by the State are dismissed without any order as to costs, However, the appeals of the claimants to the restricted extent afore-said shall stand partly allowed with proportionate costs.