Balbir Singh vs The State of Haryana

K.S. Tiwana, J.—Vide judgment recorded in R.F.A. No. 1111 of 1978 R.F.A. No. 801 of 1978 and R.F.A. No. 546 of 1978 were dismissed by G.C. Mital, J. L.P.A. Nos. 264 of 1979, 262 of 1979 and 196 of 1980 were respectively filed against these judgments under Clause X of the Letters Patent.

The facts leading to these appeals are that vide Notification dated 30th of January, 1973, 88 05 acres of land from village Judian, Tehsil Kalka, District Ambala, in which the land of the appellants was situated, was acquired by the State of Haryana for utilisation of the land as residential and commercial area in Panchkula Urban Estate. The Land Acquisition Collector, taking into consideration the potentiality of the land, in view of the acquisition of the land by the Haryana Government in 1971 for the same purpose, divided the land into three categories, that is, ''A'' ''B'' and ''C'' for the purpose of fixation of compensation. The relevant portion of the award in L.P.A. No. 196 of 1980 is reproduced as under:--

The spot inspection revealed that the land under acquisition falls towards south of the Mani Mjara-Panchkula road. An area to the depth of 200 square feet along with the above road already stands acquired by this department in the year 1971. The area, beyond the main Kool (on southern side) along with the Government Bhattas, situate in Kila Nos. 29/29-30 touching to boundary of village Ferozepur Khurd is being used for brick kilns and most of it is in the shape of pits. The remaining area towards the north of the above mentioned area is being used for agricultural purposes. Although, the area which is being used for brick kilns is shown as ''Ghair-mumkin Khadan'', but due to its commercial potentiality, it is not fair to treat this area as the ''Ghair-mumkin land'' Besides, some adjoining land which was also of the similar kind has already been acquired by this department in the year 1971 and in that award, the then Land Acquisition Collector, treated the area as commercial zone, keeping therefore, the location, situation, potentiality and the award announced in the year 1971, in view I feel that it would not be fair in the interest of justice to take the classification of the land as shown in the revenue record. I am constrained to observe that assessment on the basis of kind of land alone will not be a fair criterion for adequate and equitable compensation. Accordingly, I divide the area under acquisition into the Blocks as under

BLOCK ''A''

Area towards the north-western side of the main kool and Government Bhattas situated in Killa No. 89/29-30, touching the boundary of village Ferozepur Khurd, excluding the area under kools, paths and gharats, as per details given in the statement attached,

BLOCKS ''B''

Area falling in the south west of the above mentioned block excluding the area of paths and kools, as per details given in the statement attached.

BLOCK ''C''

Area under Ghair mumkin kools, paths and gharats as per details given in the statement attached.

The compensation for the land in ''A'' Block was fixed at Rs. 12,800/- per acre ''B'' Block land'' was assessed at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre and the compensation for ''C'' Block was fixed at the rate of Rs. 1440/- per acre.

On reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, after recording the evidence, enhanced the compensation for each category of land. For ''A'' Block it was assessed at the rate of Rs. 180/- per Marla Rs. 28,800/- per acre. For ''B'' Block land, the compensation was enhanced at the rate of Rs. 100/- per marla Rs. 16,000/- per acre and for ''C'' Block had been enhanced to Rs, 80/- per marla Rs. 12,800/- per acre. The cases were decided by the learned Additional District Judge by a common judgment. Appeals and cross-objections were preferred against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge in this Court. The learned Single Judge by a common judgment recorded in R.F.A. No 1111 of 1978 dismissed the appeals. This is how these three Letters Patent Appeals have come to be filed. In R.F.A. No. 1111 of 1978, G.C. Mital J. accepted the market value of the acquired land upheld by J.M. Tandon, J. in another case of the same village, though Notification was of earlier date. It was observed :--

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length. I am of the view that the market value of the acquired land on 8th of January, 1971, that is on the date of issue of the earlier notification, has to be deemed as given in Exhibit P.10, the award of the Additional District Judge, dated 24th of July, 1972; which has been maintained by J.M. Tandon, J, in R.F.A. No. 10 of 1973. The State of Haryana v. Shmt. Attar Kaur decided on 8th of May, 1979, according to these decisions the market value of the three categories of the acquired land is as follows:--

Block A at the rate of Rs. 180/-per marla

Rs. 28,800/ per acre

Block B at the rate of Rs. 100/-per marla

Rs. 16,000/- per acre.

Block C at the rate of Rs 80/-per marla

Rs. 12,800/- per acre.

Vide Notification dated 30th of January, 1973, the State of Haryana acquired 29.69 acres of land in village Ferozepur Khurd, Tehsil Kalka, District Ambala for the development and utilisation of the land for residential and commercial areas of the Panchkula Urban Estate The Land Acquisition Collector divided the entire land in ''A'' and ''B'' Block for the purpose of determination of compensation For the land included in ''A'' Block, he awarded Rs. 10,000/- per acre as compensation. In the case of ''B'' Block land he awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,440/- per acre.

On objection of the appellants and other persons, reference was made to the District Court u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act The learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, after recording evidence, declined to interfere in the amount awarded Regular First Appeal Nos. 1123 of 1978, 1124 of of 1978 and 1858 of 1978 were filed by the appellants against those orders Before G.C. Mital, J. at the time of arguments, a request was made that all the cases, that is R.F.A. Nos. 1123, 1124 and 1858 of 1978 pertaining to the acquisition of 88.05, and 29 69 acres of land acquired through different notifications dated 30th of January, 1973, be decided vide judgment in R.F.A. No. 1111 of 1978, as villages Indian and Ferozepur Khurd adjoin each other and the acquired land was also similar in situation and potentiality. These Regular, First Appeals, were accordingly allowed and, the amount of compensation was enhanced in accordance with the rates of enhancement in R.F.A. No. 1111 of 1978 L.P.A. Nos. 263 of 1979, 265 of 1979 and (sic) of 1980 have been filed against the judgment in R.F.A. Nos. 1123 of 1978, 1124 of 1978 and 1858 of 1978 respectively.

It was urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that the practice of dividing land under acquisition into different Blocks for awarding compensation, in the locality, which is closely situated to the developed area is not fair these days, as that land because of its close location to that developed area acquires the same potentiality. It is not contested that the land in question is close to the Union Territory Chandigarh and Chandigarh Cantonment. The acquisition of the adjoining land in the developed Urban Estate of Panchkula is conceded by the parties The system of carving out land by the and Acquisition Authorities into different belts or blocks for awarding different compensation, though having some element of arbitrariness, is now judicially recognised by the Courts. But, this belting system is not to universally applied in every case. It is to be put into use in a case where the belting is justified and each case has to be decided on its own merits The fact that the potentiality of the land acquired under reference in these cases is for residential and commercial purposes is admitted even by the Land Acquisition Collector.

4 The learned Land Acquisition Collector himself found the potentiality of the land in Block constituted of brick-kilns, that is Block ''A'' as commercial Taking into consideration this fact the learned Single judge in spite of the fact that there were pits in the land awarded Rs. 28,800/- per acre as compensation to the land-owners of this block of land. In view of the location and commercial potentiality of this land, the Land Acquisition Authorities were justified to treat it as a preferential category. It was for this reason that the compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was not allowed of remain but was enhanced by the courts

Coming to Blocks ''B'' and ''C'' it is to be noted that the Land Acquisition Collector included land left after forming Block ''A'' in Block ''B'' The Kools charats and pathways Were put in Block ''C'' He gave a different treatment to the pathways Kools and charats (water-mills) than the land in Block ''B''. These pathways and Kools always run, through the land. These are meant for approach and irrigation for the benefit of the lands to which these serve. If these utility services are closed or eliminated, then the land, which is being served by these, may lose its utility for the purpose it is being used. These, therefore, are to be treated as part of the land and their utility cannot be minimised for putting in a separate category to seale down the compensation. To treat them as an inferior unit is not fair. In this case the difference in compensation of ''B'' and C'' Blocks of land is Rs. 20/- per marla In Radhy Shyam v. The State of Haryana 1980 P.L.J. 77 the pathways were not treated as separate category from the ether land for the purpose of awarding compensation. It was observed:--

The Land Acquisition Collector had found and the Additional District Judge also accepted that the land acquired was surrounded by the abadi which had the potentiality and higher market value as it was near the Delhi-Mathura road and on this basis, did not fix compensation on the basis of the quality of the land, but made only two categories- (i) for pathways, and (ii) for the remaining land. This clearly shows the potentiality of the land in dispute for being used for industrial, commercial and residential purposes and as such the two categories made by the Land Acquisition Collector and upheld by the Additional District Judge, do not deserve to be sustained. The whole of the land deserves to be evaluated at a flat rate after finding out its market value.

In view of this I do not find any reasonable basis to exclude the land covered by the pathways etc to be put in a separate category in the form of Block ''C'' to decrease the amount of compensation. The creation of Block ''C'' being unfair, improper and uncalled for, in the circumstances of the case, is struck down.

On another ground the belting of the land of Block ''C'' does not deserve to be upheld. When the Land Acquisition Collector himself was statisfied about the potentiality of the land of Block ''C'' to which these pathways, kools, etc were serving then it was not appropriate for him to carve out a separate category for this land to downgrade it regarding its money value to be paid to the landowners Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana 1979 P.L.J. 416 can be referred with advantage, wherein it was held:--

Once the learned District Judge held that the land in dispute had the potential of being used for residential or commercial purposes, the categorisation made into three blocks was in no case justified. Only the land which just abutted on the Delhi-Rohtak road would certainly have a preferential situation as compared to the rest of the area lying just behind it and there would be no further justification for making sub-blocks thereof for fixation of market value and awarding of compensation. Accordingly, we do not find any justification in making separate Blocks ''A'' and ''B'' and, we hold that for the land left in Blocks ''A'' and ''B'' uniform rate of compensation deserves to be allowed.

The land which remains as balance, including the gharats, after striking out Block ''C'' is to be taken as of the same category as of Block ''B'' and compensation has to be worked out on that basis and on that level of price.

The learned Single Judge deciding R.F.A. No. 1111 of 1978 found as a fact that no evidence was led to show the rise in price after acquisition in January, 1971, till the acquisition in January, 1973 Although the trend in rise of prices was present to the mind of the learned Judge, but enhancement could not be allowed on imaginary grounds in the absence of evidence. The appellants have not been able to make out any ground to disturb the finding on the question of enhancement of compensation in regard to the enhancement allowed by the learned Additional District Judge and affirmed in the Regular First Appeals. The compensation for Block ''A'' remains the same as already awarded by the Court. The compensation of Block ''B'' is also maintained. The remaining land has to be assessed at the flat rate of Block ''B''. The enhancement by the Additional District Judge has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge. In R.F.A. No. 1123, 1124 and 1858 of 1978, the compensation was enhanced by the learned Single Judge and brought at par with R.F.A. No. 1111 of 1978. The material on the record was considered and the potentiality of the land was taken into consideration.

As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the Letters Patent Appeals are accepted to the extent indicated in para 5 above. No order as to costs.

S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.

I agree.