Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Gurdayal Singh And Another ... on 22 January, 2009
RFA No.520 of 1993 1
In the Punjab and Haryana High Court,at Chandigarh.
RFA No.520 of 1993
Decided on January 22,2009.
State of Haryana --Appellant
vs.
Gurdayal Singh and another --Respondents
Present: Mrs.Mamta Singhal Talwar,AAG,Haryana, for the appellant(s)
Mr S.K.Jain,Advocate, for the respondents.
Rakesh Kumar Jain,J: (Oral)
This judgment shall dispose of five Regular First Appeals
bearing Nos.520,521,522,523 and 524 of 1993, as common question of law
and facts are involved therein. The facts ,however, are taken from RFA
No.520 of 1993.
In pursuance of Government Notification dated 07.4.1978
issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,'the
Act'), published on 25.4.1978, followed by a notification of declaration
issued under Section 6 of the Act, dated 3.3.1979 published in the
Government Gazette dated 20.3.1979, an area of 0.47 acres of land in
village Rampura, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind, was acquired, at public
expense, for public purpose, namely, for the construction of Safidon to
RFA No.520 of 1993 2
Rampura Road, District Jind. The acquired land is classified as under:-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - -- -- - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - -
Sr No. Nature of land Area
- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - -- - -- - -
K M
1. Chahi 3 12
2. G.M. Khal 0 5
3. G.M.ruri 0 9
4. Gair Mumkin Rastas 5 16
------------------------------------------
Total 15. 2 (1 89 acres)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -
The District Revenue Officer-cum Land Acquisition Collector, Jind (for short,the Collector) vide his award No. 18-J for the year 1986-87 dated 03.9.1986 determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.25,120/- per acre for Nehri land and @ Rs.12,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land.
Dis-satisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections under Section 18 of the Act, alleging inter-alia that the value of the acquired land was not less Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre at the time of the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and that the acquired land had the potentiality for being developed as residential, commercial or industrial area being near to Safidon City.
The claim was contested by the State of Haryana. In the reply, it was alleged that all the aspects have been considered by the Collector before announcing the award. It was denied that the acquired land had potentiality for being used for residential, commercial and industrial purpose.
The landowners generally relied upon oral evidence. Babu Ram Patwari Halqa,Safidon (PW-2) deposed in his statement that Safidon RFA No.520 of 1993 3 is 7to 8 killas away from Rampura Road. There is a Govt.High School in between two roads. He further deposed that Cinema Hall, Bus Stand and Mini Secretariat,Safidon are on the Rampura road. Ram Chander Patwari Halqa Rampura (PW 3) brought the Aks-Shijra of revenue estate of village Rampura. He stated that the land in question is situated in the boundary of revenue estate of Safidon. He further stated that a Bus Stand, Cinema, shops and mini secretariat are situated on the Rampura Road.. In the cross examination, this witness stated that Railway Station of Safidon is about three kilometers away and Bus Stand is two and a half kilometer away from the acquired land. Kirpa Singh (PW-5) deposed about the existence of Cinema Hall,Bus Stand, School, Shops, residential houses on Rampura Safidon road. The landowners also produced on record documents Exs. P-1, P-3, P-4 and P-5 which pertain to Safidon, but they were not found to be genuine.
The learned Reference Court after taking into consideration the aforesaid potentiality of the acquired land applied a guess work in enhancing Rs.7000/- and Rs.3000/- in respect of the acquired Nehri land and Gair Mumkin land and awarded Rs. 32,000/- per acre and Rs 15,000/- per acre respectively.
Mrs.Mamta Singhal Talwar, learned A.A.G.Haryana, appearing for the appellant has vehemently contended that learned Reference Court has erred by using guess work for determining the enhanced compensation, especially when there is no evidence on the record for the purpose of enhancement. She also submitted that even it has come on record in the statement of RW 1 that complexes, Cinema Hall and Bus Stand etc. are about 2 to 3 kilometers away from the acquired land.
On the other hand, Mr.S.K.Jain, learned counsel for the RFA No.520 of 1993 4 landlords contended that enhanced compensation is very meagre keeping in view the fact that even the Collector has taken 8 years in announcing the award from the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act as in the present case, notification under Section 4 of the Act, was issued in 1978 and award was announced in 1986, therefore, for 8 years, the landowners were deprived of the price of their lands. Had the award been announced earlier within a year or two, the landowners would have purchased some other suitable lands with the compensation awarded by the Collector, but due to delay in pronouncing of award, the price in the real estate has increased manifolds.
I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their assistance.
Insofar as the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is concerned, it is mainly upon the fact that the compensation has been awarded without there being any evidence on the record to indicate as to what was the price of the acquired land at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The landlords have not placed on record sale deeds pertaining to the area under acquisition but they have proved on record some sale deeds Exs. P-2 to P-5 pertaining to village Safidon. At the same time, this fact cannot be ignored that all the witnesses have deposed in unison that the acquired land had potentiality being near to some of the most material civic facility and convenience like Bus Stand and Railway Station. Moreover, enhancement of Rs.7,000/- in respect of Nehri land and Rs.3000/- in respect of Gair Mumkin land is not such a big amount which calls for interference by this Court, specially in view of the fact that even the Collector had taken 8 years for announcing RFA No.520 of 1993 5 the award which has definitely caused loss to the landowners.
In view of the totality of above circumstances, I do not find any merit in these appeals for the purpose of interference by this Court and the same are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
January 22,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge