Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Smt. Shanti Devi And Others on 14 May, 2010
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
R.F.A. No. 2929 of 2008 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: May 14 ,2010
1) R.F.A. No. 2929 of 2008
State of Haryana .... Appellant
Versus
Smt. Shanti Devi and others .... Respondents
2) R.F.A. No. 2930 of 2008 (O&M)
State of Haryana .... Appellant
Versus
Smt. Mamo and others .... Respondents
3) R.F.A. No. 2931 of 2008 (O&M)
State of Haryana .... Appellant
Versus
Rampal and others .... Respondents
4) R.F.A. No. 2932 of 2008 (O&M)
State of Haryana .... Appellant
Versus
Rajbiala and others .... Respondents
5) R.F.A. No. 2933 of 2008 (O&M)
State of Haryana .... Appellant
Versus
Smt. Munni and others .... Respondents
6) R.F.A. No. 2934 of 2008 (O&M)
State of Haryana .... Appellant
Versus
Vedpal and others .... Respondents
7) R.F.A. No. 2935 of 2008 (O&M)
State of Haryana .... Appellant
Versus
Sumer Singh and others .... Respondents
8) R.F.A. No. 2936 of 2008 (O&M)
State of Haryana .... Appellant
Versus
Rmesh and others .... Respondents
R.F.A. No. 2929 of 2008 [2]
9) R.F.A. No. 2937 of 2008 (O&M)
State of Haryana .... Appellant
Versus
Ajmer Singh and others .... Respondents
10) R.F.A. No. 2938 of 2008 (O&M)
State of Haryana .... Appellant
Versus
Chandi Ram and others .... Respondents
11) R.F.A. No. 2939 of 2008 (O&M)
State of Haryana .... Appellant
Versus
Dal Singh .... Respondent
12) R.F.A. No. 2940 of 2008 (O&M)
State of Haryana .... Appellant
Versus
Mangal and others .... Respondents
13) R.F.A. No. 2941 of 2008 (O&M)
State of Haryana .... Appellant
Versus
Satparkash and others .... Respondents
14) R.F.A. No. 2942 of 2008 (O&M)
State of Haryana .... Appellant
Versus
Chandan and others .... Respondents
15) R.F.A. No. 2943 of 2008 (O&M)
State of Haryana .... Appellant
Versus
Ishwar and others .... Respondents
16) R.F.A. No. 2944 of 2008 (O&M)
State of Haryana .... Appellant
Versus
Smt. Narain Devi and others .... Respondents
17) R.F.A. No. 2945 of 2008 (O&M)
State of Haryana .... Appellant
Versus
Omparkash and others .... Respondents
R.F.A. No. 2929 of 2008 [3]
18) R.F.A. No. 2946 of 2008 (O&M)
State of Haryana .... Appellant
Versus
Hari Singh and others .... Respondents
19) R.F.A. No. 2948 of 2008 (O&M)
State of Haryana .... Appellant
Versus
Dhupa .... Respondent
20) R.F.A. No. 2949 of 2008 (O&M)
State of Haryana .... Appellant
Versus
Smt. Bohati and others .... Respondents
21) R.F.A. No. 2950 of 2008 (O&M)
State of Haryana .... Appellant
Versus
Smt. Ramrati and others .... Respondents
22) R.F.A. No. 2951 of 2008 (O&M)
State of Haryana .... Appellant
Versus
Inder .... Respondent
23) R.F.A. No. 2952 of 2008 (O&M)
State of Haryana .... Appellant
Versus
Ram Kumar and others .... Respondents
24) R.F.A. No. 2953 of 2008 (O&M)
State of Haryana .... Appellant
Versus
Zile Singh .... Respondent
25) R.F.A. No. 2954 of 2008 (O&M)
State of Haryana .... Appellant
Versus
Dharambir and another .... Respondents
26) R.F.A. No. 2955 of 2008 (O&M)
State of Haryana .... Appellant
Versus
Kitab Singh and others .... Respondents
R.F.A. No. 2929 of 2008 [4]
27) R.F.A. No. 2956 of 2008 (O&M)
State of Haryana .... Appellant
Versus
Nan Singh and others .... Respondents
28) R.F.A. No. 2957 of 2008 (O&M)
State of Haryana .... Appellant
Versus
Mewa .... Respondent
29) R.F.A. No. 2958 of 2008 (O&M)
State of Haryana .... Appellant
Versus
Dilbhari and others .... Respondents
30) R.F.A. No. 2959 of 2008 (O&M)
State of Haryana .... Appellant
Versus
Kitab Singh and others .... Respondents
31) R.F.A. No. 2960 of 2008 (O&M)
State of Haryana .... Appellant
Versus
Rajpal and another .... Respondents
32) R.F.A. No. 3039 of 2008 (O&M)
State of Haryana .... Appellant
Versus
Kehar Singh .... Respondent
33) R.F.A. No. 3040 of 2008 (O&M)
State of Haryana .... Appellant
Versus
Lehna Singh and others .... Respondents
34) R.F.A. No. 4849 of 2008 (O&M)
Parshani and others ....Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
35) R.F.A. No. 4908 of 2008 (O&M)
Kehar Singh .... Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana .... Respondent
R.F.A. No. 2929 of 2008 [5]
36) R.F.A. No. 4909 of 2008 (O&M)
Mewa Singh .... Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana .... Respondent
37) R.F.A. No. 4910 of 2008 (O&M)
Dhupa .... Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana .... Respondent
38) R.F.A. No. 4911 of 2008 (O&M)
Inder .... Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana .... Respondent
39) R.F.A. No. 4912 of 2008 (O&M)
Zile Singh .... Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana .... Respondent
40) R.F.A. No. 4913 of 2008 (O&M)
Smt. Shanti Devi and others .... Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana .... Respondent
41) R.F.A. No. 4914 of 2008 (O&M)
Ajmer Singh and others .... Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana .... Respondent
42) R.F.A. No. 4915 of 2008 (O&M)
Smt. Bohati and others .... Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana .... Respondent
43) R.F.A. No. 4916 of 2008 (O&M)
Vedpal and others .... Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana .... Respondent
44) R.F.A. No. 4917 of 2008 (O&M)
Lehna Singh and others .... Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana .... Respondent
R.F.A. No. 2929 of 2008 [6]
45) R.F.A. No. 4918 of 2008 (O&M)
Hari Singh and others .... Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana .... Respondent
46) R.F.A. No. 4919 of 2008 (O&M)
Sumer Singh and others .... Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana .... Respondent
47) R.F.A. No. 4948 of 2008 (O&M)
Ramesh and others .... Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana .... Respondent
48) R.F.A. No. 264 of 2009 (O&M)
Smt. Mamo and others .... Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana .... Respondent
49) R.F.A. No. 815 of 2009 (O&M)
Bije Singh and others .... Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana .... Respondent
50) R.F.A. No. 816 of 2009 (O&M)
Ram Kumar and others .... Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana .... Respondent
51) R.F.A. No. 952 of 2009 (O&M)
Smt. Narian Devi and others .... Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana .... Respondent
52) R.F.A. No. 953 of 2009 (O&M)
Kitab Singh and others .... Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana .... Respondent
53) R.F.A. No. 954 of 2009 (O&M)
Smt. Ramrati and others .... Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana .... Respondent
R.F.A. No. 2929 of 2008 [7]
54) R.F.A. No. 1331 of 2009 (O&M)
Satparkash and others .... Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana .... Respondent
55) R.F.A. No. 1332 of 2009 (O&M)
Smt. Bohati and others .... Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana .... Respondent
56) R.F.A. No. 1333 of 2009 (O&M)
Dal Singh .... Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana .... Respondent
57) R.F.A. No. 1564 of 2009 (O&M)
Ishwar and others .... Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana .... Respondent
58) R.F.A. No. 3388 of 2009 (O&M)
Smt. Munni and others .... Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana .... Respondent
59) R.F.A. No. 4299 of 2009 (O&M)
Dilbhari and others .... Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana .... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. K. S. Malik, Advocate for the land owners.
Mr. H. S. Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
Rajesh Bindal J.
This order shall dispose of the above mentioned appeals, as the same arise out of a common award of the learned court below.
R.F.A. Nos. 4849, 4908 to 4919 and 4948 of 2008, 264, 815, 816, 952 to 954, 1331 to 1333, 1564, 3388 and 4299 of 2009 have been filed by the land owners seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land.
R.F.A. No. 2929 of 2008 [8]R.F.A. Nos. 2929 to 2946, 2948 to 2960, 3039 and 3040 of 2008 have been filed by the State for reduction in the amount of compensation awarded to the land owners.
The facts have been noticed from R.F.A. No. 2929 of 2008. Briefly, the facts of the case are that State of Haryana acquired 20.76 acres of land, situated in village Ghoghrian, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind, vide notification dated 19.8.2005, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for the purpose of extension of I-L Barsola Minor. The same was followed by notification dated 28.10.2005, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), vide award dated 29.9.2006, assessed the compensation @ Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre for all kinds of land. Feeling aggrieved, the land owners filed objections. On reference, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 7,00,000/- per acre.
Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the evidence produced by the land owners on record in the form of award (Ex. P1) announced by the Collector pertaining to the land of village Palwan, where for the acquisition carried out nearly at the same time, compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre was granted. It has come in the evidence that village Palwan is located adjoining to village Ghoghrian. He further referred to memo dated 6.4.2007 (Ex. P3), produced on record, whereby the State itself had enhanced the value of the land from Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre to Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre. The award in the present case was announced on 29.9.2006 and the aforesaid memo was issued on 6.4.2007. The benefit thereof can also be given to the land owners.
Another contention raised is that on account of acquisition, the land of the land owners was divided into two parts, which made it difficult for them to cultivate the other portion of the land. They could not use the means of irrigation for the other part of the land. The bridges or passages have not been provided. The acquisition being for construction of a drain, the same being at a level higher than the land, made it even difficult for the landowners to take their cattles or tractors etc. across the same. He further submitted that some tubewells were existing on the acquired land, for which no compensation has been paid. However, on a pointed query by the court as to whether any evidence was led by the land owners in the form of sale-deeds to show the value of the acquired land at the time of acquisition, the candid reply of learned counsel for the land owners was that there is no sale deed on record.
R.F.A. No. 2929 of 2008 [9]On the other hand, learned Advocate General, Haryana submitted that the compensation, as was granted by the Collector on the basis of the instructions issued by the Government was already much more than the value of the land in the area. The same did not call for any enhancement. However, still without there being any material on record, the learned court below has awarded Rs. 7,00,000/- per acre as compensation as against Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre assessed by the Collector. A perusal of the award shows that it was apparently on account of division of the land into two parts, but there is no detailed evidence on record to show how much land of which land owner has become useless or in cultivation of which, he is facing difficulty. In the absence of that, the land owners are not entitled to any compensation on account of severance. As regards tubewells are concerned, he submitted that appropriate compensation was paid to the persons on whose land the tubewells were existing. It was further submitted that reliance on memo (Ex. P3), which was issued on 6.4.2007, is totally mis-placed as the award in the present case was announced prior thereto. The same did not have any retrospective effect.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record.
What is not in dispute in the present case is that no sale deed was produced on record by the land owners to show that market value of the acquired land on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act was much more than the award of the Collector. The assessment of compensation by the Collector was made not on the basis of transactions in the area, but as per the decision taken in a meeting by the Divisional Commissioner, Hissar Division, which is as per memo dated 28.4.2005, where minimum floor rates were fixed for compensation to the land owners for the acquired land situated in different parts of the State. The aforesaid instructions were revised on 6.4.2007 (Ex. P3), whereby the land of the area concerned was directed to be valued at Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre as against Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre, as was fixed by the Collector in terms of the rates fixed by the Committee headed by the Divisional Commissioner, Hissar Division. It was as per the rate fixed by the government vide memo dated 28.4.2005. In terms of memo (Ex. P3), for any award announced after the issuance of memo on 6.4.2007, was to be assessed @ Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre. The award in the present case was announced on 29.9.2006.
As far as reliance on award (Ex. P1) is concerned, the same is totally mis-placed for the reason that there is no site plan on record to show the location of the land pertaining to village Palwan and the acquired land. In the absence R.F.A. No. 2929 of 2008 [10] thereof, no reliance could possibly be placed thereon.
It is not in dispute that acquisition in the present case was for extension of I-L Barsola Minor, which necessarily bifurcates the land. The level of the distributory is always above the level of the land, which makes it difficult to irrigate or use the divided portions of the land to its optimum and also to approach the other portion of the land. The bridges, if any, are provided at a distance and the land owners have to take a longer route to reach other part of the land. On that account, in my opinion, the land owners deserve to be compensated.
The learned court below in the present case has increased the value of land from Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre to Rs. 7,00,000/- per acre. It cannot be disputed that assessment of value of the land in acquisition cases cannot be by way of mathematical exactitude. Some guess work is always applied. In the present case, in my opinion, there are two factors, which justify the award of the learned court below, namely, that award of the Collector is in consonance with the instructions of the government dated 28.4.2005. After a gap of two years, the value was increased to Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre. The award in the present case is just six months prior to the revision of the instructions, though after the issuance of the earlier instructions on 28.4.2005. Further on account of severance also, the land owners are also entitled to some compensation, as the acquisition in the present case was for the purpose of construction of a minor. If both the factors are considered, the increase granted by the learned court below from Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre to Rs. 7,00,000/- per acre can neither be said to be on higher side nor on the lower side.
For the reasons mentioned above, the award of the learned court below does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the land owners as well as the State are dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge May 14, 2010 mk