Gurbachan Singh vs State of Haryana

N.C. Jain, J.—This judgment of mine would dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 141, 150 to 160 of 1993, 3003, 3711, 3714, 3776, 3777, 3791, 3793 to 3795 and 3132 of 1992 filed by the claimant-landowners seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation and R.F.A. Nos. 694, 695, 697 to 711, 713, 714, 732 of 1993 filed by the State of Haryana praying for reduction in the amount of compensation. All these appeals have arisen out of a common award of the Additional District Judge and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

The State of Haryana in pursuance of notification issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') dated 21.4.1987 acquired land measuring 35.76 acres situated in village Ratgal and Darra Kalan, Tehsil Thanesar District Kurukshetra for development and utilisation of the land for residential and commercial area for Sector 11, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra. On measurement, the land was found to be 34.61 Acres. The Land Acquisition Collector evaluated the land at the rate of Rs.1,08,000/- per acre (Rs.22.31 paise per yard). On reference u/s 18 of the Act, the Additional District Judge by his Award under challenge before this Court has assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.100/- per square yard.

While evaluating the land at the aforesaid rate, the Additional District Judge has placed reliance upon an Award Exh. P.100 given by this Court pertaining to the notification dated 29th June, 1973 acquiring a big chunk of land measuring 149 Acres 3 Kanals 16 Marlas for establishing Sector 13. This Court in the aforementioned award evaluated the aforementioned land at the rate of Rs.37/- per square yard. The Additional District Judge in the present cases has given the necessary enhancement for the time lag between the two, dates of notifications i.e. in the case covered by Exh. P. 100 and in the present cases. The Additional District Judge has also found that the acquired land had high potentialities.

The counsel for the landowners have argued that the Additional District Judge, in view of the location of the land, should have relied upon the sale deed Exhibits P.86 to 88 and 93 to 96. The precise argument of the counsel is that since pieces of land may be small, sold by virtue of the aforementioned sale deeds, He in the vicinity of the acquired lands, the same are relevant vis-a-vis the acquired land. On the other hand, the counsel for the state has argued that the Additional District Judge instead of placing reliance upon Award Exh. P.100, would have relied upon another Award Exh. R.11 given by this Court by virtue of which land measuring 180.11 acres situated in village Ratgal acquired vide notification dated 11.3.1991 was evaluated at the rate of Rs.1,19,333/- per acre. The precise argument of the State Counsel is ,that instead .of giving price rise at the rate of 12 per cent per annum upon the evaluation of the acquisition of land made in the year 1973, this Court should give price rise of 12 per cent upon the evaluation made for a notification in the year 1981.

Having given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that neither any enhancement nor reduction is warranted for the reasons given in the subsequent paragraphs.

This Court is disinclined to accept the argument of the counsel for the landowners that the sale deeds produced by them should be relied upon for evaluating the acquired land. The following sale deeds were referred to during the course of arguments.

Sr.No. Date of Village Area Amount Rate per sale of sale acre. =========================================================================================== 1.Exh.P.86 15.5.1987 Ratgal K.M.0-3 Rs.17,000/- Rs.9,06,664/- 2.Exh.P.87 15.5.1987 Ratgal 0-4 Rs.23,000/- Rs.9,20,000/- 3. Exh.P.88 4.11.1987 Ratgal 0-2-1/2 Rs.12,000/- Rs.9,60,000/- 8.Exh.P.93 11.4.1080 Darra 1-10 Rs.69,375/- Rs.3,70,000/- Kalan 9.Exh.P.94 18.6.1986 -do- 2-13 Rs.1,35,000/- Rs.407547.17 10.Exh.P.95 5.2.1987 -do- 27x45'' Rs.40,000/- Rs. 16,00,000/- 1215Sq.feet. 1l.Exh.P.96 10.2.1987 -do- 71"x50'' Rs.40,000/- Rs. 16,00,000/- 3550 Sq.feet. By virtue of the aforementioned sale deeds plots measuring few marlas Were sold and, therefore, the same are neither relevant nor comparable vis-a-vis the acquired land. The maximum land sold in sale deed Exh. P.94 i.e. 2 Kanals 13Marlas does not help the landowners to improve their cases. The perusal of this sale deed makes it clear that land measuring 2 Kanals 13Marlas was sold for a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- which on conversion into an acre comes to Rs.407547.17 which is less than Rs.100/- per square yard. Even if this Court was to rely upon the aforementioned sale deeds, no further enhancement is possible as this Court in that situation will have to apply a cut of l/3rd in view of the smallness of the size of the area sold and after giving the necessary premium in view of the time lag between the date of the sale deed and the date of the notification in the present cases, the price per sq. yard would not be more than Rs.100/- which has already been given by the Additional District Judge. It appears to me that it was for this precise reason that the counsel for the landowners did not place any reliance upon any sale deed before the Additional District Judge who has observed in his award that no sale deed was relied upon.

Equally untenable is the argument of the counsel for the State. Both the Awards given by this Court pertain to the acquisition of land in the vicinity of the acquired land. The Award which has been relied upon by the Additional District Judge pertains to the acquisition of the land in the year 1973 (Sector 13) and the . other Award which is relied upon by the State Counsel pertains to the acquisition of the land acquired in the year 1981 (Sector 7). The Award given by this Court evaluating the acquired tend in the year 1973 was not brought to the notice of this Court when acquisition of 1981 was evaluated by this Court. Moreover, the acquired land in the present cases is located on the main G.T. Road opposite to the new Bus Stand on the main Pipli-Kurukshetra Road. It has come in evidence that rice-shellers, petrol pump, ice factory, rice extraction mills, New Bank of India are around the acquired land. The existence of the buildings of All India Radio Station, Judicial Complex. Mini Secretariat, Panchayat Bhavan, Daraunacharya Stadium, Officers Colony etc. near the acquired land has not been disputed before me during the course of the arguments. The following findings-recorded by the Additional District Judge on appraisal of the entire evidence would clearly . '' show the existence of high potentialities, of the acquired land.

After having gone through the statements of the witnesses and the'' site plans, Exhibits P.74 and P.85, there is no matter of doubt to reach at the conclusion that the acquired land is situated on the main road i.e. Kurukshetra - Pipli Road, which by lapses of time, has become the heart of City and all the Sectors carved out by the Haryanas'' Development Authority are in the vicinity of the acquired land. All important buildings; such as, Mini Secretariat, Judicial Complex, All India Radio Station, Officer''s Colony etc. are located around it. It is not the land where the Government has acquired an undeveloped area for the purposes of converting it into residential/commercial. There exist already factories, Nursing Homes, Rice-Shellers, Petrol Pump, new Bus Stand etc. In plain words there is no hesitation in holding that it is one of the most valuable piece of land of Kurukshetra township, the Holy City, It is also not in dispute that the land falls under the Municipal area of Kurukshetra.

In view of what has been stated above, I am of the opinion that the acquired land has great potential value of development for residential, commercial and industrial purposes.

In view of the aforementioned finding of the Additional District Judge and in view of the reasoning given by me, neither any reduction nor any enhancement is called for. There is no aberration in the finding recorded by the Additional District Judge where he has placed reliance upon Exh.P.100/- Once Exh. P-100 is made the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land, the court has to grant premium at the rate of 12 per cent per annum in view of the law laid down by this Court in Inder Singh v. Punjab State, (1988) 94 P.L.R. 190. Consequently, the finding of the Additional District Judge determining the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq. yard is found to be correct and is hereby confirmed.

Before parting with the judgment, an additional argument of Mr. R.K. Jain deserves to be noticed. Mr. Jain has argued that his client Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta is entitled to the grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.4,67,856/- as he had constructed four shops which were in existence at the time of the notification.

Having perused the evidence and the Award of the Additional District Judge, this Court is of the considered view that the grant of Rs.1,80,675/- for the super-structures by the Additional District Judge is correct and no enhancement is called for! The Additional District Judge found difficulty in arriving at the exact amount spent by Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta and he called for the assistance of one S.N. Gupta, Junior Engineer, Public Works Department (B&R) Branch who was attached with the work of maintenance of the Judicial Complex. He had fixed the cost of Rs.100/- per sq. feet besides 8 per cent for the electric installation, The valuation report of P.W. 12 Kaidar Nath Singal does not carry conviction as he has found measurement of the constructed area to be 285,64 sq. metres i.e. 3074.75 square feet whereas according to the site plan Exh. P.1 duly sanctioned by the Municipal Committee the claimant was allowed to cover an area to the tune of 185.88 square metres. It is not the case of the landowner that he constructed more than what he was permitted to construct. The cost of construction to the tune, of Rs.100/- per sq. feet in the year 1987 for a shop cannot be said to be on the lower side. Moreover, the estimate given by the Government Engineer who is an independent man deserves to be given more credence. Consequently the cost of superstructures of four shops including, verandah, boundary wall etc. to the tune of Rs.l,80,675/- is just and reasonable. The finding is based upon good evidence and deserves to be endorsed.

For the reasons recorded above, all the appeals whether filed by the State of Haryana or by the landowners are found to be devoid of any merit and are ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.