Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bakshi Ram Jain And Ors. vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 7 February, 1997
Equivalent citations: (1997)117PLR831
Author: T.H.B. Chalapathi
Bench: T.H.B. Chalapathi
JUDGMENT M.S. Liberhan, J.
1. This, order will dispose of all the four appeals arising out of an order of learned Single Judge dated December 6, 1984 declining the reference Under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') inter alia on the ground that the compensation was received by the claimants-appellants without protest.
2. Expurgated version of the claimants run thus:
124 Kanals 15 Marias of land was acquired for the Housing Colony to be constructed by the Municipal Committee within the Municipal limits of Dadri vide Notification dated 6.11.1975 issued Under Section 4.of the Act. By an order dated June 2,1976 the Land Acquisition Collector determined the compensation with respect of the acquired land at the following rates;
(i) RosaliChahi Rs. 9,760/- per acre.
(ii) Rosali Barani Rs. 8,000/- per acre.
(iii) Gair mumkin Rs. 3,000/- per acre.
3. The claimants put in their claims Under Section 18 of the Act vide their claim petitions dated 9.7.1976 inter alia claiming Rs. 26/- per sq. yard as the market value of the land acquired and further sought a reference to the District Judge to assess the market value of the land under acquisition. Accordingly, the Land Acquisition Collector referred the matter to the District Judge. While forwarding the reference, the Collector sent the statement Under Section 19 of the Act, in Which it was specially noted in the forwarding letter that the claimants have accepted the compensation awarded by the Collector under protest. The learned District Judge relying on an earlier award dated 25.4.1977 with respect to the land acquired vide Notification dated 12.3.1974, assessed compensation at the rate of Rs. 8/- per sq. yard for Rosali Chahi land and Rs. 7/- per sq. yard for all other kinds of land. The State as well as the claimants preferred Regular First Appeals respectively. The State appeals were allowed inter alia holding that since the payments of the compensation awarded by the Collector have been accepted by the claimants without protest, they are not entitled to seek a reference for enhancement of the compensation. Since the State appeals were accepted, no assessment was made On merits by the learned Single Judge.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the awarded compensation was received by the claimants without protest cannot be sustained. The Counsel further contended that there is so specific procedure for lodging the protest while accepting the compensation. The claimants-appellants had lodged the protest. The statements of the appellants are reliably supported by the factual and circumstantial evidence. In support of his arguments, learned Counsel for the appellants upon Ajit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 416 (SC.), Lachhman Dass v. State of Himachml Pradesh, (1988-2)94 P.L.R. 375, Rattan Singh v. State of Haryana, (1994-1)106 P.L.R. 136, and Ajmer Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab, 1984, PLJ 325.
5. There is no dispute. about the proposition of the, law. The conspectus of law laid down, by these judgments emerges:-
(i) that no protest in writing is required while accepting the compensation. Oral protest is sufficient.
(ii) No particular form of the protest is prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act or the instruction issued there Under Section 18(2)(a) envisages six weeks' period from the date of the award for seeking a reference to District Judge to assess the compensation payable with respect to acquired land.
6. In case the reference is made within the prescribed time, it would itself be deemed to be a protest particularly when the land acquired is of the poor and illiterate people residing in rural area who are not expected to comprehend the legal niceties or complications of the Act especially when they are either procedural or are directory in nature.
7. Thirdly the Supreme Court observed that filing of an application for reference Under Section 18 of the Act manifests intention of the claimant to accept the award , under protest. Consequently, the statutory requirement of law stands complied with. Reference been made to Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab (1994-2) 107 PLR. 416
8. Fourthly, it is required from the State to prove claimant has accepted compensation voluntarily without registering any protest by his words or conduct or the same were of such a nature that tantamount to intentional representation for accepting the compensation without any reservation.
9. Before a citizen is required to get his claim to be assessed by the competent authority with respect to compensation, this is especially required while dealing with an illiterate or rustic person or a person under a disability, who cannot be judged on the test of 'legal maxim' that he is aware of the provisions of Section 18. There can be presumption that every person in this country knows the law especially the speedy change of law coming that even the most literate persons cannot keep a track of the legal position of law, as observed in AIR 1979 S.C.
10. We have gone through the record produced by the Counsel for the parties in Court as the original record is not before us. The said record is not disputed. We have gone through the statements of PW-1, PW, PW-3 and PW-4 read with statement of PW-1. We have also perused the letter No. 3588/DRA etc. dated 18.4.1977 making a reference Under Section 18 of the Act by the District Collector, Bhiwani to the District Judge, Bhiwani as well as the statement signed Under Section 19 of the Act by the claimants.
11. There is no gain-saying that men may lie, but the circumstances do not. The entire oral as well as the documentary evidence has to be considered in its totality not in isolation. There is no dispute that the land of the claimants was acquired and the award was announced on 2.6.1976 and the claimants put their claim on 5.7.1976 i.e. within the statutory period provided under the Act.
12. The claimants case is that they not only protested orally, but in writing also while receiving the payment of compensation. They individually and jointly protested at the time of receipt of the payment of compensation of their acquired land. Exhibit P-2, which is a carbon copy of the application made, by one of the claimants to the Collector, was produced on record wherein joint protest appears to have been recorded. We are unable to persuade ourselves to the view taken by the learned Single Judge while accepting State Appeals that Exhibit P-2 has not been proved as it should have been proved firstly by summoning the primary evidence and then secondary evidence. In the absence of any objection with respect to the mode of proof of a document by the respondents, it can be presumed that the State authorities have concceded to the mode of proving the document without undergoing the technicalities of Evidence Act to prove the same. I may hasten to add that the State has accepted truthfulness of the contents of document unless proved otherwise. Thus the authorities of the State, who are estopped by their act and conduct by not raising any objection at the appropriate time with respect to the mode to prove Exhibit P-2 cannot be permitted to say now at this stage that it has not been properly proved. In fact, the law as established by now in land compensation cases is that while the nature of the proceedings being investigatory and not being adversary, the strict principles of Evidence Act would not be applicable. From the scrutiny of the record, we come to the conceded that a joint protest was lodged by one Kabul Singh while receiving the compensation with one of the claimants namely Bakshi Ram who still has not received the compensation as is obvious from the statement Under Section 19 of the Act. It may be noticed that in three claim petitions the Collector himself stated that the compensation had been received under protest by the claimants while making reference to the District Judge. There cannot be any better evidence that the admission on the part of the respondents i.e. where the Collector had stated while forwarding the claim in covering letter that the claimants accepted the compensation under protest.
13. Lastly, but not the least when the claimants have put their claim Under Section 9 of the Act for getting the market value of their land assessed at Rs. 26/- per sq. yard while the Collector awarded a compensation hardly at Rs. 1.60 there would be no reason to believe that in ordinary course of conduct, reasonable or prudent person would not protest. One is not expected to accept the same without any protest or raising hue and cry for just compensation. Thus in totality of the circumstances as referred to above; we are of the considered view that in facts and circumstances, protest was lodged with the respondents while accepting the compensation and the claimants cannot be deprived of their right of reference Under Section 18 of the Act for getting the market value of their land assessed from the District Judge for the reason of their being not protestees at the time the award was given by the Land Acquisition Collector. So far as the decision relied upon by the respondents' Counsel i.e. 1995(4) S.C.C. 428 is concerned, there cannot be any dispute with the proposition of law, but the observation has been made on context of the facts in that case which are not pan materia with the facts and circumstances of this case as referred to above in the earlier part of the judgment.
14. The learned Counsel for the claimants-appellants further argued that since the acquired land is concededly located within the municipal limits and is in the town, the area/land situated within the municipal limits cannot be assessed as agricultural land. Keeping in view the potentiality if the land which is situated in the heart of the town and is adjacent to the Bus stand, it should have been assessed at the rates prevailing in the market at that time. Thus the compensation awarded at Rs. 8/- and Rs. 11/- for Rosali, Chahi and other types of land cannot be sustained.
15. The Counsel further argued and placed reliance on Exhibit P-A which is an earlier award whereby the market value of the land in respect of which the notification Under Section 4 was issued on 6.11.1973 was assessed at Rs. 8.70 per sq. yard. Therefore, there cannot be any justification to reduce the compensation of land in later acquisition especially when there is nothing on record to show that the prices in the locality where the acquired land is situated have gone down. Rather the general phenomenon of rising prides of the land cannot be lost sight of. Nothing has come on the record showing rise in prices though the claimants relied upon Exhibit P-1 which is Sale Deed with respect to the land measuring 14 Biswa 14 Biswansis and Exhibit F-3 is another Sale Deed for 15 marlas. The market price on which the lands were sold through these Sale Deeds comes to Rs.11.73 and Rs.26.50 per sq. yard respectively. Since there is nothing on record to locate the situation of these small plots and the Sale Deeds relate to small pieces of land, it cannot be said with certainty whether they represent the market value of the land. Exhibit P-A cannot be taken to represent the market value of the land in question. It is an award made earlier on which the claimants themselves have relied upon.
16. Keeping in view the locality, where the acquired land is situated i.e. being on the road side, where residential colony, cinema and shopping center are established, we can venture to say that the acquired land has to be assessed as potentially fit for urbanisation and not as an agricultural land and that too in one block.
17. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if we assess the market value of the entire land at Rs. 8.70 per sq. yard as one block. Resultantly, all the four appeals are accepted and the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 6.12.1984 is set aside. The claimants are awarded Rs. 8.70 per square yard in respect of the entire land under acquisition with statutory solatium and interest and they would hot be entitled to any benefits Under Section 23(1)(A) of the Act. No order as to costs.