Ajmer Singh vs Union Territory, Chandigarh

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral)

On October 31, 1983, a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was published. By this notification 8.68 acres of land falling within the revenue estate of village Nizampur Kumbra was acquired by the Government for setting up the 66 K.V. Grid Sub Station in Section 52B, Chandigarh. On January 6, 1984, the Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 60,000/ per acre to the landowners. Complaining that the compensation was inadequate, the landowners sought a reference under Section 18. The District Judge found that the market value of the land was Rs. 1,20,000/ per acre. Thereupon, the landowners as well as the Government filed appeals. The learned Single Judge having affirmed the award given by the learned District Judge, the landowners have filed this bunch of 38 letters patent appeals.

On behalf of the landowners, the appeals have been argued by Mr. P.C. Dhiman. Learned counsel has contended that the market value as assessed by the learned Single Judge is wholly inadequate and that in view of the evidence on record, the landowners were entitled to at least a compensation of rupees three lacs per acre. It is so ?

The total evidence produced by the landowners consists of three sale deeds vis. Exhibits P1, P2 and P3. Exhibit P1 is a sale deed in respect of 4 Bighas and 16 Biswas of land executed on October 12, 1981. The price of the land was Rs. 1,50,000/ per acre. The second sale deed viz. Exhibit P2 was executed on June 2, 1982. It is in respect of land measuring 3 Kanals and 5 Marlas which was sold for a total price of Rs. 1,62,000/. The price of land would, thus, come to Rs. 4,62,856/ per acre. Exhibit P3 was executed on August 24, 1982. It was in respect of land measuring 4 Kanals and 5 Marlas which was sold for Rs. 3,74,000/ at the rate of Rs. 6,80,000/ per acre. The first sale deed related to the land in village Badheri. The other two transactions were in respect of land in village Burail.

A perusal of these sale deeds clearly indicates that the area in question was much smaller than the land which was acquired by the notification dated October 31, 1983. It appears that the sale of land vide documents at Exhibits P2 and P3 was of virtually small plots for residential/commercial purposes. Consequently, these sale deeds cannot constitute a firm basis for assessment of the market value of the land in question.

The only other document which remains for consideration is the sale transaction evidenced by Exhibit P1. By this document, it appears that 4 Bighas and 16 Biswas of land were sold for Rs. 1,50,000/. It has been found by the learned Single Judge that there was no satisfactory evidence regarding the advance payment of Rs. 25,000/ out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/. In fact, the learned Single Judge has found that the amount of money paid at the time of the execution of the sale deed was Rs. 1,25,000/ only. We find no ground the differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge .

Furthermore, even the oral testimony does not indicate the at market value of the land was in excess of Rs. 1,20,000/ per acre. It may be specifically noticed that PW2 had only been able to mention the instance of auction whereby the land was transferred on lease hold basis for 99 years. In such transactions, only 25 per cent of the auction money was required to be paid within 30 days. Th remaining amount had to be paid in instalments over a period of time. Such instances do not furnish an exact measure of the market value at a given point to time. Thus, even the oral testimony does not indicate that the land could fetch any higher value than that assessed by either the District Judge or the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the appellants has, in fact, not been able to refer to any evidence on record to show that the market value of the land was in excess of Rs. 1,20,000/ per acre.

In L.P.A. No. 1108 of 1988, an application for permission to lead additional evidence has been filed. With this application, learned counsel has sought permission to place on record a copy of the award given by the learned District Judge, Chandigarh, in Land Acquisition Case No. 88 of 1985 which was decided on August 29, 1988. Firstly, in the circumstances of the cse, we do not feel the necessity of referring to any additional evidence. Secondly, even if this judgment is taken into consideration, it appears that the notification in that case had been issued on February 28, 1984. After the land in the present appeal had been acquired in 1983, the prices of the land in the adjoining areas would have arisen. The District Judge had found that the market value of the land was Rs. 1,50,000/ per acre. The land which was the subject matter of the proceedings before the District Judge had been acquired later. Thus a higher compensation was assessed. This case cannot furnish a safe ground for enhancement in the present case.

No other point has been raised.

In view of the above, we find no merit in these appeals which are consequently dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

The civil miscellaneous applications filed for impleading the legal representatives are allowed. However, the applications for permission to make up the deficienty in court fee have been rendered infructuous in view of the above decision and are accordingly disposed of.

Appeals dismissed.