Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Krishna And Another vs The Land Acquisition Collector on 24 July, 2012
Author: K.Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RFA No.1777 of 1989 (O&M)
Date of decision:24.07.2012
Smt. Krishna and another ....Appellants
versus
The Land Acquisition Collector, Dasuya, and others.
....Respondents
II. RFA No.2002 of 1989 (O&M)
Smt. Savitri Syal (deceased) through her LRs and others.
....Appellants
versus
Land Acquisition Collector, Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur, and others.
....Respondents
III. RFA No.2003 of 1989 (O&M)
Jagjit Lal and others. ....Appellants
versus
Land Acquisition Collector, Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur, and others.
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Present: Mr. Nitin Sarin, Advocate, for
Mr. M.L. Sarin, Advocate, for the appellants in RFA
Nos.2002 and 2003 of 1989.
Mr. O.P. Hoshiarpuria, Advocate, for the appellant in
RFA No.1777 of 1989.
Mr. K.S. Cheema, Advocate, for the tenant in RFA
No.2002 of 1989.
----
RFA No.1777 of 1989 (O&M) -2-
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? Yes.
2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes.
----
K.Kannan, J.
1. All the cases relate to a claim for enhancement of compensation for acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act. The acquisition had been for the purpose of laying down a railway industrial siding. The total extent of land that was acquired through a notification issued under Section 4 (1) issued on 26.10.1983 was an extent of 79 kanals 17 marlas of land in Village Dalla, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the compensation at ` 705/- per marla by award dated 29.10.1985. An area measuring 39 kanals of land was claimed by Dr. Sohan Lal and Parshotam Lal. Both Sohan Lal and Parshotam Lal died and the respective legal representatives had been prosecuting the case.
2. RFA No.1777 of 1989 is a claim for enhancement by the legal representatives of Parshotam Lal. RFA No.2002 of 1989 is the appeal filed by the legal representatives of Sohan Lal. Another extent of land measuring 32 kanals 17 marlas was owned by Jagjit Lal and the legal representatives of Jagjit Lal are the appellants in RFA No.2003 of 1989.
3. It is not in dispute that the entire extent of land fell within the municipal limit. They formed part of one single block. RFA No.1777 of 1989 (O&M) -3- The claimants relied upon three instances of sales whose value of the property dealt with averaged at ` 2,514/- per marla. The Collector, however, found that these instances were in respect of small pieces of land relating to abadi and, therefore, could not be taken into consideration. The Collector, however, recognized the immense potentiality of the lands to be used for residential and commercial purposes, having particular regard to the fact that all the lands were situate within the municipal limits. The sale deeds which had the subject of consideration were tabulated by the Reference Court as under:-
Ext. Date of sale Khasra No. Area Sale consideration Rate per marla P3 30.5.85 105/2/2 0-12M 30,000/- 2500/-
P4 23.6.83 25/16/1 0-13 45,000/- 3461/- P5 8.9.1983 14/14/1 0-10 25,000/- 2500/- P6 20.10.83 133 0-12 18,000/- 15,000/-
4. They could be immediately noticed to be properties situate in small parcels of land. The landowners' property were in excess of 4 acres, whereas the instances of sales were for small plots of land. The State, on the other hand, relied on two transactions exhibited as R-1 and R-2 measuring 7 kanals 2 marlas on 11.10.1983 for ` 20,000/- and another sale under R-2 in respect of 1 ½ marlas on 20.10.1983 for ` 500/-. It rejected R-1 as "ridiculously low" and R-2 as a sham transaction by a father to his son. Amongst the instances provided by the claimants, P-3 was rejected on the RFA No.1777 of 1989 (O&M) -4- ground that it was more than 1 ½ years after 4(1) notification and took only the transactions under P-4, P-5 and P-6 as providing any basis for consideration. Finding that P-6 sale deed dealt with the property at ` 1,500/- per marla, the Reference Court took the same as the value for the property. Since the properties acquired from the claimants were agricultural lands not in any approved locality, the Reference Court provided for a 1/3rd cut and took the value of the property at ` 1,000/- per marla.
5. As regards the consideration of sales for small extents themselves as exemplars for determination of valuation of the property for larger extent is concerned, there cannot be virtually any serious objection to, if no sales are available in respect of large extents of lands. The only caution that has to be applied in such cases is suitable discount has to be provided. This has been so held in Rishi Pal Singh Versus Meerut Development Authority and another-2006(3) SCC 205. While considering the issue of deduction, the Supreme Court has held in Nelson Fernandes and others Versus Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa and others-(2007) 9 SCC 447 that the percentage of deduction will invariably depend also on the purpose for which the land is acquired. The Court said that where the land is acquired for laying railway line, the question of development of land would not arise.
It is not as if any portion of the property is going to be set apart for roads or as open land. The entire track of land that was acquired RFA No.1777 of 1989 (O&M) -5- would be used for railway line and, therefore, the deduction may not be necessary. The only modification which must obtain in this case is that the deduction which the Reference Court made as 1/3rd would require to be modified and the value of the property as established from taking P-6 as an exemplar would have to be maintained and the value of the property has to be taken as ` 1,500/- per marla instead of ` 1,000/- as taken by the court below.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the property of the landowners have been literally vivisected in exact half with a railway line cutting across there respective extent of holdings. The learned counsel would argue that where there is a severance of the property that makes it impossible or difficult for them to irrigate and cultivate the left out portion of the land, the Court could award damages on account of such severance at 10% for the un-acquired land. The learned counsel would refer me to the decision of this Court in Dalip Singh (deceased) through LRs and others Versus State of Punjab and another-2010(2)PLR 664, where the Court had provided for 30% of the value of the acquired land as damages for severance. A similar approach had been made even earlier in State of Punjab through Collector Mukerian Hydel Channel Project, Talwara Versus Amar Nath and others-1988 LACC 310, where the Court had provided for 50% of the market value as severance charges. The provision for severance charges will have to be always understood in the context of how the RFA No.1777 of 1989 (O&M) -6- acquisition impacts the rest of the holdings. It has to immediately grapple with facts as to where exactly are the remaining extent of properties and how the inconvenience is perceived and experienced by the respective landowners.
7. I have gone through the claims made by the parties as well as the grounds urged in appeal. I find, there is absolutely no reference to any severance of land in the claims made by the landowners which are the subject of appeals in RFA Nos.1777 and 2002 of 1989. However, this has been specifically adverted to in the grounds urged by the landowner in the property which is the subject of appeal in RFA No.2003 of 1989. It is specifically averred that the acquisition has left the remaining extent of 38 acres unreachable except through a circuitous route that would require the appellants to cover a distance for about 8 kilometers to reach their land from their house. There is no uniform application of principle as to what should be the extent of damages that could be awarded towards severance. Where the property acquired is a large chunk of land that makes it impossible for an easy access to the land on either side of the property acquired, there could be a justification for a provision for a higher value for severance, but where the property acquired is for laying a railway line or a road, the existence of road or the railway line itself could be a cause for improving the value of the property which is retained. The Supreme Court in Adusumilli Gopal Krishan Versus Special Deputy Collector Land Acquisition- RFA No.1777 of 1989 (O&M) -7- 1980 Supplement SCC 204 awarded ` 1,000/- as damages while affording a compensation of ` 20,000/- per acre for a land. In Periyar and Pareekanni Rubber Limited Versus State of Kerala- 1991 (4) SCC 195, the acquisition had been made for laying a road. The Supreme Court was not prepared to accept a claim for damages for severance because the laying of road itself was not found to cause any prejudice to the party. The provision of severance was specially dealt with in The Manipur Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd Versus The Collector of Hailakandi 1997(9) SCC 673. The Supreme Court was dealing with the case of contiguity of a tea estate on one side and 1/3rd on the other. The High Court in that case had provided for a lumpsum compensation of ` 2,36,000/- for the large tea estate for meeting the expenditure of bridging the land from one side to another and the same was found to be adequate and the Supreme Court did not find a reason to interfere with. I make a provision for ` 250/- per marla as likely damages for the severance of the property. This will apply only to the owner of the land which is the subject of appeal in RFA No.2003 of 1989.
8. All the respective awards of the courts below are modified providing for enhancement of compensation @ ` 1,500/- per marla for the cases which are the subject matter of RFA Nos.1777 and 2002 of 1989 and for Rs.1,750/- per marla in the case which is the subject of appeal in RFA No.2003 of 1989. The RFA No.1777 of 1989 (O&M) -8- enhanced compensation that this judgment provides for will enure to the benefit to the 1/4th extent representing the share of the tenant also.
9. All the appeals are allowed to the above extent.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 24.07.2012 sanjeev