Daya Singh and Another vs The State of Haryana

N.C. Jain, J.—This judgment of mine would dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 481, 482, 487 of 1984 filed by the State of Haryana and R.F.A. No. 1609 of 1984 filed by the claimants The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass and may thus be noticed.

In pursuance of a notification dated October 1,1973 a big chunk of land measuring 102.65 acres situated in village Mawai was acquired by the State of Haryana for the purpose Of development and utilisation of land as residential area in Sector 28 in village Mawai in Ballabhgarh Faridabad Controlled Area. The afore-mentioned land included the land of the landowners in these appeals The land Acquisition Collector by his Award assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 120/- per marla. The compensation for fruit trees and superstructures was also granted. The landowners feeling aggrieved againt the Award of the Collector sought references u/s 18 of the Land Acquisiton Act (for short ''the Act''). The Land Acquisition Court framed the following issues :-

What was the market value of the land in dispute on the date of the notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act ?

Whether the petitioners are entitled to enhanced compensation for the acquired land over and above the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector ? If so how much ?

Whether there were in existence fruit plants on the land in dispute on the date of its acquisition? If so to what amount of additional compensation, the petitioners are entitled for the same ?

Whether there were in existence on the date of acquisition tubewell, tubewell room, living room, cattle shed, godown and compound wall on the land in dispute as also pucca water channel? If so whether the petitioners are entitled to separate compensation in respect of the items and to what extent ?

Relief. Under Issue Nos. 1 and 2, the learned District Judge has determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 18/- per sq. yard by following the judgment Exh. P 6 gives by this Court on 17.5.1979. This Court in the decided case was assessing the market value of the land acquired in the present cases by way of notification dated 1.10 1973 and, therefore, this Court has only to endorse the valuation of Rs. 18/ per sq. yard. Consequently, finding no merit is the State Appeals, the same are ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.

The market value of the acquired land having been determined at Rs. 18/- per sq yard, I have to determine as to what should be the compensation for fruit trees It has remained undisputed that the learned District Judge has granted compensation at Rs. 71551/- by following the formula laid down and published by the Horticulture Department. Since the land along with the fruit trees has, admittedly, been acquired on Ist October, 1973, the landowners in R.F.A. No. 1609 of 1984 are definitely entitled to an increase in the valuation of the fruit trees.

Mr M. L. Sarin, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the landowners has cited before me a judgment of the Division Bench reported as Ranjit Singh v. The Union Territory of Chandigarh (1983) 85 P. L. R 471. where- in 100 per cent rise on the basis of increase in the All India Wholesale Price Index has been given. The attention of this Court was drawn to the following observations made by this Court:-

"The learned counsel for the claimants, however, pointed out that this formula was published in the year 1966 and was based on the market conditions prevalent then and, therefore, the claimants are entitled to claim a substantial increase in the price of the fruit trees to be assessed on the basis of this formula. They point out that since the publication of this formula in the year 1966, the whole sale price index of that year (144.3) had risen to 309.1 in the year 1975 as per the bulletins published by the Economic Adviser, Ministry of Industry and Civil Supplies, Government of India, New Delhi It deserves to be mentioned here that in this case the notification u/s 4 of the Act was published on December 28, 1974 Thus according to the learned counsel, the appellant is entitled is not to 14.2% of increase over the price of fruit trees worked out on the basis of the formula, then at least to 100% of the price of the fruit trees workable on the basis of the said formula The learded counsel for the acquiring authorities are neither in a position to challenge the correctness of the wholesale price index as published by the Government of India nor do they dispute that since the year 1966 the price of land as also of the fruit trees has seen a tremendous increase They, however, maintain that it is difficult to determine that increase with any precision. That is true, yet in these matters in the very nature of things the market value of the acquired property cannot be determined with any exactitude and has essentially to be fixed on the basis of some reasonable method. In the light of that we are of the considered opinion that the claimant atleast is entitled to an increase of 100% instead of 114.2% over the price of fruit trees workable on the basis of the above noted formula published by S. Harbans Singh We are unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that it was primarily for the claimant to prove the inadequacy of the compensation awarded to him and the Government or the acquiring authorities had no duty in the manner and they could wait the proof of claim in complacency like a defendant and without assisting the Court by all the materials at their command. The mere dismissal of the claim of the appellant as unsubstantiated by evidence would certainly not imply that the Court has no duty to fix the quantum of compensation payable under the Act independently and upon materials available and by all means in its power,"

The argument is well merited and deserves acceptance in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench in Ranjit Singh''s case (supra) that the landowner is entitled to 100 percent increase. Although, I am dealing with the notification in the present cases which was issued on 1.10.1973 whereas the notification in the decided case was issued on 28th December, 1974, yet I am of the view that the landowners are entitled to increase of 100 per cent because of the Division Bench judgment reported as Ranjit Singh''s case (supra) holding that landowner is atleast entitled to 100 per cent increase Even in 1973 the increase in the All India Wholesale Price was 110.6 percent where as in 1971 there was a further marginal increase to the extent of 114.2 per sent The factum of issuance of the notification in the decided case a year earlier would not make any difference whatsoever in view of the use of the words in Ranjit Singh''s case (supra) that the landowners were atleast entitled to 100 per cent increase. Once the Wholesale Price Index even in 1973 was 110 6 per cent, this Court can definitely grant 100 per cent increase while following the ratio of law laid down in the decided case (supra). Consequently, I hereby allow 100 per cent increase upon the valuation put by the District Judge.

As regards the valuation of the super structures, it has been observed by the District Judge that no accounts were produced. I fully agree with the finding recorded by the District Judge. He was right in maintaining the valuation of the super-structures as given by the Collector.

In the present case, the learned District Judge has not given the benefits of the amended provisions of the Act despite the fact that the Award was given by him on June 13, 1984. Consequently, I allow the statutory benefits of the amended provisions of Section 23(2) and 28 of the Act Since the Land Acquisition Collector gave the Award on 22.2.1974, the landowners would not be entitled to the benefit of Section 23(1A) of the Act. They would have proportionate costs of the appeals.