Fateh Singh and others vs The State of Punjab

Jai Singh Sekhon, J.—In pursuance of the notification published on 10th February, 1977, u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

(hereinafter called ''the Act''), the State of Haryana sought to acquire 24 Kanals 1 Marla of land belonging to the appellants, besides some other

land from the revenue estate of Jind for a public purpose at public expense, i.e. for the construction of the building of Police Station, Sadar, Jind.

The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 30th April, (sic), awarded compensation of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 7000/- per

acre, besides allowing 15% solatium. Being dissatisfied with the adequacy of the compensation, these land-holders sought references u/s 18 of the

Act to the District Judge, Jind, and the learned additional District Judge vide his impugned award enhanced the compensation to Rs. 12000/- per

acre, besides allowing 5% of the market price of the un-acquired land as severance. 15% solatium was also allowed over and above the said

market price, besides interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation.

Still being aggrieved against the adequacy of the acquired land awarded by the Additional District Judge, Jind, the appellants have come up in

appeal, contending that the market price of the acquired land was not less than Rs. 60/- per square yard, but they claimed compensation at the rate

of Rs. 32-50 Paise, per square yard.

The parties have relied upon the following sale transactions before the lower Court:-

ExhibitsDate of sale deedArea K. M. Price (in Rs.) Average price (in Rs.)

P. 5 14.5.71 25. 2/3 Sq. yards.4500/- �

P. 6 18.4.69 28 Square yards. 4000/-

P. 7 16.6.66 56 �do� 2000/- �

P. 8 15.7.68 28 �do� 2800/- �

P. 9 24.2.70 400 �do� 9000/-

R. 7 25.5.69 18K.�8M. 5000/- At the rate of Rs. 2225/- Per Acre.

R. 8 28.1.66 3B�11B Pukhta (Approx 1 1/2 Acres for Rs. 10,000/- Per Acre Price Rs. 6700/-

R. 9. 20.12.65 13B�7B. Pukta (Approx 5 1/2 Acres for Rs. 43,053/-, Rs. 8125/- per Acre

The plan, Exhibit P.4 prepared by Sham Lal, Draftsman (P.W.2) depicting the location of the acquired land, vis-a-vis the shopping Centre of

Jind were also relied upon by the claimants.

There is no dispute between the parties that the acquired land is located within the Municipal limits of Jind Town and along the Jind-Assandh

and Kaithal metalled road and that the shopping centre, Jind, is near Patiala Chowk and is located at a distance of about less than 1-1/2 kilometer

than the acquired land. No doubt the plan Exhibit P.3 prepared by Sham Lal, Draftsman depicts the existing shops and the other complex at the

time of its preparation, i.e. some where in year 1986, but all the same keeping in view the above referred location of the acquired land, it can be

well inferred that it has an unique situation future potential for being used for residential and commercial purposes. Thus, the awarding of

compensation by the Additional District Judge on the basis of the average statement of sale transactions furnished by the Land Acquisition

Collector awarding Rs. 8000/- per acre by treating it as an ordinary agricultural land is not sustainable. The Additional District Judge has allowed

another Rs. 4000/- per Acre over and above the said amount of Rs. 8000/- per Acre considering that the land has better agriculture potential

being located near to Jind Town.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the Sale-deed, Exhibit P. 9 pertaining to 400 square yard of land located hardly

at a distance of 2 Kilometers from the acquired land was wrongly ignored by the lower Court. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Slate of

Haryana, however, supported the version of the Additional District Judge. Unfortunately, in the present case the parties have not produced any

sale transaction of a similarly situated large tract of land. The sale deeds, Exhibits P.5 to P.8 pertain to 25.2/3 to 28 Square yards of land, which

was obviously purchased for the construction of the shops along the Jind Kaithal and Jind-Narwana roads, as deposed by Balbir Singh (P.W.3),

Phool Singh (P.W.4) and Gopi Ram (P.W.5). Thus the lower Court rightly ignored these sale transactions as the same did not provide genuine

basis for assessing the market value of the large tracts of land. The sale deeds, Exhibits R. 7 to R. 9 relied upon by the State before the lower

Court are also not relevant for assessing the market value of the acquired land on 10th February, 1977, as they pertain to the year 1965 to 1969

Moreover there is no evidence on the file to ascertain the location of the land, subject-matter of these three sale deeds vis-a-vis the acquired land

of the appellants. Thus, the lower Court rightly discarded these sale transactions.

The only other sale transaction worth considering is Exhibit P.9 pertaining to the sale of four plots of land, in all measuring about 300 square

yards along the Assandh road near Patiala Chowk for Rs. 9000/-, i.e. at the rate of Rs. 25/- per square yard. The lower Court had discarded this

sale transaction being of small area of land and located near the Patiala Chowk than the acquired land of the appellants. In view of the factum that

no other sale transaction pertaining to large tracts of similarly located land is available on the file there is no option but to make the sale-deed,

Exhibit P.9 as basis of assessing the market price of the acquired land after making due reductions in its market price in view of its better situation

potential and being small pieces of land. The Supreme Court in Smt. Kausalya Devi Bogra and Others Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad

and Another, , had indicated that that Court has been allowing reduction of 25% to 30% while assessing the market price of large tracts of land on

the basis of sale transactions involving small pieces of land. Thus usually 33% reduction in the large tracts of agricultural land is required to be left

for providing roads and other civic amenities while converting an ordinary agricultural land for residential purposes. In the present case some

further reduction has to be made for better situation potential of the land subject matter of sale deed, Exhibit P. 9 in the acquired land vis-a-vis the

shopping centre at Jind Town. Under these circumstances 20% of the sale price of Exhibit P.9 would provide genuine basis for assessing the

market price of the acquired land on 10th February 1977 Per Acre Price Exhibit P.9 works upto Rs. 1,08,900/- and 1/5th would works upto Rs.

21780/-. This conclusion it further fortified from the fact that the Land Acquisition Collector has assessed the market price of the ordinary

agricultural land at Rs. 7000/- per Acre and that the market price of the acquired land is three times than that of the agricultural land.

Consequently, the compensation of the acquired land is enhanced to Rs. 21780/- per Acre from Rs. 12000/- per Acre.

The question then arises whether 5% of the market price of the unacquired land as compensation for severences to land holders is unreasonable

or not. In this regard it is noteworthy that it is not a case of that type where due to acquisition of a portion of land, the remaining land had been left

unaccessible. On the other hand, the perusal of the plan, Exhibit P. 3 shows that the unacquired land of the appellants also abuts on the said

Kaithal road. Thus, under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the learned Additional District Judge has allowed inadequate compensation

on account of severences of land-holders.

The appellants shall also be entitled to an amount equal to 12% per annum over and above the market price of their acquired land from the date

of notification u/s 4 of the Act till the date of their dispossession from the pronouncement of the award whichever is earlier, besides 30% solatium

over and above the said compensation. The appellants shall also be entitled to 9% per annum interest on the said compensation for the first year

from the date of delivery of possession of the land and 15% per annum for the subsequent years.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellants stands accepted to extent referred to above. They shall also be entitled to

proportionate costs.