Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dharam Pal Son Of Shri Bant Singh vs State Of Haryana Through Secretary on 16 October, 2012
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
RFA No.1022 of 2005 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RFA No.1022 of 2005
Date of Decision.16.10.2012
Dharam Pal son of Shri Bant Singh, resident of village Maheshpur, Sector
21, Panchkula .....Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana through Secretary, Urban Estate, Haryana, Chandigarh
and others .....Respondents
2. RFA Nos.2277, 2279, 2280 and 2461 of 2004
3. RFA Nos.1023 to 1052, 1171 to 1181, 2021 to 2024, 2028, 2029, 2764 of 2005 Present: Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate for the appellants in RFA Nos.1022 to 1052 and 2764 of 2005.
None for the appellants in RFA Nos.2277, 2279, 2280 & 2461 of 2004 and RFA Nos.1171 to 1181 of 2005.
Mr. D.D. Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate for HUDA.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No
-.-
K. KANNAN J.
1. The bunch of cases relate to acquisition of property of 45.15 acres in Maheshpur that became a part of Panchkula city later. The litigations are with reference to determination of compensation for acquisition made through a notification issued on 21.12.1994 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Collector had determined a compensation of ` 4 lacs per acre and on a reference RFA No.1022 of 2005 -2- under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, compensation was raised to ` 500/- per square yard. The land owners are in appeal before this Court seeking for further enhancement of compensation on the ground that the determination has been made without reference to the documents of sale, which have been brought for consideration before the Reference Court.
2. The transactions of sale, which the land owners have referred to have been prodigious but I will confine them only with reference to those transactions in the immediate vicinity of Section 4 notification. The State has also relied on substantial documentary evidence relating to transactions brought about the same period and predictable for prices which are far lesser than what prices the land owners show as the ruling price. There could be a combined tabulation of transactions relating to the properties relied on by the land owners as well as by the State:
Exhibit Area Date Consideration Value per sq. yd P-35 208 sq. yd 12.09.1994 ` 80,000/- ` 384/-
P-36 112 sq. yd 10.10.1994 ` 75,000/- ` 669/- P-37 67 sq. yd. 29.11.1994 ` 45,000/- ` 671/- P-39 46 sq. yd. 20.12.1993 ` 70,000/- ` 1521/- P-40 1 marla 26.9.1994 ` 60,000/- ` 2000/- P-41 138 sq. yd. 07.12.1994 ` 1,50,000/- ` 1087/- P-42 50 sq. yd 17.1.1994 ` 30,000/- ` 600/- R-4 2k 4m 3.6.1994 ` 1,00,000/- ` 75/- R-7 4k 30.06.1994 ` 1,20,000/- ` 50/- R-8 4k 30.06.1994 ` 1,12,000/- ` 46/-
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the land owners would contend that if an average valuation of these properties must be taken, it works out to `1037/- per square yard and considering the fact RFA No.1022 of 2005 -3- that they are small extent of properties, there could be an appropriate cut imposed. The learned counsel, Sh. Sharma would argue that reference to transactions contained in small extents are themselves not anathema to the scheme of determination of compensation in view of the decisions that have come about from the Supreme Court. According to him, the transactions themselves were fair for ever since the development started taking place for creation of Panchkula city and it is gradual method over a period of time. There had been notifications coming over a period of time from the year 1971 itself that made impermissible the private transactions of sale. The counsel would, therefore, contend that inevitably the extents of properties, which have been dealt with are only with reference to small extents of properties and it will not be possible to fish out transactions of large extent of properties as similar in extents of properties, which are acquired from the individual land owners. According to him, therefore, the determination could safely be done with reference to the sale prices reflected through the above transactions relied on by the land owners after providing for appropriate cut. Even if a 50% cut were to be imposed, the value of the property would still be ` 500/- per square yard. He would pitch it to the lowest price possible by taking the cut as high as 85% to say that it would still work out to ` 582/- per square yard.
4. The learned counsel would also refer to certain awards, which have been passed by the Court relating to acquisition of property in the adjoining villages that went to make the Panchkula city. Of the transactions, the learned counsel himself admits that every one of the awards, which have been passed through the Court, have been the RFA No.1022 of 2005 -4- subject of appeals either before the High Court or the Supreme Court and the finality has obtained only in transaction relating to acquisition of property in Judian village and in Kharag Mangoli, for these acquisitions have been rendered long time back. For instance, the acquisition of property in village Judian came about through a notification dated 12.12.1983 and the acquisition of property for Kharag Mangoli on 02.07.1985. In both these acquisitions, the determination of award by the Reference Court was literally as per what the land owners wanted at ` 250/- per square yard. It appears that there had been an appeal filed before this Court by the State but the determination of compensation at ` 250/- per square yard was confirmed and it stood on.
The learned counsel would state that it should be possible to periodically provide for escalation of prices taking these awards passed with reference to the acquisition of the years 1983 and 1985 as provided a guidance for determination of price for subsequent period.
5. The learned counsel also has a gamut of evidence brought about through quality of plots and shops made by HUDA after full development. The learned counsel himself is prepared to point out that it may not at all times be a safe guide for allotment of plots after full development and could not be a basis for assessment of prices for lands, which were acquired in an undeveloped state. Therefore, according to him, the transactions of sales and the awards passed by the Court would themselves afford appropriate guidance for determination of compensation.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State would contend that when there are transactions of sale relating to the property RFA No.1022 of 2005 -5- that ought to be taken as the most important piece of evidence for assessment. To him, the extent of properties, which were dealt with and which were shown as exemplars by the land owners were notification to properties, which were insignificantly small extent of properties. The counsel would contend that when acquisition of property was for a large extent of 45.15 acres, the reference to transactions of extents less than ` 1,10,000/- per acre would not be appropriate to take them as prices for determination of price. The learned counsel would refer to the transactions of sales referred to above. I would point out that the average sale prices for these properties have been about ` 3 lacs and the Collector himself provided for compensation at ` 4 lacs. The enhancement of compensation and reference brought before the Court to ` 18-24 lacs in the manner done is not justified at all and if at all there is a ground, the Court must even consider in public interest to reduce the compensation, which is already assessed by the Reference Court.
7. This Court has had an occasion to deal with determination of compensation for properties acquired in Maheshpur through a notification dated 26.04.1995 in RFA No.2695 of 2002 and batch of cases. While assessing the compensation, the reference had been to documents of the year 1990 and an escalation was provided @12% from the acquisition of properties through notification of the year 1990 and they were assessed at ` 600/- per square yard. In this case, the documents brought before me have shown that the properties acquired in the year 1995, the average value has been ` 710/- per square yard. Applying 33 ½ % cut for development, the value per square yard would RFA No.1022 of 2005 -6- be ` 473/-. Considering the fact that the compensation has already been assessed at ` 500/-, I find no reason to think that the assessment has been inadequate. There is no scope for reduction of the award already passed since all these appeals are only at the instance of the claimants for seeking further enhancement.
8. I maintain the awards, which are already passed and dismiss all the appeals.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 16, 2012 Pankaj*