Duli Chand vs The State of Haryana and Another

I.S. Tiwana, J.—The short point that needs to be settled in these ten Regular First Appeals Nos. 1568, 1569, 1559, 1560, 1619, 1620, 1621, 1622, 1623 and 1624 of 1982 (first four by the claimants and the remaining six by the State of Haryana) relates to the market value of the land acquired within the municipal limits of Gohana Town, measuring about 114 kanals and 8 marlas in pursuance of a notification published u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) on July 1, 1976. The Land Acquisition Collector, determined its value at a flat rate of Rs. 8000/- per acre. As a result of the references sought by the claimants u/s 18 of the Act. the same has been enhanced to Rs. 24,000/- per acre by the land acquisition Court, Sonepat. Both the sides assail the correctness of this assessment made by the lower Court. Whereas the claimants clamour for still a higher rate of compensation, the State authorities assail it on the ground that the same is excessive. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties at some length, I find that the claimants'' appeals must succeed.

It is not a matter of dispute that the entire acquired land lies within the municipal limits of Gohana Town. As per the site plan Exhibit P-6, the correctness of which is neither challenged nor has been assailed at any stage of these proceedings, the acquired land is separated from the main Abadi of the town only by a road known as ''Thaska Road''. For his conclusion determining the market value of the suit land at Rs 24,000/- per acre, the lower Court has primarily relied on a sale instance, Exhibit P-3, disclosing a market rate of Rs. 23,188/- per acre on September 4, 1973. The rest of the evidence of the Appellants, such as sale instances Exhibits P-2, P-4 and an earlier award of this Court in Sumer Chand and Ors. v. The State of Haryana R.F.A. No. 1427 of 1979 (R FA No. 1427 of 1979) decided on August 28, 1980 (Exhibit P-9), has been discarded for the reason that the same does not relate to comparable sales.

To my mind, the Court has adopted a completely erroneous approach in determining the market value of the suit land and it is so well indicated by the following observation made in paragraph 34 of the judgment

The Land Acquisition Collector as such does not appear to have erred in treating it to be agricultural land while assessing the market value thereof.

As clearly pointed out, in the light of the site plan Exhibit P-6, the main Abadi of the town is separated from the acquired land by the intervention of Thasta Road. There cannot possibly be any controversy with regard to the existence of these residential constructions at the time of the issuance of the notification u/s 4 of the Act as a reference to these constructions has already been made in judgment of this Court, Ex. P-9. It is not a matter of dispute that that judgment relates to the acquisition of the land acquired in pursuance of a notification published u/s 4 of the Act on August 16, 1974, for the construction of a Bus Stand. This is what has been observed in that judgment with regard to the location of that land vis-a-vis the Abadi of the town:

From the perusal of map, Exhibit P-2, it is evident that the land in dispute is situated on the eastern side of Gohana-Rohtak road just next to Poonam Cinema. On the western side of the road many commercial establishments and residential colonies had come up by the date of notification.

The residential constructions referred to in this judgment are located in between the two roads, that is, Rohtak-Gohana road and Thaska Road. In the site plan Exhibit P-6, these constructions have been shaded in light blue colour. Even the official witness, Sube Ram, Patwari, P.W-6, has admitted during the course of his statement that the Abadi of the town is extending towards the acquired land. In the light of this conclusive evidence, it is difficult to sustain the finding of the lower Court that the suit land for purposes of its evaluation or in other words it was a land having no potentiality for being utilized as residential or commercial area. Thus I set aside this finding of the lower Court.

So far as the question of evaluation of the suit land is concerned, to my mind, the earlier pronouncement of this Court, Exhibit P-i, furnishes the best guide in this regard As per this judgment, the land lying at a distance of about 45 feet from the main road, i.e., Gohana-Rohtak Road, was evaluated at the rate of Rs. 12/- per square yard. As already indicated, that land was closer to the main highway, i e, Rohtak-Gohana Road and the suit land lies on a link road known as ''Thaska Road. There is some evidence on record in the form of statement of Sube Singh, Patwari, as R.W-l that a part of the suit land was somewhat low-lying and the cremation ground and a filthy pond also lie in the close vicinity of the same. To my mind, these two lands cannot be treated exactly at par for purposes of determining their market value. Keeping in view the findings recorded by this Court in Exhibit P-9, I feel, it would be fair to the claimants if they are awarded compensation at 3/4th the rate allowed in that judgment This is in spite of the fact that a period of about two years had intervened between the two acquisitions. On that basis, the market value of the suit land on the date of its acquisition comes to Rs. 9/- per square yard and I determine it at that In addition to this, the claimant-appellants are also held entitled to the statutory solatium and interest at the rate of 15% and 6% respectively on the enhanced amount of compensation. The interest would be calculated with effect from the date of the dispossession of the Appellants. Besides this they are also made entitled to the proportionate costs of their appeals,

As a natural consequence of the above noted conclusion of mine, the State appeals fail and are dismissed but with no order as to costs.