Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

ARUN PALLI J.

For, the facts involved in these appeals, which have been preferred by the landowner-claimants as also the State, are similar, and the questions that arise for consideration being common, these are being decided vide a common judgment. However, for reference, the facts are culled out from Regular First Appeal No.1718 of 2002 - Darshana Devi v. State of Haryana and another.

Vide notification No.704, dated 08.02.1989, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, [for short, 'the Act'], published on 21.02.1989, land measuring 2.58 acres, situated within the revenue estate of village Kalu Pur, Tehsil and District Sonepat, was sought to be acquired for construction of a railway over-bridge at Sonepat-Delhi Section, Crossing No.26. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made vide notification dated 14.11.1989. The District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Sonepat [for short, 'the Collector'] assessed the market value of the acquired land at ` 4,00,000/- per acre i.e. ` 82.64 per sq. yard. However, being aggrieved by the assessment and the compensation awarded by the Collector, objections, under Section 18 of the Act, were preferred by the landowners. Resultantly, Collector referred the matter to the Court for determination. The reference court, on a consideration of the matter in issue and the evidence on record, concluded; that the sale instances that were being relied upon by the landowner-claimants i.e. sale deed dated For Subsequent orders see RFA-1719-2002, RFA-1720-2002, RFA-1721-2002 and 0 more.

5 of 28 03.06.1988 (Ex.P9), vide which an area measuring 133 sq. yards was sold @ ` 300/- per sq. yard, and sale deed dated 03.06.1988 (Ex.P10), whereby the site measuring 148 sq. yard was sold for the same consideration, could not be taken into consideration, being of an extremely small area. Likewise, the sale deeds, dated 10.04.1986 (Ex.R1) and 12.11.1986 (Ex.R3), relied upon by the State, vide which land measuring 200 sq. yards each was alienated @ ` 50/- per sq. yard, too could not be factored in. For, the sale consideration at which the said sites were sold was far less than the rate at which the compensation was assessed and awarded by the Collector himself. However, taking cognizance of the fact that the acquired land was situated within the Municipal limits of Sonepat for many years prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, was surrounded by residential colonies, Industrial and commercial establishments, the reference court concluded that the acquired land, indeed, formed part of a developed area. Resultantly, the compensation awarded to the landowners was enhanced from ` 4,00,000/- per acre, as awarded by the Collector, to ` 6,00,000/- per acre i.e. ` 124/- per sq. yard. However, no compensation was awarded on account of severance, as no evidence was led to show that the land of any of the landowners, on account of acquisition, stood bifurcated in two parts, and lay on each side of the railway over-bridge. Likewise, claims as also the prayer for further enhancement of compensation as regard the superstructure and plantation of eucalyptus trees were also declined, for want of cogent evidence. Except, in the case of Raghbir Singh v. State of Haryana - LAC No.551 of 1996/1997 [RFA-4613-2001], in which the landowners were awarded ` 1,53,659/- for superstructure by the Collector, but the reference court enhanced the compensation by ` 47,000/-. Similarly, in the case of For Subsequent orders see RFA-1719-2002, RFA-1720-2002, RFA-1721-2002 and 0 more.

Mr. Alok Jain, learned counsel for the landowners submits that concededly the acquired land was situated within the Municipal limits of Sonepat town, and the reference court itself concluded that it was surrounded by many residential colonies, commercial and industrial establishments, therefore, it seriously erred to still discard the two sale deeds dated 03.06.1988 (Ex.P9 & Ex.P10), being of a smaller area. For, it was almost impossible to find the sale instances of a large tract of land within the Municipal area. Further, he submits that both the sale deeds (Ex.P9 & Ex.P10) were duly proved, for even the vendees to the said sale deeds i.e. Shyam Sunder Sharma (AW1) and Jag Mohan Sharma (AW2), respectively, were examined. And, the record shows that the distance between the two sites that were sold vide these sale deeds was 400-500 yards from the acquired land. Likewise, he further submits that sale deed, dated 24.01.1986 (Mark 'X'), vide which a land measuring 200 sq. yard was purchased by none other than the appellant (Darshana Devi) herself for ` 75,000/- i.e. ` 375/- per sq. yard, was the best evidence to assess the true market value of the acquired land. But as only the photocopy of the said sale deed was produced, and the document was not exhibited, resultantly, it was For Subsequent orders see RFA-1719-2002, RFA-1720-2002, RFA-1721-2002 and 0 more.

4. Concededly, the acquired land was situated within the Municipal limits of Sonepat, even when the acquisition proceedings were initiated. Kishan Chand Chhabra, Naib Tehsildar (Retd.), PW7, testified in his deposition that the acquired land was situated at a distance of 750 meters from the bus stand, and 500 meters from the railway station. He proved the site plan (Ex.P5), which shows that the authorized colonies such as Sujan Singh Park, Model Town, Jiwan Nagar and Vaxon Colony were in vicinity of the acquired land. And, Atlas Cycle Factory, Milton Cycle Industries were located in close proximity. Many industrial and commercial establishments such as shops, cinema halls and factories surrounded the acquired land. The Industrial Estate Sonepat was also situated nearby. So much so, Tirath Dass Patwari (RW2), examined by the State, virtually conceded this position. The acquired land, on its northern side, was abutted by Atlas Rath Dhana Road and on the southern end by a 60 feet wide road that belonged to provincial government. Significantly, even this 60 feet wide road now forms part of the acquired land. That is how, the reference court itself recorded that "Another factor which the Court is to consider is that the land itself was acquired for the construction of a Railway Bridge which itself shows that it is located in a congested developed area and hence such piece of land is potential one For Subsequent orders see RFA-1719-2002, RFA-1720-2002, RFA-1721-2002 and 0 more.