Ram Kumar (Advocate) vs State Of Haryana And Others on 22 September, 2008

[Cites 3, Cited by 29]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ram Kumar (Advocate) vs State Of Haryana And Others on 22 September, 2008

This order will dispose of a bunch of 327 appeals and 3 cross objections arising out of acquisition of land vide notifications issued under R.F.A. No. 122 of 2000 [ 31] Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') on 21.7.1993 and 21.12.1998.

R.F.A. Nos. 69 to 81, 118 to 122, 216 to 231, 271,272, 301, 302, 337, 560, 662, 714, 715, 1493 to 1496 of 2000, 3957 to 3964, 4174, 4666, 4667 of 2003, 1492 to 1498, 1500 to 1520, 1523 to 1533, 1561 to 1564, 1626 to 1632, 1818, 1842 to 1853 of 2006, 2270, 2271, 2277, 2545, 2550, 3061 to 3064, 3796, 4314, 4463 of 2006, 2758, 2759 of 2007 and 1361 of 2008 have been filed by the land owners seeking enhancement of compensation for acquisition of land vide notifications dated 21.7.1993 and 21.12.1998.

R.F.A. Nos. 3 to 50, 118 to 120 of 2001, 3856, 3858 to 3869 of 2003, 1437 to 1441, 1534 to 1555, 1557, 1619 to 1624, 1724, 1763 to 1770, 1772 to 1786, 1788 to 1791, 1964 to 1967, 2073 to 2078, 2080 to 2090, 2093 to 2104, 2895 of 2006 have been filed by the State for reduction in the amount of compensation for the land acquired vide notification dated 21.12.1998.

In R.F.A. Nos. 1776, 1789 and 2078 of 2006 cross objections have been filed by the State for reduction in the amount of compensation.

Regarding acquisition vide notification dated 21.7.1993 The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 122 of 2000. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 21.7.1993, land measuring 157.20 acres, situated at Fatehabad, Hadbast No. 133, District Hissar was acquired for public purpose, namely, for development and utilisation thereof as residential and commercial purpose for Sector 3, Fatehabad by Haryana Urban Development Authority. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') awarded a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre as compensation including all the statutory benefits available under the Act which, according to learned counsel for the land owners, came to Rs. 1,81,200/- per acre excluding the stautory benefits. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections which were referred for consideration to the Court below, who vide award dated 5.10.1999 determined the compensation payable to the land owners at Rs. 206/- per square yard.

Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the learned Court below failed to appreciate the claim made by the land owners in its correct perspective. The evidence led by them has not been considered properly. The land admittedly is situated on National Highway No. 10 on one side and on the other side of the land falls Fatehabad-Bhuna road. It is quite close to the already urbanised area of the city of Fatehabad. The expansion of city was towards this R.F.A. No. 122 of 2000 [ 32] side and there was already pressure for setting up of commercial, residential and industrial establishments in the vicinity. Even the development by the government was also in this area as Subzi Mandi was set up just close to the acquired land after acquisition of the land for that purpose in the year 1987. To buttress his submission, learned counsel has referred to the evidence led before the Court below, which is as under:

Sr. Ex.No. Description of Date of sale Total price Rate per Size Remarks/Proved No. comparable area/ square yd. by:

plot No. ..................................................................................................................................

COMPARABLE SALES OF COMMERCIAL PLOTS OF IMPROVEMENT TRUST SCHEME NO. 1, FATEHABAD

1. P-1 Plot No. 1 28.6.81 1,36,000/- 10350.07 5.5x18 PW1 Ramesh meters Kumar, Asstt.

Improvement Trust, Fatehabad

2. -do- Plot No.2 28.6.81 95,000/- 7229.83 -do -do-

3. -do- Plot No. 3 -do- 1,00,000/- 7610.35 -do- -do-

4. -do- Plot No.4 -do- 1,00,000/- 7610.35 -do- -do-

5. -do- Plot No. 5 -do- 1,10,000/- 8371.38 -do- -do-

6. -do- Plot No.6 -do- 1,30,000/- 9893.45 -do- -do-

7. -do- Plot No. 7 -do- 1,20,000/- 9132.42 -do- -do-

8. -do- Plot No. 8 -do- 1,13,000/- 8599.69 -do- -do-

9. -do- Plot No. 9 -do- 1,05,000/- 7990.86 -do- -do-

10. -do- Plot No. 10 -do- 1,24,000/- 9436.83 -do- -do-

11. -do- Plot No. 73 -do- 90,000/- 21328.57 3.25x9.75 -do-

meters

12. -do- Plot No. 74 -do- 66,000/- 15714.28 -do- -do-

13. -do- Plot No. 75 -do- 60,000/- 14785.71 -do- -do-

14. -do- Plot No. 76 -do- 56,000/- 13333.33 -do- -do-

15. -do- Plot No. 83 -do- 82,000/- 19523.80 -do- -do-

16. -do- Plot No. 84 -do- 76,000/- 18095.23 -do- -do-

17. -do- Plot No. 85 -do- 70,000/- 16666.66 -do- -do-

18. -do- Plot No. 86 -do- 70,000/- 16666.66 -do- -do-

19. -do- Plot No. 87 -do- 70,000/- 16666.66 -do- -do-

20. -do- Plot No. 88 -do- 73,000/- 17380.95 -do- -do-

21. -do- Plot No. 89 -do- 73,000/- 17380.95 -do- -do-

22. -do- Plot No. 90 -do- 74,000/- 17619.64 -do- -do-

23. -do- Plot No. 91 -do- 77,000/- 18333.33 -do- -do-

 R.F.A. No. 122 of 2000                                   [ 33]

24.     -do-    Plot No. 15   17.11.90   7,20,000/-    54794.52   5.5x18        -do-

25.     -do-    Plot No. 16   -do-       7,60,000/-    57838.66   -do-          -do-

26.     -do-    Plot No. 51   -do-       3,51,000/-    83571.42   3.25x9.75     -do-
                                                                  mtrs.

27.     -do-    Plot No. 57   -do-       3,05,000/-    72619.04   -do-          -do-

28.     -do-    Plot No. 81   -do-       2,70,000/-    64285.71   -do-          -do-

29.     -do-    Plot No. 82   -do-       4,15,000/-    98809.52   -do-          -do-

30.     -do-    Plot No. 62   11.12.95   3,05,000/-    72619.04    -do-         -do-

31.     -do-    Plot No. 63   -do-       2,92,000/-    69523.80   -do-          -do-

32.     -do-    Plot No. 64   -do-       3,72,000/-    88571.42    -do-         -do-

33.     -do-    Plot No. 11   -do-       3,60,000/-    27397.26    -do-         -do-

34.     -do-    Plot No. 12   -do-       4,30,500/-    32762.55    -do-         -do-

COMPARABLE SALES OF COMMERCIAL PLOTS OF CLOTH MARKET FATEHABAD, CARVED OUT BY MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, FATEHABAD

35. P.12 Plot No. 1 1.2.88 5,60,000/- 20676.87 9'-9"x25' PW5 Sohan inclusive Lal, Clerk of verandah Municipal 8'-3" Committee Fatehabad

36. -do- Plot No.2 -do- 4,50,000/- 16615.35 -do- -do-

37. -do- Plot No.3 -do- 4,42,000/- 16319.97 -do- -do-

38. -do- Plot No.4 -do- 4,51,000/- 16652.25 -do- -do-

39. -do- Plot No. 5 -do- 4,52,000/- 16689.15 -do- -do-

40. -do- Plot No. 49 -do- 2,72,500/- 10061.53 -do- -do-

41. -do- Plot No.50 -do- 2,71,000/- 10006.15 -do- -do-

42. -do- Plot No.51 -do- 3,41,000/- 12590.76 -do- -do-

43. -do- Plot No.43 -do- 3,02,000/- 11150.76 -do- -do-

44. -do- Plot No. 57 -do- 3,25,000/- 11199.99 -do- -do-

45. -do- Plot No. 58 -do- 4,00,000/- 14769.23 -do- -do-

46. -do- Plot No.59 -do- 3,20,000/- 11150.76 -do- -do-

47. -do- Plot No.60 -do- 3,26,000/- 12036.92 -do- -do-

48. P.12 Plot No.64 1.2.88 4,02,000/- 14843.07 9'-9"x25' PW5 Sohan inclusive Lal, of verandah Municipal 8'-3" Committee, Fatehabad

49. -do- Plot No. 83 15.3.91 10,10,000/- 37292.30 -do- -do-

50. -do- Plot No.82 -do- 5,00,000/- 18461.53 -do- -do-

51. -do- Plot No.101 -do- 3,83,000/- 14141.53 -do- -do-

52. -do- Plot No.102 -do- 3,97,000/- 14658.46 -do- -do-

53. -do- Plot No.103 -do- 3,93,000/- 14510.76 -do- -do-

54. -do- Plot No.104 -do- 4,16,000/- 15359.99 -do- -do-

 R.F.A. No. 122 of 2000                                       [ 34]


55.     -do-    Plot No.109      -do-         6,67,000/-   24627.69     -do-           -do-

56.     -do-    Plot No.84       -do-         5,00,000/-   18461.53     -do-           -do-

57.     -do-    Plot No.66       -do-         7,61,000/-   28098.46     -do-           -do-

58.     -do-    Plot No.67       -do-         7,00,000/-   25846.46     -do-           -do-

COMPARABLE SALES OF RESIDENTIAL PLOTS BY HUDA BY PUBLIC ALLOTMENT OF PLOTS (ARISING OUT OF THE ACQUIRED LAND)

59. P.16 Sector 3 1.2.99 7,13,294.40 1420/- 1 kanal PW10 Naresh Fatehabad Kumar, J.E., HUDA

60. -do- -do- -do- 4,61,304.00 1290/- 14 marlas -do-

61. -do- -do- -do- 3,19,365.30 1290/- 10 marlas -do-

62. -do- -do- -do- 2,49,937.50 1290/- 8 marlas -do-

63. -do- -do- -do- 1,87,293.60 1160/- 6 marlas -do-

COMPARABLE PRIVATE SALES (OUT OF ACQUIRED LAND)

64. P-6 171/9 min North 28.8.89 5,00,000 206.61 4 kanal PW3 Atam (2-8) and 12 min Parkash North (1-12)

65. P-7 171//10(4-0) 28.8.89 5,00,000 206.61 4 kanal -do-

66. P-20 171//24(4-16) 29.10.90 1,95,000 433.33 15 marlas PW12 Harish Kumar

67. P-22 171//14(7-11) 29.3.91 1,25,000 417 10 marlas PW14 Pawan Kumar COMPARABLE PRIVATE SALES (ADJACENT TO ACQUIRED LAND)

68. P-15 128//12/7 29.10.90 99,000 2200 1-1/2 PW9 Hardawari marlas

69. P.21 128//12/1 29.10.90 98,000 2159.54 -do- PW13 Hanuman (5-16) INTER-DEPARTMENTAL TRANSFERS (OUT OF ACQUIRED LAND)

70. P-13 Sector 3, 10.8.97 270.07 372/- 15 acres PW7 Ram Fatehabad for lacs Kumar, Clerk Mini Secretariat HUDA

71. P-13 Sector 3, 10.8.97 403.29 1010/- 15 acres -do-

                Fatehabad                    lacs                     of 55% plotable area
                For Officers residences

INTER-DEPARTMENTAL TRANSFERS (ADJACENT TO ACQUIRED LAND)

72. P-8 Kh.Nos. 127//25 10.1.85 2,16,000 57K-10M PW5 Sohan 128//17,18,19, lacs Lal, Clerk, 20/1,21,22,23,24 M.C. Fatehabad R.F.A. No. 122 of 2000 [ 35]

73. P-9 Just abutting 10.2.93 15 lacs 8 kanals -do-

the acquired land for Auto Market.

Referring to the evidence led by the land owners, learned counsel submitted that the best piece of evidence which has been practically ignored by the learned Court below is in the form of sale deeds Ex. P.6, P.7, P.20 and P.22 which formed part of the acquired land. He further submitted that vide sale deeds (Ex. P.6 and P.7), executed on 28.8.1989, land measuring 4 kanals each was sold @ Rs. 206/- per square yard. As far as Ex. P.20 and P.22 are concerned, the submission is that vide sale deeds dated 29.10.1990 and 29.3.1991, land measuring 15 marlas and 10 marlas was sold @ of Rs. 433/- and Rs. 417/- per square yard, respectively. In addition to this, reference has been made to Ex. P.1, a chart showing details of various plots sold in Improvement Trust Scheme No.1, Fatehabad by Improvement Trust by way of open auction on 28.6.1981, the price range of which is Rs. 7,229.83 to Rs. 21,428.57 per square yard. This document further contains the details of auction conducted on 17.11.1990, whereby the plots were sold in the range of Rs. 54,794.52 to Rs. 98,809.52 per square yard. However, it was not disputed that these plots are situated in a market developed by Improvement Trust, which is situated just opposite the bus stand in the already developed and thickly populated area. The plots are small in size. Another document relied upon is in the form of Ex. P.12 showing the sale of plots by way of open auction on 1.2.1988 carved out by Municipal Committee in Cloth Market, Fatehabad having size of 9'-9"x25' inclusive of verandah 8'-3". The price range was between Rs. 10,006.15 and Rs. 16,689.15 per square yard, whereas for the auction conducted in the same market on 15.3.1991, the price range was Rs. 14,141.53 to Rs. 37,292.30. The area falls where civic amenities are already available and the owners of the establishments and residents in the area are being charged house tax.

Further reference and reliance is on plot sold by Haryana Urban Development Authority after development of the land in question forming part of Sector 3, which is in the price range of Rs. 1,160/- per square yard for a plot of six marlas and Rs. 1420/- per square yard for a plot of one kanal. The advertisement for sale was issued on 1.2.1999. Other evidence, referred to by the learned counsel is in the form of Ex. P.15 and P.21 showing sale of 1-1/2 marlas land each vide sale deeds dated 29.10.1990 on Fatehabad-Bhuna road with an average price of Rs. 2,150/- per square yard. Reference has also been made to documents Ex. P.8, P.9 and P.13 showing transfer of land by one government department to the other at different prices. In support of the claim, reference has also been made to the oral R.F.A. No. 122 of 2000 [ 36] evidence led by the parties, regarding situation of the land as on the date of acquisition showing various units, residences, schools, factories and other establishments in the vicinity at the time of acquisition including the fact that the land is situated on main National Highway No. 10 leading towards Sirsa. To show the exact location of the land, site plan Ex. P.24 has also been referred to.

Learned Advocate General, Haryana submitted that the value of land as assessed by the learned Court below in fact deserves reduction what to talk of increase as is sought to be claimed by the land owners. The evidence led by the State has been practically ignored. Sale transactions of small piece of land could not possibly be relied upon to assess the market value of large chunk of land as has been done in the present case. The rate at which small plots have been sold by Improvement Trust or Municipal Committee in market developed in the heart of the town cannot be made the basis for determination of the value of the acquired land. Similarly, the rate at which State transferred land to other department or rate at which HUDA sold plots nearly six years after the acquisition after developing the area, cannot be relied upon to seek enhancement in compensation of the land.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As far as evidence in the form of Ex. P.1 with regard to a chart containing details of various plots sold in Improvement Trust Scheme No.1 in an open auction is concerned, the same cannot be considered to be a good piece of evidence for determination of fair value of the land under acquisition. A perusal of the site plan Ex. P.24 shows that location of the market in which the Improvement Trust sold the plots is situated just opposite the bus stand in the thickly populated area of city of Fatehabad, which has no comparison with the large chunk of land acquired which falls towards one end of the city. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to refer to any provision of law to submit that merely a list produced showing the details of the plots sold can be considered to be a good piece of evidence for determining the fair value of the land. To the similar effect is a document (Ex.P.12) where the details of sale of plots by Municipal Committee in Cloth Market is concerned, there also the sale is of small plots in open auction in a market situated in the thickly populated area of city of Fatehabad, which again being only a list of the plots sold, cannot be relied upon for the purpose of determination of the value of the present land.

As far as Ex. P.8, P.9 and P.13 are concerned, which depict rates at which the land was transferred by one government department to the other at different rates, the same also cannot be considered to be a good piece of evidence R.F.A. No. 122 of 2000 [ 37] for determining the fair value of the land as the same will not show the correct price at which a buyer and seller will deal with the property, as it was transactions between the two government departments itself.

Coming to Ex. P.15 and P.21, again in the considered opinion of this Court, the same cannot be considered to be a relevant piece of evidence for determining fair value of the land under acquisition. It is for the reason that the transaction is only for 1-1/2 marlas of land each situated on main Fatehabad-Bhuna road with auto market opposite to it, besides other shops in the vicinity.

As far as Ex. P.16 is concerned, which is in the form of brochure issued by Haryana Urban Development Authority on 1.2.1999 showing different rates for the plots to be sold by way of allotment in the price range of Rs. 1,160/- to Rs. 1,420/- per square yard for a plot measuring six marlas and one kanal plots respectively, also cannot be considered to be a good piece of evidence for determination of the value of the land as on the date of acquisition i.e. 21.7.1993, nearly 5-1/2 years before. Another factor which makes this evidence irrelevant for the purpose of determination of the fair value is that the rates are fixed by Haryana Urban Development Authority after development of the area providing civic amenities, where the plotable area for which the sale consideration is received is reduced considerably.

In the end, as far as evidence on record in the present case is concerned, the Court is left with four exhibits, namely, P.6 and P.7 showing two sale deeds of four kanals each registered on 28.8.1989 and Ex. P.20 and P.22 showing sale deeds registered on 29.3.1991 for 15 kanals and 10 kanals each.

In addition to this, another sale transaction which has come to the notice of the Court at the time of hearing of the cases pertaining to acquisition vide notification dated 21.12.1998, is in the form of Ex. P.42, executed on 23.3.1992, which though is not part of the evidence produced in the present case but the same is on record in the evidence in set of appeals before this Court with regard to the acquisition of the land in the area vide notification dated 21.12.1998. Vide this sale deed, 360 square yards of land was sold vide sale deed dated 23.3.1992 @ of Rs. 277/- per square yard. The aforesaid land is situated on Fatehabad-Bhuna road. As this transaction has also come to the notice of the Court while hearing the cases for acquisition arising out of two different notifications, the same was also taken into consideration.

As far as the claim of the land owners that transactions of sale entered into on 28.8.1989 vide Ex. P.6 and P.7 should be taken into consideration by granting an annual increase of 12% thereon, the same is misconceived for the R.F.A. No. 122 of 2000 [ 38] reason that there are transactions available for the period subsequent thereto in the form of Ex. P.20 and P.22 which though are for small plots of land but entered into on 29.3.1991. The average of transactions entered into vide these two sale deeds comes out to Rs. 420/- per square yard. As these transactions were entered into in March, 1991 and the land in question was acquired in July, 1993, after granting an increase @ 10% per annum, i.e., Rs. 97/- per square yard, the value thereof on the date of acquisition can be determined at Rs. 520/- per square yard. Though at the cost of repetition, it is mentioned that the land forming part of Ex. P.20 is situated on the main National Highway 10, whereas the land forming part of Ex. P.22 is situated just behind it, almost at a distance of one acre from the main Highway. Keeping in view the fact that these are transactions for small plots of land measuring 15 marlas and 10 marlas, a reasonable cut has to be applied while considering the acquisition for a large chunk of land. Accordingly, in my opinion, 50% cut would be reasonable. By applying the cut, the value of the land will come out to Rs. 260/- per square yard. However, this compensation cannot be determined for the entire chunk of land which has a good amount of depth from the National Highway. The land abutting the main Highway certainly has more value as compared to the land behind that.

Accordingly, in my opinion, it would be appropriate to determine the value of the land acquired by applying the belting method and for a depth upto 100 meters on National Highway 10, which is determined at the rate of Rs. 260/- per square yard.

As far as the land situated thereafter, in my opinion, no illegality as such has been committed by the learned Court below while awarding the compensation @ Rs. 206/- per square yard. The same can be examined from different angle in addition to what has been followed by the Court below while granting compensation at that rate. It is by taking average of three sale deeds, namely, Ex. P.20 and P.22 and sale instance Ex.P. 42 forming part of record in proceedings for determination of value for the land acquired vide notification dated 21.12.1998. The date of sale deeds Ex. P.20 and P.22 is 18.3.1991 and 27.3.1991, whereas the date of sale deed Ex.P.42 is 23.3.1992. The genuineness of these transactions have not been doubted by the State. The land forming part of Ex. P.20 is situated on the National Highway, whereas the land forming part of sale deed Ex. P.22 is situated almost one acre inside the main Highway. Both these transactions are forming part of the acquired land, whereas the land forming part of sale deed dated 23.3.1992 is situated on Fatehabad- Bhuna road, which abuts the acquisition boundary. If increase @ 10% per annum from the date these R.F.A. No. 122 of 2000 [ 39] transactions were entered into till the date of acquisition is granted, the value of Ex. P.20 and P.22 would come to Rs. 520/- per square yard, whereas the value of land forming part of sale deed dated 23.3.1992 will come to Rs. 310/- per square yard, the average of which would be Rs. 415/- per square yard. If a cut of 50% is applied on the value of these transactions which are situated on National Highway and Fatehabad-Bhuna road (State Highway), the value of the land which is beyond 100 meters of National Highway 10 can very well be Rs. 207.50 per square yard which is quite close to the amount of compensation already determined by the learned Court below.

As far as compensation payable to the owners of land forming part of Ex. P.20 and P.22 is concerned, it has come on record that they had purchased the land at the rate of Rs. 433/- and 413/- per square yard respectively and the amount of compensation determined as payable to the land owners has been determined at Rs. 260/- and Rs. 206/- per square yard for two categories, they cannot be put to loss as the genuineness of transactions entered into by them has not been disputed. Once they have spent more amount than the price of the land determined, keeping in view the same to be a big chunk under acquisition, they shall be entitled to the actual cost of purchase of land along with annual increase @ 10% thereon. Similar view was expressed by this Court in Gurmukh Singh v. Punjab State, 1987 Recent Revenue Reports 143.

Regarding acquisition vide notification dated 21.12.1998 As far as the location of the land acquired vide notification dated 21.12.1998 is concerned, the same is situated behind the land acquired vide notification dated 21.7.1993 upto Fatehabad-Bhuna road. A part of the land is situated on the National Highway which is opposite the land already acquired vide notification dated 21.7.1993 and ahead of that, whereas a small chunk of land was acquired across the sector road connecting National Highway 10 with Fatehabad- Bhuna road. As there are no sale transactions on record within the period of two acquisitions, i.e., 21.7.1993 and 21.12.1998, for the latter acquisition under consideration, 12% annual increase can safely be awarded to the land owners on the value of the land already determined for the acquisition carried out vide notification dated 21.7.1993. The primary reason therefor is that in 1997, Fatehabad was declared as an independent district, which certainly added to the value of the property especially when Mini Secretariat was sought to be constructed on part of the land acquired in 1993, which is adjoining the land acquired in 1998. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact of regular appreciation of prices in the area keeping in view the fact that the process to set R.F.A. No. 122 of 2000 [ 40] up Mini Secretariat in the part of land acquired in 1993 had already started in 1997 before the acquisition of land vide notification dated 21.12.1998. As there is a difference of about 5-1/2 years in the two acquisitions, increase of 66% on the value of the land determined within 100 meters of the National Highway and behind that would be reasonable. If the amount is calculated by applying the above formula, for the land abutting National Highway 10 on either side upto 100 meters, an additional amount of Rs. 172/- per square yard over and above Rs. 260/- per square yard with a total of Rs. 432/- per square yard shall be the amount of compensation payable to the land owners, whereas the land situated beyond 100 meters, the value thereof will be by adding Rs. 136/- per square yard in Rs. 206/- per square yard already granted making it a total of Rs. 342/- per square yard.

Another aspect which requires consideration for determination of fair value of the land acquired is that a part of the land abuts the State Highway, i.e., Fatehabad-Bhuna-Ambala Road. The value of the land abutting State Highway, in my opinion, cannot be determined on the basis of the land which is far off from the main road. Accordingly, in my opinion, additional 10% of the value of the land assessed as Rs. 342/- per square yard, i.e., Rs. 376/- per square yard shall be payable to the land owners whose land is situated within 100 meters of the main Fatehabad-Bhuna road. Another fact which has come on record is that a sector road was carved out after the land was acquired in 1993. This road connected National Highway- 10 and Fatehabad-Bhuna road. On the other side of this road, a strip of land was acquired abutting the road and the same also had a different value, may not be to the extent of the main road, but still deserves separate consideration. Accordingly, the land owners whose land is situated on the sector road connected National Highway-10 with Fatehabad-Bhuna road shall be entitled to additional 5% over and above Rs. 342/-, i.e., Rs. 359/- per square yard.

Regarding super structure R.F.A. No. 3957 of 2003 The claim regarding super structure in the above referred appeal has been dealt with in paragraph 78 of the impugned award. The claim has been made by the appellant in the present case for a sum of Rs. 1,31,000/- on account of construction and Rs. 51,935/- on account of shifting charges of electric connection. The learned Court below held that the appellant shall be entitled to Rs. 51,935/- which he was supposed to pay to the Electricity Department for shifting of his tubewell connection. Besides that, he was held entitled to Rs. 68,065/- on account of cost of building. A perusal of the estimate produced on record by the appellant in the present case shows that quality of construction shown is `A' class, which is R.F.A. No. 122 of 2000 [ 41] not possible as such for the reason that it is a set of two rooms constructed with tubewell in the field. The estimate made by the learned Court below is quite reasonable and does not call for any interference.

R.F.A. No. 1842 of 2006

The claim made by the appellants in the present case is dealt with in paragraph 79 of the impugned award.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the super structure in the present case consisted of four rooms, a kitchen, a garage along with boundary wall. Further a tubewell had also been installed therein. The estimated cost of construction and the tubewell was calculated at Rs. 7,47,000/-. The construction was opined to be `B' class of a farm house. The total covered area as shown in the estimate produced by the appellants was 1251 square feet, whereas as is evident from the report under Section 5A of the Act, the same is approximately 1000 square feet. The learned Court below assessed compensation on account of cost of building at Rs. 1,25,000/-, whereas Rs. 25,000/- were assessed on account of tubewell and its accessories and Rs. 15,000/- on account of cost of boundary wall. As far as mechanical parts of the tubewell were concerned, it was opined that the appellants were entitled to shift the same along with its accessories. Accordingly, no compensation was found to be payable on that account. In addition to this, Rs. 5,000/- were granted on account of shifting charges.

From a perusal of the estimate produced by the appellants in the present case, it is not evident as to how old the construction was. The valuation report shows the same to be as on 3.12.1999. As far as cost of construction is concerned, even if the same is considered to be 1000 square feet, the learned Court below has granted a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- as compensation which, in my view, would be on lessor side and an addition of Rs. 25,000/- can very well be made in that account considering the cost of construction. As far as cost of tubewell and its accessories is concerned, as against the claim of Rs. 2,50,000/-, only a sum of Rs. 25,000/- has been awarded by mentioning that the appellants are entitled to shift the tubewell along with its accessories. However, I do not subscribe to the view expressed by the learned Court below, as far as shifting of tubewell and its accessories is concerned, though much details are not available in the estimate produced. However, the observation by the learned Court below that the appellants are entitled to shift the tubewell and its accessories and on that account, no compensation was payable is not correct. There are certain parts which are embedded in the earth and cannot be shifted and if shifted cannot be used and certain parts when dismantled cannot be re-used again. Accordingly, in my R.F.A. No. 122 of 2000 [ 42] opinion, an additional sum of Rs. 25,000/- would be reasonable in addition to what has already been granted by the learned Court below.

In view of my above discussion, in addition to what has been granted by the learned Court below, additional sum of Rs. 50,000/- would be payable to the appellants on account of acquisition of super structure.

R.F.A. No. 1564 of 2006

The claim made by the appellants in the present case is dealt with in paragraph 83 of the award. It is on account of construction of showroom. The claim set up by the appellants was to the tune of Rs. 18,00,000/-. As against that, the learned Court below assessed the compensation at Rs. 10,20,000/-. A perusal of report under Section 5A of the Act shows that the building was still under construction and had not been completed, though it was a kind of `A' class construction with a covered area of 8,600 square feet. On that account, in my view, sufficient amount has already been assessed and granted by the learned Court below. Accordingly, the same does not call for any interference.

R.F.A. No. 78 of 2000

The claim made by the appellant in the present case is dealt with in paragraph 84 of the impugned award, where it is on account of severance. The learned Court below fairly assessed the damages payable to the appellant in the present case on account of severance which, in my opinion, does not call for any interference.

R.F.A. No. 1851 of 2006

The claim made by the appellants in the present case is dealt with in paragraph 85 of the impugned award. It is a case where the appellants had got his building plan approved from Municipal Committee, Fatehabad for construction of building for running a steel industry in the name of Single Steel Industry for which a sum of Rs. 74,400/- was deposited as development charges. In addition to this, Rs. 2,000/- were deposited for electricity connection. Certain construction had also been raised there which was in the form of a shop, room and boundary wall. The Collector granted a sum of Rs. 1,97,400/- as cost of the boundary wall and shops, but no compensation was granted on account of loss of business. The learned Court below in addition to the amount determined as compensation by the Collector directed for payment of another sum of Rs. 80,000/- on account of development charges paid by the appellants and the amount paid for electricity connection. In addition to this Rs. 20,000/- were directed to be paid on account of loss of business and shifting thereof. In my opinion, as far as cost of construction, development charges and electricity connection are concerned, the same do not R.F.A. No. 122 of 2000 [ 43] call for any interference. However, loss on account of business certainly deserves some consideration. It is for the reason that the appellants in order to set up their business got the building plan approved much prior to the acquisition of the land and were in the process of setting up of the business. The acquisition in between had certainly delayed the entire process. The setting up of the industry, which would have generated income, was delayed on that account. Therefore, under this head, in my opinion, additional sum of Rs. 30,000/- would be reasonable. Accordingly, in addition to what has been awarded by the learned Court below, additional sum of Rs. 30,000/- shall be paid to the appellants.

R.F.A. No. 1685 of 2006

The claim made by the appellant in the present case is dealt with in paragraph 90 of the impugned award. The Collector granted compensation of Rs. 2,15,945/- to the appellant as the factory was running. As no compensation was granted on account of loss of business, damages, cost of shifting of factory, the learned Court below assessed the same at Rs. 1,00,000/- which is quite reasonable. Accordingly, the same does not call for any interference.

R.F.A.No 3062 of 2006 The claim made by the appellant in the present case is dealt with in paragraph 92 of the impugned award. The Collector awarded compensation of Rs. 89,261/- on account of construction of factory. As no compensation was granted on account of loss of business, shifting charges, damages and other expenses, the learned Court below assessed the same at Rs. 40,000/- which is quite reasonable and the same does not call for any interference.

The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above.

(Rajesh Bindal) Judge September 22, 2008 mk

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court