Balbir Singh vs The State of Haryana

K.S. Tiwana, J.—Letters Patent Appeal No. 250 of 1979 Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana and Letters Patent Appeal No. 267 of 1979--Harbhajan Singh and others v. State of Haryana have been filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the judgment of J.M. Tandon, J of this Court, dismissing Regular First Appeal No. 345 of 1972 and Regular First Appeal No 335 of 1972 respectively. Letters Patent Appeal No 250 of 1979 is directed against the dismissal of Regular First Appeal No. 345 of 1972 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 267 of 1979 is against the orders in Regular First Appeal No 335 of 1972.

The facts leading to these Letters Patent Appeals are that, the State of Haryana through notification under the Land Acquisition Act published in the Government Gazette dated 8th of January, 1971, acquired land in the revenue areas of villages Judian and Dharsu, Tehsil Kalka, District Ambala, for the planned development of the area. The Land Acquisition Collector divided the land in five Blocks. The justification sought to be given by the Land Acquisition Collector is that a part of the land abutted the Mani Majra-Panchkula road; a part of it had pits and some of it had brick-kilns. Block No. 1 was carved out upto a depth of 36 Karams abutting on either side of Mani Majra-Panchkula metalled road. Block No. 2 is on the other side of Block No. 1 at a distance of 36 Karams from the metalled road. Block No. 3 was formed of brick-kilns and Ghair-Mumkin Khatans (depressions) Block No. 4 consisted of Ghair-Mumkin Kool, pathways and gharat. Block No. 5 was constituted of a Banjar Qadim area. The Land Acquisition Collector, taking into consideration the sale transactions, which took place between April 3, 1970 to June 15, 1970, determined the amount of compensation. While determining compensation he made effort to keep in view that on one side of the Mani Majra-Panchkula road, Chandigarh Cantonment had come up. The area of the Union Territory of Chandigarh was also close by. The compensation awarded to the owners of Block I land was at the rate of Rs. 100/- per Maria. The compensation paid by him for the land in Block No 2 was at the rate of Rs. 68 75 per Maria. The land of Block No. 3 was assessed at the rate of Rs. 62 50 per Maria. The land of Block No. 4 was valued at Rs. 25/- per Marla for the purpose of compensation. The compensation determined for Block No. 5 was at the rate of Rs. 31.25 per Marla.

The land-owners, including the appellants, did not feel satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded and preferred objections At their instance their cases were referred to the District Court, where the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala decided those The learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, after enquiry, raised the amount of compensation in the case of land of Block No. 1 to Rs. 180/- per Marla. The price of land in Block No. 2 was raised to Rs. 100/- per Marla and in the case of Block No. 3 it was raised to Rs. 80/- per Marla. The compensation of land as proposed by the Land Acquisition Collector in Blocks No. 4 and 5 was maintained at the rates awarded by him.

On appeal before this Court, the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala was maintained and the appeals were dismissed The judgment was recorded in R.F.A. No. 10 of 1973. All the Regular First Appeals, including these two, which are before us in these Letters Patent Appeals, were disposed of by that judgment The appellants have now preferred these two Letters Patent Appeals.

The learned counsel for the appellants strenuously urged that the categorisation of the land in different Blocks and belting of those into different groups per quality or distance etc is not fair. He urged that in these days of fast developmental activity, this method, which has some element of arbitrariness is not fair or conducive to the interest of a person, who is deprived of his land, because of acquisition, in the interest of the society. This argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is not completely devoid of force. In these days of development, when industrial, residential and commercial development and urbanization is growing at a fast pace, especially near the areas which have already developed and have attained importance, the potentiality of land in their close vicinity begets the same potentiality as that of the nearby developed town or locality. This potentiality should not be denied, without reasonable basis, vis-a-vis that land, which in the close vicinity of the developed area is being acquired. The land involved in these appeals is situated close to the Mani Majra-Panchkula road. The land lay close to the Union Territory of Chandigarh. Across the road, Chandigarh Cantonment was developing at a fast pace at the time of the acquisition. The learned Additional District Judge noticed the brisk developing activity and the quick rise in prices in para 21 of the judgment under appeal in L.P.A. No. 250 of 1979:--

The State of Haryana has not been able to produce any evidence in rebuttal to this piece of evidence, that is, the evidence produced by the petitioners claimants in respect of the development of contonment of Chandigarh and the testimony of Shri K.L. Bawa P.W. 2 read with the non rebutted testimony of the petitioners claimants and the newspaper cuttings referred to above goes to establish that the cantonment of Chandigarh is coming up across the road and the development work for the same had been started towards the end of 1969 and its pace of development had gradually increased towards the end of 1970 and in the year 1971. The fact that some of the acquired land has been offered for sale by the State of Haryana for residential purposes at an approximate rate of Rs. 26/- to Rs. 33/- per square yard as per advertisement marked ''A'' corroborates the version of the petitioners claimants that the acquired land had become to have potential value far being used for residential and commercial purposes due to its proximity to Chandigarh town and especially for the reason that the Chandigarh Cantonment is being developed across the road where the acquired land is situated.

When these are the circumstances, as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, it becomes difficult to say that a particular portion of land, except the one which immediately abuts the road or other points of strategic importance in regard to development, has an opportunity of fetching more price when the whole chunk including that portion is being acquired for the same purpose Even the distance from the main road etc. in some given case may lose its importance when the purpose of the development is the same. Of course, it may not be possible to hold so in every case. The land of Block I which abuts the Mani Majra-Panchkula road, in the context of the case requires to be given a preferential treatment. Justifying the action of the Land Acquisition Collector, the learned Additional District Judge observed:--

In view of the fact that the acquired land is situated on Manimajra-Panchkula pucca road and the fact that the acquired land is situated near the Union Territory of Chandigarh and the fact that the Cantonment is coming up near the acquired land the learned L.A.C. was justified in arriving at the conclusion that the basis of the kind of land alone will not be a proper or fair criteria to assess the equitable compensation in the present case and, therefore, I am of the opinion that the learned L.A.C. has rightly apportioned the acquired land into five blocks...

As the situation is caricatured by the learned Additional District Judge in the passages extracted above, based on the evidence on the record and the circumstances, I feel that to apply the rule of thumb to categorise the acquired land or divide it into so many belts beyond Block 2, as has been done in this case, is not justified when once it is held, and in my view rightly, that the kind or quality of land is not the proper index for the assessment of compensation in case of acquisition proceedings, then taking the pathways, Kools, ghats (water mill) and Ghair mumkin land or even brick kilns to be placed in a separate category for awarding lower compensation is not called for. They cannot be and should not segregated on the basis of quality in the view of the findings of the learned Additional District Judge quoted above which he gave in view of the developmental activity in close vicinity of the acquired land The putting of land in Blocks 3, 4 and 5 is not justified. The land of these Blocks has to be treated as of Block 2 in the case for the purpose of compensation support is derived for this view from Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana 1979 P.L.J. 416 wherein it was observed:--

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.

Radhey Shyam v. The State of Haryana 1980 P.L.J. 77 can also be referred with advantage, wherein it was held:--

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 path ways, 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.

The Additional District Judge accepted that the acquired land had the potential value for being used for residential and commercial purposes due to closs proximity to Chandigarh town and cantonment. He also noticed a rise in the prices of the land in the area. When the Additional District Judge has taken that view, which is affirmed by the learned Single Judge by rejecting the appeal. I do not think if the belting of the land in further blocks beyond limit fixed for Block ''B'' was called for or justified. In Balbir Singh''s case (supra) and Radhey Shyam''s case (supra), this Court in the circumstances of those cases did not adopt this concept of categorisation or belting of the parcels of land, except those which really deserved a preferential treatment.

In the matter of enhancement of compensation. I do not find if the appellants have made out any case. The evidence has been appreciated in fixing the compensation of land in Blocks ''A'' and ''B'' by the learned Additional District Judge and affirmed by the learned Single Judge.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeals are accepted to the extent that the remaining land, that is, after excluding land of Block ''I'' is to be assessed for compensation at the sane rate as of Block''2''. To this extent the appeal are accepted with no order as to costs.

S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.

I agree.