Amar Singh vs State of Haryana

V.K. Bali, J.—By this order we propose to dispose of two connected Letters Patent Appeals bearing No. 4 of 1990 and 446 of 1991. The learned single Judge vide his judgment dated 26th of November, 1988 determined market price of the acquired land belonging to the claimant-appellants at the rate of Rs. 40/- per square yard. The appellants were held entitled to 30 per cent solatium thereon and additional compensation at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of notification published u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act upto the date of the award of the Land Acquisition Collector or the date of taking over possession whichever is earlier and 9 per cent interest on the amount of compensation as determined for one year from the date of taking over possession and thereafter at the rate of 15 per cent till realisation. In the present Letters Patent Appeal the claimants'' prayer is for determining market value over and above the one fixed by the learned Single Judge and accordingly to modify the judgment under appeal.

The brief facts of the case reveal that the Government vide notification dated 3rd of September, 1982 issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act sought to acquire 44 Kanals 5 Marias of land in village Fatehpur Pundri in District Kurukshetra for the public purpose, namely, for the construction of 132 KV Sub Station Pundri. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award assessed the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 33,600/- per acre for Chahi land and Rs. 13,125/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land. Fifteen per cent solatium was also allowed. Dissatisfied on account of inadequate compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, the claimant-appellants filed their reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Additional District Judge before whom the reference came up for decision vide its judgment dated 30th of May, 1985, determined market value of the land at the flat rate of Rs. 12/- per square yard. The claimants were also held entitled to other statutory benefits. Still dissatisfied, the claimants preferred Regular First Appeal in this Court and were able to get further enhancement of the compensation in the manner fully detailed above. As mentioned above, in the present Letters Patent Appeal, they seek for further enhancement.

The learned Single Judge while determining the market value of the land subject matter of acquisition referred to number of sale deeds produced on record by the claimants but did not rely upon any of the said sale deeds and rather chose to determine market value on the basis of an earlier award regarding which notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 6th of May, 1972. The land subject matter of acquisition vide award aforesaid had culminated into a judgment passed by this Court in Regular First Appeal No. 299 of 1980 (Harchuran Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana, The said land has been showa in plan Ex.P.1. The same was towards Kaithal from the Chowk at a short distance whereas the acquired land is towards Dhand from the said Chowk at a short distance. In Ex.P-2, thirty rupees per sq. yard was fixed for A Block upto a depth of 36 yards from the main road. For B Block the rate was fixed at Rs. 6.26 per sq.yard. Taking the said award as a base, the learned Single Judge fixed the market value of the land under acquisition at the rate of Rs. 40/- per sq. yard on account of time lag of ten years between the two notifications i.e. one subject matter of decision in R.F.A. No. 299 of 1980 and the present one. In the view of learned Single Judge Block ''A'' of the land subject matter of acquisition in R.F.A. No. 299 of 1980 was better located than the land subject matter of acquisition in the present case even though the land subject matter of this case was better located than the Block ''B'' of the land subject matter of acquisition in R.F.A. No. 299 of 1980. Considering this as also the time lag between two notifications, the learned single Judge determined the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 40/- per sq. yard. The learned single Judge proceeded to determine the matter as follows :-

"For A Block land which was covered by judgment Exhibit P-2 for which market value was fixed at Rs. 30/- per square yard giving premium at the rate of 12 per cent per annum fro ten years the rate would come to Rs. 30/- plus Rs. 36/- equal to Rs. 66/- per square yard whereas for B Block land, allowing similar premium for ten years, it would be Rs. 7.50 plus Rs. 6.25 equal to Rs. 13.75 per square yard. As held by Additional District Judge that the acquired land is better than B Block, there has to be increase in the market value of the acquired land than that of B Block. At the same time, it has to be slightly lower than A Block. If l/3rd deduction is allowed on account of land being situated on the road leading to Dhand, in respect of A Block land, the rate would come to Rs. 44/- per square yard. Since the acquired land is of potential value in between Block ''A'' and Block ''B'' land of earlier award, Rs. 40/- per square yard would be just and proper rate of market value of the land acquired."

Mr. Harbhagwan Singh, the learned Senior Advocate representing the appellants, however vehemently contends that there was no reason whatsoever not to rely upon sale deed Ex.P-9 dated 2nd of September, 1979 vide which two Marias of land was sold for Rs. 7,000/- at the rate of Rs. 5,60,000/- per acre. This sale instance was comparable to the land under acquisition and it was proved that the sale was genuine one and came into existence far prior to when notification u/s 4 was issued. He further contends that even award subject matter of acquisition in R.F.A. No. 299 of 1980 was to be made the sole basis for determining market value of the land in this case, on account of time lag of ten years, the market value ought to have been determined far higher than Rs. 40/- per sq. yard.

We have heard Mr. Harbhagwan Singh, the learned Counsel representing the appellants and Mr. Azad Singh, A.A.G. representing the State. We are, however, of the view that there is absolutely no scope for interfering in the well reasoned judgment of the learned single Judge. In so far as sale instances relied upon by the claimants are concerned, the same were not rightly relied upon by the learned Single Judge as but for two all other instances were of date prior to when the notification u/s 4 was issued in this case. So far as sale instance Ex.P-9 is concerned, the same was only of two Marias. Us location vis-a-vis the land under acquisition has also not been properly proved. That apart, sale instance only with regard to two Marias of land could not provide a sure test for determining the market value of the land at the time when notification u/s 4 was issued. We have not been even told that vendor/vendors or vendee/vendees of sale instance Ex.P-9 were examined. It shall further to be seen from the sale instances some of which are even of later date than that of notification issued u/s 4 that the price works out far less than at the rate of Rs. 5,60,000/-. Surely, if sale instances of later date are for far less price than that of sale instance Ex.P-9, the same could not be made the sole basis for determining the market value of the land. It is true that there has been a time lag of ten years between the award culminating into judgment in R.F.A. No. 199 of 1980 and the notification issued u/s 4 in this case but for that reason the learned Single Judge rightly enhanced the market price of the land from even land of ''A'' Block, the price of which was determined at the rate of Rs. 30/- per sq. yard.

In letters Patent Appeal the Court interferes only on a question of law. Nothing at all has been pointed out from the judgment of the learned single Judge from where it could be made out even remotely that error of law was made while determining the market value at the time when notification u/s 4 was issued.

We find no merit in these appeals and dismiss the same. Parties are left to bear their own costs.