Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Another vs Rameshwar And Others on 20 April, 2011
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
RFA No. 1893 of 2011 (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RFA No. 1893 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision : 20.4.2011
State of Haryana and another ...Appellants
vs
Rameshwar and others ...Respondents
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
Rajesh Bindal, J.
This order shall dispose of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 1893 to 1897 of 2011, as common questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals.
By filing appeals, State of Haryana is seeking reduction of compensation awarded to the landowners for the acquired land.
The bunch of appeals pertain to the valuation of land acquired for construction of BML Hansi Branch-Butana Branch Multipurpose Link Channel from RD 91- 156 off taking from RD 340300- L Bhakra Main Line for which notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') was issued by the State of Haryana on 23.8.2005. The land is situated within the revenue estate of village Balwanti, Hadbast No. 32, Tehsil and District Kaithal. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 13.9.2005. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the Collector') vide award dated 12.1.2006 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 5,00,000/- per acre. The land owners being dissatisfied with the award of the Collector filed objections which were referred to the learned Court below. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Court below assessed the compensation of the acquired land @ ` 6,50,000/- per acre. Aggrieved against the award of the learned court below, the State is in appeal before this court.
RFA No. 1893 of 2011 (2)Learned counsel for the State submitted that the court below had not given any reasoning whatsoever while determining the amount of compensation payable for the acquired land. The evidence led by the State was totally ignored. He further argued that the value of the land of each area is different keeping in view the location and other advantages. But in the present case, the learned court below without there being any site plan produced on record showing the exact location of village in District Kaithal assessed the compensation for the acquired land. It had merely applied a thumb rule. It is due to the policy of the State Government that the value of the land was determined @ ` 5,00,000/- per acre by the Collector, otherwise the value of the land in the area was not as has been awarded by the learned court below.
Heard learned counsel State and perused the relevant referred record.
As far as the evidence led by the State in the form of sale-deeds is concerned, the same has rightly be discarded by the learned court below because the price of land therein is less then the one assessed by the Collector.
There is no dispute that Government had issued policies on 28.4.2005 and 6.4.2007 fixing minimum rates for awarding compensation for the acquired land. As per the policy of the State Government dated 6.4.2007, the minimum rates were fixed @ ` 8,00,000/- per acre in the area in question. The relevant extract of policy dated 6.4.2007, is as under:-
"Sub: Fixation of floor rates for the acquisition of land for public purpose in the State of Haryana.
Ref: This Department Memo No. 2025-R-5-2005/4299, dated 28.4.2005.
Vide this Department Memo. under reference, minimum floor rates for acquiring land for public purposes for various Departments as well as other State Agencies were fixed by the Haryana Government as follows:RFA No. 1893 of 2011 (3)
i) Minimum floor rate for urbanisable area of Rs. 15.00 lacs per acre Gurgaon.
ii) Minimum floor rate for rest of the Haryana Rs.12.50 lacs per acre.
Sub-Region of NCR inlcuding Panchkula and area of Chandigarh periphery in the Haryana State.
iii) Minimum floor rate for the rest of the Rs. 05.00 lacs per acre. Haryana State.
(These floor rates did not include the solatium and interest payable under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894).
2. Now it has been observed that with the passage of time market rates of the land have increased substantially. Therefore, Haryana Government has re-considered this matter and has decided to re-fix these floor rates as follows:
i) Minimum floor rate for urbanisable area of Rs. 20.00 lacs per acre Gurgaon.
ii) Minimum floor rate for rest of the Haryana Rs.16.00 lacs per acre.
Sub-Region of NCR inlcuding Panchkula and area of Chandigarh periphery in the Haryana State.
iii) Minimum floor rate for the rest of the Rs. 08.00 lacs per acre. Haryana State.
3. These floor rates do not include the solatium and interest payable under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
4. These revised rates will be applicable on all those acquisitions where awards have been announced on or after 22.3.2007 irrespective of the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894."
As per the aforesaid letter dated 6.4.2007 the minimum floor rate for the rest of the Haryana State was fixed @ ` 8,00,000/- per acre and the rates are applicable to all those acquisitions where awards have been announced on or after 22.3.2007 irrespective of date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. In the present case, the award was announced by the Collector on 12.1.2006 whereas the policy dated 6.4.2007 comes into force with effect on 22.3.2007.
RFA No. 1893 of 2011 (4)A perusal of aforesaid policies shows that from the year 2005 to 2007 the State of Haryana itself had increased the value of the land by 60% in the area in question i.e. from ` 5,00,000/- to ` 8,00,000/- per acre. Notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 23.8.2005 and the award by the Collector was announced on 12.1.2006.
A perusal of the aforesaid policies shows that after a gap of nearly two years, the minimum compensation payable for acquisition of land was enhanced @ 30% per annum or the price as shown in 2005 is 37.5% less than the price shown in the year 2007. This is evident of rising prices of land on which there is lot of pressure in recent times because of demand for urbanization and other infrastructural facilities. The aforesaid policy letters, in my opinion, can be considered as a piece of evidence showing the value of the land and considering the fact that the award in the present case was announced in January 2006, either a reasonable increase can be given or a reasonable cut can be applied.
There is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the State regarding award of compensation on account of severance. No doubt, due to construction of canal/distributory it has become easier for the landowners to irrigate their field. But on the other hand, due to bifurcation of land it is difficult for them to cultivate two portions of land. In my opinion, considering the difficulties which are being faced by the landowners for the acquisition of this type, damages which have been awarded by the learned court below would be just and reasonable.
Considering the aforesaid factors, in my opinion, the value of the acquired land determined @ ` 6,50,000/- per acre cannot be faulted with. Even if there is some small difference, this court would not like to interfere in the matter.
Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. Consequently, all the accompanying applications are also dismissed.
However, it is made clear that dismissal of appeals filed by the State will not affect the merits of the appeal of the landowners, in case filed by them. The same shall be considered independently.
20.4.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge