Chander Parkash vs The State of Haryana and Others

N.C. Jain, J.—This judgment of mine would dispose of Regular First Appeals No. (sic) 1025, 1089 to 1094 1131, 1153 to 1171, 1329 to 1337, 1342, 1700 to 1704, 1841 1910 1989 : and 2332 of 1989, 182, 183 185, 186, 282 and 283 of 1990 filed by the claimants and Regular-First Appeals No. 2375. 2377, 2381 to 2383 2385 to 1389, 2426 to 2431, 2433, 2434 2458 to 7446. 2448 to 2453, 2455, 2455, 2459, 2460, 2462 to 2469 and 2472 of 1989, filed by the State of Haryana, as they arise out of one award of the Additional District fudge. Hissar, dated 28.-24.1989. The claimants ''have sought enhancement of compensation in their appeals whereas the State has craved the indulgence of this Court, for reducing the ammount of, compensation The State of Haryana, by issuance of Notification, dated 18 6 1984, u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter the Act), sought to acquire land measuring (sic) Karal 2 Marias, which was reduced to 3026 Kanals-17 Marks. The acquired land is situated in village Satrod Khas, within the municipal limits of Hissar. It has been acquired for extension of Cantonnent. The lard Acquisition Collector passed award No. 6, dated 21-l-1986, dividing the lard into four categories and assessed compensation for various categories as under :-

Category Kind of land Rate per acre ''A'' Land adjoining on the northern side Rs. 60,000/- of by-pass as shown in Annexure ''A" ''B'' Land next to the adjacent land to Rs. 40/00/- Annexure ''A'' Khasrawise details in annexure ''B'' ''C'' Nehri Chahi land detailed in anne- Rs. 25,000/- xure ''C'' ''D'' Barani and Tal land as detailed in Rs. 15,000/- annexure ''D''

Besides, the compensation for land, trees, buildings, and tubewells were also evaluated. The claimants feeling dissatisfied with the award, sought references, u/s 18 of the Act, which were consolidated. The Additional District Judge abolished tie four categories and made two blocks. Lands falling in block A'' were evaluated at Rs. 1 lac per acre, whereas lands falling in block ''B'' were evaluated at Rs. 50,000/- per acre. The Additional District Judge ordered attachment of two annexures alongwith the judgretnt, specifying rectangle numbers and khasra numbers falling in the two blocks, without giving in the judgment the specific criteria, on the basis of which two blocks were made

In these appeals before me, counsel for both the parties have confined their arguments to the valuation of lard only and did not challenge the correctness of the assessment of compensation regarding other items, i e., trees, buildings and tubewells, etc. etc.

Learned counsel for the claimants, Shri D. S. Bali, Senior Advocate Mr. Jaswaint Jain, Shri L. N. Verma Advocate, Shri Surja Kant, Advocate, Shri C. R. Dahiya, Advocate, Mr Aman Dahyia, Advocate and Shri G. S Jaswal Advocate and Shri S. C. Mohunta, Advocate General, Haryana, assisted by Shri P. N. Makani, Advocate have been heard by me.

All the counsel at the time of hearing have referred to the oral statements of Major Satyapal Modgil (PW 1) Vinod Kumar Draftsman (PW3), Thandi Ram (PW5), Dobi Ram (PW 7), Krishan Kumar (PW 10), Ram Chander (PW 13), Ram Kumar (PW 14) Chattar Singh (PW 16); Bal-Mukand (PW 17), Ajmer Singh (PW 1) and Girdhari Lal (RW 2). Out of the documentary evidence, reference was made to sale deeds Exhibits PA. PC, PD, PE, PG and PM, besides site plan Exhibit PW 3/1. No other document was referred to during the course of hearing. Reference was also made to the following deeided cases :-

(i) Brij Nandan v. State of Haryana 1979 P. L. J. 502.

(ii) L.Y. Lagoo Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (2), Pune and Another, and

(iii) Ravi Kanta v. Land Acquisition Tribunal, Hissar Improvement Trust, Hissar 1999 P. L. J. 255.

At the time of hearing, the counsel for the claimants have primarily raised two contentions. In the first instance, it was argue that the Additional District Judge has determined the compensation at a lower rate and that the evidence brought on the record of the case'' warrants determination of the market value of the acquired land at a higher rate. Secondly, it has been argued that the Additional District Judge, has committed a grave legal error in not assessing the compensation at a flat race and that there is no legal basis to make two blocks as the land acquired is comprised in one compact block. In short, arguments on both the questions which have been advanced by the counsel are that the Additional District Judge has failed to refer to the sale instances brought on the record of the case. It has further been argued that without relying upon one set of evidence of the other the Additional District Judge, in his ultimate conclusion, has just jumped at the conclusion that he was awarding Rs. 1 lac per acre, for the lands falling in block ''A'' and Rs. 50,000/- per acre, for the lands- falling in block ''B''. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has argued Chat the Additional District Judge has erred in not maintaining the four categories, which were made by the Land Acquisition Collector and that the award of the Collector deserves to be restored. In the alternative, the State counsel has vehemently argued that there is nothing wrong with the conclusion of the Land Acquisition Court, regarding the assessment of the market value of the acquired land and chat there was sufficient justification for categorising the land into two blocks

For appreciating the rival contentions of the counsel for the parties, it is necessary for me to have a look at the oral and documentary evidence, particularly, when all the sale deeds have not beer* refer red to by the Additional District Judge in the award. Major Satyaoal Modgil (PW 1) is himself the claimant whose land has been acuquired. He has stated that the acquired land is located at Hissar Delhi road, opposite Rabindra Tubes, Hissar and that on one side of his land Swdeshi Tubes factory was in existence. This witness also purchased land for the purpose of installing a factory after retirement. As the land was located near Hissar Cantonment, he thought that he would get all the best facilities as an Ex-serviceman. He further stated that adjoining the land purchased by him, there were other industrial units. Vinod Kumar (PW 3) is a draftsman, who produced site plan Exhibit PW 3/1. prepared by him, showing the correct spot. He prepared the estimate report regarding the construction etc. which, as has observed in the earlier part of the judgment, has been referred to, as the counsel for the parties have concentrated their arguments about the enhancement of compensation regarding the land only Thandi Ram (PW 5) is another claimant, whose 4-1/2 Killas of land was acquired. According to this witness, the land was located on the National Highway by pass and that the land could be used for laying a garden as it had commercial potential as well. The witness has described the existence of many factories around the land. The market value of the acquired land was described to be rupees 2 2-1/2 lacs per killa. Chander Parkash (PW 6), whose 2 acres of land was acquired, described his land as Nehri, which was stated to be situated at a distance of 10-15 Killas from the National Highway. He Las stated that the land has commercial potentiality and that it adjoins Hissar City. The factory area, according to him. has gone upto Harjri Town. The market value of the acquired land was described by this witness also to be rupees 2 2-1/2 lacs per acre. Devi Ram (PW 7) described the location of the acquired land at Delhi-Hissar read. As regards potentiality, this witness stated that the land bad both commercial and residential potentialities The witness stated that factories were in existence around the acquired land as shewn in the plan Exhibit PW 3/1. According to him, the urban estates of Satrod Kalan, Kburd and Khas adjoin one another. This witness further stated that there was scarcity of land in the village and the acquired land was even, having no pits. According to this witness, Cantonment Hissar constructed 10 years earlier was nearby the acquired land and that the disputed land was acquired for extension of the Cantonment, he further gave the distance of the Railway Station and Bus Stard, Hissar, from the acquired land as 6/7 Kms. He has further stated that the land fell in the town planning scheme of Hissar and that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 100/-per sq yard. Krishan Kumar, Asstt Estate officer, HUDA, Hissar (PW 10), brought Schemes No. 27 A. and 28 of Industrial Sector, Satrod Khurd and stated that in these schemes an industrial area was carved out by HUDA and the aforesaid colonies were located in the revenue estate of village Satred Khurd. Ram Chander (PW 13) also stated that the entire land bad industrial and commercial potentialities. Statement of Ram Kumar (PW 14) is also to the same effect. Chattar Singh (PW 16), while describing the market value of the acquired land at rupees (sic) per acre, stated that many factories were surrounding the acquired land and a residential colony had been carved out near the acquited land. Bal Mukand (PW 17) who appears to be the star witness, while corroborating the statements of other witnesses, had stated in clear terms that the acquired land was surrounded by factories which are shown in the site plan Exhibit PW 3/ . He is the only witness who has clearly stated that the factories shown in the site-plan were in existence on the date of acquisition. Regarding market value of the acquired land, he has stated that it was rupees 2 1/2/3 lacs per acre. He has stated that Hissar Cantonment was raised 10/12 years prior to the acquisition of the land in dispute. Railway Station Hissar was at a distance of 7 Kms whereas the Bus Stand was at a distance of 8 Kms. from the acquired land, according to this witness.

Ajmer Singh Patwari (RW 1) stated in his examination in chief that the acquired land was at a distance of 13/14 Kms. from Hissar City. In Cross examination this witness had to admit that in most of the sale deeds Exhibits R 2 to R 12. produced by the State, the land sold was under lease for a period of 99 years. He had further admitted that many factories stood constructed on National Highway No. 10 and that Sector 27 had been carved out by HUDA in the revenue estate of village Satrod Khan This witness, when further recalled for cross- examination, stated that Sector 27 industrial sector, was carved out by HUDA and was shown in the plan Exhibit PW 3/1. The statements of other witnesses were not referred to.

Adverting to the documentary evidence, the perusal of the sale deed Exhibit PA shows that land measuring 11 Kanals 9 Marias situated in village Satrod Khas, comprised in Killa No. 168, was sold for a sum of Rs. 1,50.000/-, bringing out the sale price for one acre to Rs. 1,04,80 .43. Reference was also made by the counsel for she claimant to other sale deed Exhibit PD, PE, and PM. vide sale deed Exhibit PD. land measuring 1 Kanal was sold, the price of which when converted into one acre comes to Rs. 3,26,000/-. Similarly, vide Exhibit PE, land measuring 1 Kanal 3 Marias was sold and the price per acre comes to Rs. 3,10,000/-. Similar is the position with respect to Exhibit PM, vide which land measuring 2 Kanals 15 Marks was sold. bringing out the price per acre to Rs. 1,16,363/-. However, this court is not inclined to place any reliance on the aforementioned three sale deeds. May be, they were registered before the date of issuance of notification-under Section 4 of the Act, in the present case. The reason is obvious By virtue of the aforementioned sale deeds, small pieces of land measuring not more than 2 Kanals 15 Marias and not less than 1 Kanals, were sold The areas being too small in size, the sales cannot be said to be comparable vis a vis the acquired land which runs into 3026 Kanals. In view thereof, this Court is inclined to place reliance upon Exhibit PA by virtue of which land measuring 11 Kanals 9 Marias was sold, bringing out the price per acre to Rs. 1,04,803.43. This figure can be rounded off to Rs. 1,05,000/-, which seems to be the most reasonsable and fair compensation, particularly when potenti- ality of the land for being used for industrial and residential purposes cannot be denied and more pirticularly when it is the admitted case that the land in dispute is within the municipal limits of Hissar. I get support for arriving at the aforesaid conclusion by making a reference to another sale deed Exhibit PG, vide which land measuring 167 Kanals 10 Marlas, situated in village Satrod khas was sold for a sum of Rs. 25,73,750/- and the price per acre comes to Rs. 1,03,820.63 P. The sale deeds produced by the State are liable to be discarded as the land sold was under lease of 99 years.

This, leads me to decide the second question as to whether the making of two blocks by the Additional District Judge has got any justification or not. It has been found by the Additional District Judge that the acquired land can be used for commercial and industrial purposes. It has also been found and evidence has been led that the acquired land is situated at a distance of 6/7 kms. from Railway Station, Hisar, and 7/8 kms from the Bus Stand Hissar, Not only that factories have seen found to be in existence near the acquired land and that too, before the issuance of notification u/s 4 of the Act. The land is, admittedly, situated within the municipal limits. I have sees the, site plan Exhibit 3/1- The entire acquired land is in one compact block. The land torches the Hissar by pass which, in turn, ultimately meats the National Highway No. 10, Since the entire acquired land had potentiality for being developed into commercial and industrial area it can very well be described to be a land of the natural which is likely to be used in the immediate or reasonably near future for building purposes. Once the claimants have led categorical evidence to be effect that the acquired land is situated within the municipal limits, the use to which it was being put, namely, for agricultural purposes, is immaterial on account of its being urban property.

In somewhat similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this court in Brij Nandan''s case (supra) held that the categorisation of land into blocks was unwarranted and evaluated the land at a uniform rate primarily on the ground that the land acquired in that case had the potentiality for urban development, The Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case was dealing with the acquisition of land in Faridabad, and it was held that the acquired land had potential for being developed for commercial, industrial and residential purposes. A Division Bench of Bombay High Court in L. Y. Lagoo''s case (supra), abolished the belting system in similar circumstances. A L. Bahri, J. in Ravi Kama''s case (supra), did not favour belting system in the case of acquired land in towns having great potentiality for being used for residential and commercial buildings

Applying the ratio of Jaw laid down in the aforementioned cases and on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is not inclined to endorse the findings of the Additional District Judge, on the point of formation of two blocks The perusal of the relevant findings does not, at all, disclose as to what criterion was followed by the Additional District Judge, on the baas of which two blocks were formed. The Additional District Judge made two annexure and specified in the judgment that the land falling in Annexure ''A'' would be evaluated at Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre whereas the land forming part of other Khasra numbers mentioned in annexure ''B'' would fall in block ''B''. As had been observed above, the perusal of the plan Exhibit PW 3/1 clearly shows that the entire acquired lend forms part of one compact block and the land touches the Hissar by pass. The acquired land being within the municipal area and factories having sprung up before the acquisition, the entire lard had great potentiality of being developed for commercial and industrial purposes. In view thereof, it cannot be reasonably held that particular Khasra numbers can be e\\aluated at double the rate whereas upon other Khasra numbers, half the evaluation be put by the Court.

In the light of the observations made above, I stand persuaded to abolish the categorisation of land into two blocks. Consequently, the categorisation is hereby abolished. The claimants are held entitled to the grant of compensation at a uniform rate of Rs. 1,05,000/ per acre.

As a result, the appeals filed by the claimants are hereby allowed with proportionate costs, whereas the appeals filed by the Slate of Haryana, are ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs The claimants are further held entitled to the grant of statutory benefits of the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, i.e. Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28.