Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harpal Singh vs Land Acquisition Collector And Ors. on 14 September, 2005
Equivalent citations: (2006)142PLR271
Author: Viney Mittal
Bench: H.S. Bedi, Viney Mittal
JUDGMENT Viney Mittal, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of a bunch of 34 Letters Patent Appeals as all the appeals have arisen out of a common judgment dated July 27, 2000 passed by the learned Single Judge. All the present appeals have been filed by the claimant-land-owners claiming further enhancement for the acquired land.
2. Vide a notification dated May 3, 1988 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) land measuring 48.47 acres in village Ratgal, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra was sought to be acquired for establishment of a City Centre in Sector 10, Kurukshetra. Subsequently, the land was acquired. Vide an award dated February 22, 1991, the Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.1,70,000/- per acre for the acquired land. The claimant-land-owners remained dis-satisfied and claimed a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The matter was accordingly referred.
3. During the course of reference proceedings, the parties led their respective evidence. On appreciation of the aforesaid evidence, the learned reference Court assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.3,46,000/- per acre. The claimants were also held entitled to statutory benefits under the provisions of the Act. The claimants still remained dis-satisfied. They approached this Court through the various first appeals. Even the State of Haryana challenged the enhancement granted by the reference Court by filing the appeals. A 11 the appeals were taken up for consideration by the learned Single Judge.
4. Vide the judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge enhanced the market value of the acquired land and held that the claimant-land owners were entitled to Rs. 4,35,600/- per acre as compensation, besides the statutory benefits. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the claimant-landowners were allowed and as a result thereof the appeals filed by the State of Haryana were dismissed.
5. The claimant-landowners have now approached this Court through the present appeals claiming further enhancement.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have also gone through the record of the case.
7. The learned counsel for the claimant-appellants have primarily argued that the assessment had been made by the learned Single Judge relying upon an earlier award Ex. PZ. The said award passed by the learned Additional District Judge dated September 1, 1992 pertains to acquisition of land in village Ratgal for further development of Sector 11. The notification pertaining to acquisition was issued on April 21, 1987. The learned Additional District Judge vide Ex. PZ had assessed the compensation at the rate of Rs.4,84,000/- per acre. The said award was upheld by this Court in first appeal and also in Letters Patent Appeal. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the claimants that even a Special Leave Petition filed against the aforesaid judgment of the High Court was dismissed as withdrawn. A grievance has been made by the claimant-landowners that although the learned Single Judge himself held that the land covered under the award Ex. PZ was situated in the same revenue estate of village Ratgal and that the land was comparable to the present acquired land, but still while making the assessment in the present proceedings, the learned Single Judge had applied a deduction of 10%. The learned counsel for the claimants has contended that not only the aforesaid deduction is totally uncalled for, but on the other hand, the claimants were entitled to further enhancement, since the notification leading to Ex. PZ was issued on April 21, 1987, whereas, notification in the present case was issued on May 3, 1988.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State of Haryana has supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge. It has been contended by the learned State counsel that the learned Single Judge had rightly held that while awarding compensation in Ex. PZ no deduction for purposes of development had been applied and, therefore, the aforesaid deduction had rightly been made while making the assessment in the present acquisition proceedings by the learned Single Judge.
9. We have duly considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.
10. At the outset certain observations made by the learned Single Judge while making the assessment of the market value in the present acquisition proceedings may be noticed as follows:
Before discussing the fair market price of land in question it is important to discuss the evidence on record to location and potential of the acquired land. As already noticed the respondents produced hardly any evidence in this regard except producing on record Aksh Shirja Ex. RW 1/A. On the other hand, the claimants have examined number of witnesses in this regard including the claimants themselves. Ex. P-1 which has been proved by PW-1 shows that the land was acquired for development of Sector 10. Part of this sector includes All India Radio Station and Bus Stand, Kurukshetra, Ex.P-4 is part and parcel of Sector 10 itself. Sector 10 on the eastern side is adjacent to the land acquired for Sector 7. On the southern side there are District Courts, D.C. office etc. On the northern side there is metalled road dividing Sector 13 and Sector 10. In other words, both Sector 10 and 13 are abutting a 60 feet wide metalled road. Opposite to Sector 10, is Sector 11 and Sector 11 has been divided into two sections residential and commercial sector by HUDA. Both these Sectors 10 and 11 are abutting the State Highway Pipli-Kurukshetra metalled road. Ex.P-1 obviously shows that the earlier sectors had been developed or were under development. In this regard references can be made to the statement of PW-2 Sat Pal, PW-4 Ram Sarup Patwari, RW-1 Braham Pal Patwari and PW-8 Raj Kumar Architect. The cumulative reading of statements of these witnesses show that the area has been developed and major part of it is under development. Another very material piece of statement is that of PW-5 Vijay Kumar Clerk of the Estate Officer of HUDA who produced the pamphlet Ex.PW-5/A, which was issued by them in the year 1991. It may not have a direct bearing on the value of the land as such but the following extract of statement of PW-5 shows the extent of developments in 1991, which itself would indicate that at the time of acquisition of present land of 1988 the surrounding and even part of the acquired land could not be called as agricultural land or a Banjar land:-
The Urban Development Authority has already allotted residential plots in Sectors 13, 7, 5 and 2 Kurukshetra. A major part of the total plots in Sector 3 at Kurukshetra also stand allotted. Besides, the Haryana Housing Board has also set up its Housing Colonies in Sector 13 and is further setting up to housing colonies in Sector 7.
PW-5 in his statement stated that plots in Sector 2 were allotted as back as in the year 1987 and in Sector 5 it was in August, 1986 and thereafter the plots were sold at the rates ranging between 170 per square meter to Rs. 340/- per square meter.
This does not in any case and in fact is even neither the contention of the claimants that they would be entitled to receive compensation at such rates. Even otherwise Ex. relates to the period 1991 and is no index to the determination of the value of the acquired land. But one aspect of the matter is clear that the land in question has great residential and commercial potential at the time of its acquisition. Reverting back to the determination of the fair market value, I am of the considered view that Ex. PZ which relates to the acquisition of the land in the year 1987 in Sector 11 (opposite to Sector 10), both sectors abutting the State Highway i.e. Pipli-Kurukshetra would be by all stands a comparable instance. The time, location, potential and a very material fact that the compensation which has been awarded by a Bench of this Court is Rs. 4,84,000/- per acre as in the year 1987. This judgment Ex. PZ of the learned Additional District Judge was affirmed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Gurbachan Singh 's case (supra) and was then affirmed by the Letters Patent Bench. Claimants were awarded a sum of Rs. 4,84,000/- per acre.
From the aforesaid observations made by the learned Single Judge, it is apparent that it has been held that the present acquired land, which had been acquired for further development of Sector 10, was situated across road from Sector 11. It has further been noticed that both these Sectors 10 and 11 are abutting the State Highway Pipli-Kurukshetra metalled road. It has also been noticed that around the acquired land a large number of important establishments had come up. la these circumstances, the learned Single Judge was absolutely justified in holding that the present acquired land was absolutely comparable to the earlier acquired land leading to award Ex. PZ, which had been acquired in the year 1987.
11. However, we do not find any justification for applying a cut on the assessment made through the earlier award Ex. PZ. The learned Single Judge has applied the aforesaid cut primarily holding that the reference Court in those proceedings had not applied the principle of deduction on account of development charges etc. On that account, a deduction of 10% has been applied while making the assessment in the present proceedings. Once the award Ex. PZ, passed by the reference Court, had attained finality, inasmuch as, the appeal against the aforesaid award being Gurbachan Singh v. State of Haryana (1994-3)108 P.L.R. 318, had been dismissed and even Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No. 449 of 1994 was also dismissed by a Division Bench on November, 7, 1994, then it could not be said in any manner that the assessment made in award Ex. PZ suffers from any infirmity or that some deduction was still liable to be made while making the assessment. It is also apparent from the perusal of the facts noticed in the judgment of the learned Single Judge that a Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Haryana had been dismissed as withdrawn. Thus, once the award Ex. PZ has attained finality and pertains to the land which was totally held to be comparable with the present acquired land, then the compensation for the present acquired land was also required to be made on the basis of Ex. PZ alone, which has assessed the market value at the rate of Rs.4,84,400/-.
12. At this stage, we may also notice that the notification leading to the award Ex.PZ was issued on April 21, 1987. Notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present proceedings was issued on May 3, 1988. A gap of more than one year had occurred. On that amount, the claimant-landowners are entitled to further enhancement on account of the aforesaid time gap.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the claimant-landowners in the present acquisition proceedings should be held entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 5 lacs per acre for the acquired land.
14. We order accordingly.
15. Besides the aforesaid compensation, the claimant-landowners shall also be entitled to statutory benefits as per the provisions of the Act.
Accordingly, the present appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms.