Balia and Others vs State of Haryana and Another

Rajesh Bindal, J.—This order shall dispose of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 1536 of 2010 and 342 to 346 of 2011, as common questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals.

The landowners are seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land by filing appeal.

The bunch of appeals pertain to the valuation of land acquired for construction of BML Hansi Branch-Butana Branch Multipurpose Link Channel from RD 91 to 156 taking from RD 340300- L Bhakra Main Line for which notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ''the Act'') was issued by the State of Haryana on 18.8.2005, published on 23.8.2005. The land is situated within the revenue estate of village Bichhian, Hadbast No. 3, Tehsil Ghula, District Kaithal. Notification u/s 6 of the Act was issued on 13.9.2005. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ''the Collector'') vide award dated 27.1.2006 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre. The land owners being dissatisfied with the award of the Collector filed objections which were referred to the learned Court below. On reference u/s 18 of the Act, the learned Court below assessed the compensation of the acquired land @ Rs. 6,00,000/- per acre. Aggrieved against the award of the learned court below, both the parties are in appeal before this Court.

Learned Counsel for the landowners submitted that the court below has not awarded just and fair compensation for the acquired land while considering the location of the land. The sale-deeds, Ex. P-1/A, Ex.P-1/B, Ex.P/C. Ex. P-1/D and Ex. P-E, produced by the landowners on record were not considered while determining market value of the acquired land. Vide sale-deed, Ex. P-1/A, land measuring 3 marlas was sold on 16.6.2004 at an average price of Rs. 34,00,000/- per acre and vide sale-deed, Ex. P-1/B, 2 kanals of land was sold on 18.7.2005 at an average price of Rs. 20,00,000/- per acre. Vide Ex. P-1/C, 6 marlas of land was sold on 29.8.2005, at an average price of Rs. 35,00,000/- per acre. Vide Ex. P-1/D, land measuring 5 marlas was sold on 20.10.2003 at an average price of Rs. 25,00,000/- per acre and Ex.

P-E, land measuring 15 marlas was sold on 14.7.2005 at an average price of Rs. 12,00,000/- per acre. These sale-transactions are of village Azimgarh, which is adjacent to village Bichhian. Inspite of the fact that evidence in the form of sale-deeds was available, the learned court below while relying upon award of other village assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 6,00,000/- per acre. This village is developing like a town. The learned court below while determining the market value of the acquired land has totally ignored the location and potentality of the land. The submission was for determination of value keeping in view the location and the evidence led by the landowners on record.

Another submission made by learned Counsel for the landowners was that due to construction of channel the land of the landowners has been divided into two parts but only those landowners have been awarded Rs. 50,000/- per acre, who appeared as witnesses and rest of the landowners have not been awarded any amount on account of severance. It was submitted that the learned court below should have at least awarded compensation as per the revenue record to those landowners whose land has been bifurcated and not to only those who had appeared as witnesses.

In response to the contentions raised by learned Counsel for the land owners, learned Counsel for the State submitted that the court below had not given any reasoning whatsoever while determining the amount of compensation payable for the acquired land. It had merely applied a thumb rule. The evidence led by the land owners did not justify any increase whatsoever. There is no site plan produced on record by the land owners to show where the land pertaining to sale deeds relied upon by them is located.The State Government has issued policies fixing minimum floor rates in the State for acquired land. Vide policy dated 28.4.2005, the minimum floor rates in the area in question in the State was Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre which was further revised in the year vide policy dated 6.4.2007 to Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre which was made applicable only where the awards were to be announced on or after 22.3.2007. But the learned court below without there being any reason assessed the compensation for the acquired land while relying upon policy issued by the State Government on 6.4.2007. This policy dated 6.4.2007 was not in operation in the year 2005 as the same was applicable only where the award was announced on or after 22.3.2007.

As regards the sale-deeds produced by the landowners are concerned, it was submitted by the learned State counsel that the learned court below has rightly not considered, as those were pertaining to land of other village. He further argued that the value of the land of each area is different keeping in view the location and other advantages. But in the present case, the learned court below without there being justification assessed the compensation for the acquired land while relying upon award of other village. It is due to the policy of the State Government that the value of the land was determined @ Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre by the Collector, otherwise the value of the land in the area was not as much which was awarded by the learned court below. The prayer was for restoration of award of the Collector. As regards severance, the submission was that the land owners have not led any evidence to show as to in what manner, they have suffered any loss on account of acquisition of land for channel.Accordingly, the learned court below had rightly negatived the claim to that extent.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record.

In support of their claim for enhancement of compensation for the acquired land, the landowners have produced on record sale instances in the form of sale-deeds, Ex. P-1/A, Ex.P-1/B, Ex.P/C. Ex. P-1/D and Ex. P-E.These sale instances were of village Azimgarh. As per site plan placed on the record, village Azimgarh is not in the close vicinity of village Bichhian.

While assessing the market value of the acquired land in the present case, the learned court below had also relied upon policy dated 6.4.2007 vide which the minimum rates as were fixed for acquisition of land in the State of Haryana. The relevant extract of policy, dated 6.4.2007, is as under:

Sub: Fixation of floor rates for the acquisition of land for public purpose in the State of Haryana.

Ref: This Department Memo No. 2025-R-5-2005/4299, dated 28.4.2005.

Vide this Department Memo. under reference, minimum floor rates for acquiring land for public purposes for various Departments as well as other State Agencies were fixed by the Haryana Government as follows:

i) Minimum floor rate for urbanisable area of Gurgaon. Rs. 15.00 lacs per acre

ii) Minimum floor rate for rest of the Haryana Sub-Region of NCR inlcuding Panchkula and area of Chandigarh periphery in the Haryana State. Rs.12.50 lacs per acre.

iii) Minimum floor rate for the rest of the Haryana State. Rs. 05.00 lacs per acre.

(These floor rates did not include the solatium and interest payable under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894).

Now it has been observed that with the passage of time market rates of the land have increased substantially. Therefore, Haryana Government has re-considered this matter and has decided to re-fix these floor rates as follows:

i) Minimum floor rate for urbanisable area of Gurgaon. Rs. 20.00 lacs per acre

ii) Minimum floor rate for rest of the Haryana Sub-Region of NCR inlcuding Panchkula and area of Chandigarh periphery in the Haryana State. Rs.16.00 lacs per acre.

iii) Minimum floor rate for the rest of the Haryana State. Rs. 08.00 lacs per acre.

These floor rates do not include the solatium and interest payable under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

These revised rates will be applicable on all those acquisitions where awards have been announced on or after 22.3.2007 irrespective of the date of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

As per the aforesaid letter dated 6.4.2007 the minimum floor rate for the rest of the Haryana State was fixed @ Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre and the rates are applicable to all those acquisitions where awards have been announced on or after 22.3.2007 irrespective of date of notification u/s 4 of the Act. In the present case, the award was announced by the Collector on 27.1.2006 whereas the policy dated 6.4.2007 comes into force with effect on 22.3.2007.

A perusal of aforesaid policies shows that from the year 2005 to 2007 the State of Haryana itself had incresed the value of the land @ 60% in the area in question i.e. from Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre. These revised rates are applicable on the awards announced on or after 22.3.2007 irrespective of the date of notification u/s 4 of the Act.Notification u/s 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 18.8.2005 and the award by the Collector was announced on 27.1.2006.

A perusal of the aforesaid policies shows that after a gap of nearly two years, the minimum compensation payable for acquisition of land was enhanced @ 30% per annum or the price as shown in 2005 is 37.5% less than the price shown in the year 2007. This is evident from rising prices of land on which there is lot of pressure in recent times because of demand for urbanization and other infrastructural facilities. The aforesaid policy letter, in my opinion, can be considered as a piece of evidence showing the value of the land and considering the fact that the award in the present case was announced about one year prior thereto, a reasonable cut can be applied.

Keeping in view the increase shown by the Government itself in the prices of land, the value of the land in the present set of appeals is determined @ Rs. 6,50,000/- per acre. The landowners are also be held entitled to all the statutory benefits available under the Act.

As far as grant of severance on account of bifurcation of land, the court has rightly granted compensation to the landowners who have led evidence in that regard, accordingly, the same does not call for any interference.

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.