Gajjan Singh vs State of Punjab and another

M.S. Liberhan, J.

This judgment of ours shall dispose of a bunch of Letters Patent Appeals arising out of the judgment dated 28th October, 1987 of the learned Single Judge. So far as the facts are concerned, those have been taken from L.P.A. No. 822 of 1988.

In brief, the factual matrix necessary in order to determine the appeals is that the land of eight villages i.e. Ghanauli, Daburji, Nuhon, Rattanpura, Awankot, Chak Dhera, Kot Bala and Sirsa Nangal, measuring 5010 Kanals 12 Marlas, was acquired for the purpose of establishing Thermal Plant, Ropar, vide Notification dated July 14, 1979, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, published on July 20, 1979. Similarly, another piece of land measuring 279 Kanals 1 Marla from the same villages was acquired for the same purpose vide Notification, dated January 23, 1981, under Section 4 of the Act. Still another area of 2283 Kanals 1 Marla was acquired for the same purpose out of the same villages vide Notification under Section 4, dated June 21, 1979. The Collector treated the land as Chahi/Nehri, Bagh Chahi/Barani/Bagh Barani/Salab/Banjar Jadid/Banjar Qadim and Ghair Mumkin and assessed the market value according to the nature of the land. However, the District Judge, Ropar, treated the land as Chahi, Barani, Salab, Banjar Jadid and Banjar Qadim and enhanced the market value vide order, dated February 25, 1983. The market value assessed is as under :

(1)

Chahi, BaghChahi, Nehri and ChahiNehri

Rs. 18,000/ per acre

(2)

Barani and Bagh Barani

Rs. 14,500/ per acre

(3)

Salab land

Rs. 11,000/ per acre

(4)

Banjar Jadid

Rs. 12,700/ per acre

(5)

Banjar Qadim/Ghair Mumkin

Rs. 7,200/ per acre

(3) The District Judge in another award, dated January 6, 1984 arising out of a bunch of claims with respect to the land acquired by the same Notification for the same purpose and relating to the same villages assessed the market value as under :

(1)

Chahi Nehri

Rs. 20,000/ per acre

(2)

Barani

Rs. 16,500/ per acre

(3)

Salab

Rs. 12,500/ per acre

(4)

Banjar Jadid

Rs. 15, 000/ per acre

(5)

Banjar Qadim/Ghair Mumkin

Rs. 11,000/ per acre

The market value with respect to the acquisition of land in the year 1981, was assessed as under :

(1)

Chahi Nehri

Rs. 23,000/ per acre

(2)

Barani

Rs. 18,975/ per acre

(3)

Salab

Rs. 14,375/ per acre

(4)

Banjar Qadim/Ghair Mumkin

Rs. 12,650/ per acre

Along with it, statutory benefits were given.

In appeal, the learned Single Judge assessed the market value with respect to the acquisition through Notifications of 1979 at the following rates :

(1)

Chahi/Nehri

Rs. 25,000/ per acre

(2)

Barani/Banjar Jadid/Salab

Rs. 20,198/ per acre

(3)

Banjar Qadim/Ghair Mumkin

Rs. 15,200/ per acre

and further allowing the increase of about 18 per cent for the acquisition made through the Notification (under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act) in the year 1981 assessed the market value of the land at the following rates :

(1)

Chahi/Nehri

Rs. 29,700/ per acre

(2)

Barani/Banjar Jadid/Salab

Rs. 23,834/ per acre

(3)

Banjar Qadim/Ghair Mumkin

Rs. 17,700/ per acre

The appellants impugned the judgment of the learned Single Judge and contended that the learned Single Judge has committed an error by applying a cut of onethird while assessing the market value represented by Exhibits P 4/C, P5/D and P26/R which are the sales relating to the year 1979. It was further contended that the land having been acquired after two years, the learned Single Judge should have taken note of the rising trend of the price which has been recognised even by statutory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act to the effect that usual enhancement in price of the land is about 12 per cent per year.

The learned counsel for the appellants further pointed out that the land represented by the sales vide Exhibits P16/C and P17/C formed part of the land acquired and hence the claimants cannot be given compensation lesser than what they themselves have bona fidely paid. It was argued that while taking out the average Exhibit R15/S cannot be taken into consideration inasmuch as the Collector himself has ignored Exhibit R15/S as not representing the market value of the land and has awarded much higher rate than the one represented by Exhibit P22. It was not disputed that Exhibits P4/C and P5/D represent sales, dated November 16, 1977 and Exhibit P17 is dated December 1, 1977. The price in these sales ranges between Rs. 30,500/ and Rs. 29,629/. The average comes to about Rs. 28,000/ per acre. The recognition of 12 per cent increase per year has not been successfully challenged by the learned counsel for the respondents in view of the statutory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act recognising the increase of 12 per cent per annum. The learned counsel further referred to Exhibit P27/S representing the sale of the land of village Awankot on November 21, 1977, whereby one acre of land which formed part of the land acquired was sold for consideration of Rs. 30,000/. To the same effect is the price represented by Exhibit P26/R in the year 1977. A further reference was made to Exhibit P15/H dated February 2, 1981, vide which a small piece of Nehri land was sold at the rate of Rs. 40,400/ per acre. The same market price is reflected in the sale vide Exhibit P16/1.

It has been observed in Inder Singh v. The State of Punjab through Secretary to Government Punjab and another, 1988(1) RRR 250 (P&H) : 1988(2) PLR 190 as under :

"Held, that it cannot be disputed that the prices are increasing and the judicial notice of the increase has to be taken. The legislature has come to the rescue of landowners and provided vide Section 23(1A) of the Act that the claimants shall be entitled to an amount calculated at the rate of 12 per cent per annum as the increase in price for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act till the date of announcement of the award or the date of taking over possession of the land, whichever is earlier. From these provisions legislative intention to recognise the increase of 12 per cent in price every year can be inferred."

The learned counsel for the appellant further urged that flat rate be awarded to the appellants and relying upon Doaba Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. The Punjab State, 1986(2) PLR 109 and Bangaru Narasingha Rao Naidu etc. etc. v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram, AIR 1982 SC 63, flat rate was claimed on the basis of the vicinity of the land acquired of the village.

The learned counsel for the respondents refuted the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants and contended that Exhibits P4 and P5/2 cannot be taken into consideration inasmuch as no consideration was paid before the Registrar and in case of Exhibit P5/D only part of the price was paid before the Registrar. The sale that can be taken into consideration had to be a genuine sale representing the genuine market value. These are not the sales where a willing purchaser has purchased the land from a willing seller. The learned counsel relied on Smt. Padma Uppal etc. v. State of Punjab and others, and State of Punjab v. Jagdish Rai etc., AIR 1977 SC 580 and Smt. Kaushalya Devi Bogra and others v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad and another, AIR 1984 SC 892.

We are of the considered view that the contention raised by the counsel for the respondents has no force for the reason that it was never the case of the respondents that the sales Exhibits P4/C or P5/D are not the genuine sales. No evidence has been brought on record at any point of time that the sales do not represent the market value. The Sale Deeds carry a presumption that they are for consideration which has been so recorded in the Sale Deeds and it is for the party alleging the contrary to prove that the sales were without consideration or for consideration other than the one shown in the Sale Deeds. At no point of time it was urged that the sales were without consideration. Even the learned Single Judge has relied upon those sales while assessing the market value. The said finding of the learned Single Bench has not been challenged by the respondents either by preferring any appeal or Crossobjections. Not only this, the Legislature thoughtfully added Section 51A to the Land Acquisition Act thereby providing that in proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, a certified copy of document registered under the Registration Act, 1908, including the copy given under Section 57 of that Act may be accepted as evidence of transaction recorded in such document. There is nothing on the record not to accept the documents representing the market value particularly when they are undisputably the copy under the Act. The argument has been raised only on the basis of reading the Sale Deeds to be noted and rejected. There is no dispute with the proposition of law laid down in the The State of Madras v. A.M. Nanjan and another, AIR 1976 SC 615, Smt. Padma Uppal''s case (supra), Bangaru Narasingha Rao Naidu''s case (supra), Smt. Kausalya Devi Bogra and others''s case (supra), The State of Punjab v. Pohu and another, 1986 R.R.R. 228 : 1986(1) PLR 109, Doaba Builders pvt. Ltd.''s case (supra).

The law laid down by the precedents cited above by the learned counsel for the respondents is not pari materia with the facts of the present case. The market value has to be assessed on appreciation of the evidence. The learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion after relying on Exhibits P4/C, P 5/D, P17, P26/R, P27/S, P15/H and P16/1 to the effect that the market rate prevailing in the year 1979 was about Rs. 30,000/ per acre and after granting a due weightage for the rising prices assessed the market value prevailing in 1981 as about Rs. 40,000/ per acre. While assessing the market value of the land in dispute being a large chunk of area, the learned Single Judge has reduced it by applying a cut of onefourth, and assessed the rates as stated above. In our view, here the learned Single Judge has fallen in error in not taking into consideration the dates of the Sale Deeds referred to above which are about two years prior to the dates of the acquisition in both the cases, i.e. 1979 as well as 1981. We find no error in the ratio of the cut but the cut should have been applied after taking into consideration the norm of taking a judicial notice of the increase in price as is discernible from the statutory provisions. Even otherwise, from the sales produced here, it would be reasonable to add an increase of 12 per cent per annum in the market value assessed for the year 1977. Mathematically calculating granting an increase of 12 per cent per year as is obvious from the trend of prices indicated by the Sale Deeds produced and chart reproduced in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and applying a cut of onefourth will equalise each other as the amount on account of the cut would be equal to the increase in price calculated at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Hence taking into consideration the price represented by Exhibits P4/C, P5/D, P26/D, P17/E, P27/S, P15/H and P16/1, it would be reasonable to assess the market value of the land by giving some margin for guess work, as under :

(1)

Chahi Nehri

Rs. 27, 000/ per acre

(2)

Barani, Bajar Jadid and Salab

Rs. 21, 500/ per acre

(3)

Banjar Qadim and Ghair Mumkin

Rs. 16, 000/ per acre.

The market value of land acquired in 1981 would be Rs. 33,000/ per acre for Nehri Chahi; Rs. 25,000/ per acre for Barani/Banjar Jadid/Salab and Rs. 19,700/ per acre for Banjar Qadim/Ghair Mumkin.

The appellants shall further be entitled to the statutory benefits of Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Amended Land Acquisition Act. We make it clear and it was also not disputed that the owners of the land represented by the above sales, Exhibits P4/C, P5/D, P26/R, P17/E, P27/S, P15/H and P 16/1 shall get the compensation at the rate they had purchased the land, as they have, in fact, paid that price for purchasing the land represented by the sales now forming part of the land in dispute. No cut shall be applicable to the case of a chunk of area in their case.

For the reasons recorded above, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is modified to the extent indicated above and the appeals are allowed with proportionate costs.

Appeals allowed.