AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. K. Bali, J.—All these Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 2191, 2193, 2259 to 2264, 2301, 2302 of 1989, 528 to 533, 1276 of 1990, 148 and 194 of 1991 arise from common order recorded by learned Single Judge dated May 29, 1989, as all the connected Regular First Appeals were taken together for hearing and decided along with crossobjections in respective appeals as such. We too, propose to decide all these Letters Patent Appeals by common order, as has also been suggested by learned counsel for the parties.
Whereas, learned Additional District Judge enhanced the market value of the acquired land make it twice over from the one assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector, insofar as Chahi and Barani land is concerned and almost thrice over insofar as Khadans are concerned, learned Single Judge further increased the same by fixing the market value of Chahi land to Rs. 72800/, Barani land to Rs. 49000/ and Khadans to Rs. 18000/ per acre. The appellants, who are all claimants, being affected by acquisition of their land vide notification dated January 13, 1984, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'' clamour for fixation of market value far in excess than the one that has been assessed and granted by the learned Single Judge.
46.41 acres of land was intended to be acquired vide a notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on January 13, 1984, even though in ultimate analysis 39.11 acres came to be notified for acquisition vide declaration issued under Section 6 of the said Act. The public purpose for which the land was acquired was to construct railway staff colony. Learned Additional District Judge, while working out the market value of various kinds of lands, as mentioned above, vide his award dated, June 7, 1988, observed as follows :
"The site plan, Ex. P3 based on Sijra was proved by Narinder Pal Singh, PW 3 Patwari of the acquiring department, appears to be more precise. It shows the location of various field numbers in village Nanhera. It also outlines the National Highway No. 1, double rail track Ambala Delhi via Karnal. It also shows railway line from Ambala Cantt to Delhi via Saharanpur. It shows with pink colour the acquired area. It shows with green shade the abadi of village Nanhera. It also shows with yellow shade the various instances relied upon by the claimants. This is a map of the acquiring department, as proved by the Patwari. A careful scrutiny of it would show that to the West of the National Highway No. 1, which is popularly called a G.T. Road or Sher Shah Suri Marg, the double rail track from Ambala to Delhi via Karnal is located and again to the West Ward beyond aforesaid railway line, the acquired area has been shown with green shade. The Abadi of village Nanhera is to the East of the G.T. Road shown with green shade. It touches to its East the railway line from Ambala to Delhi via Saharanpur. All the four instances relied upon by the claimants are to the East of G.T. Road towards the Abadi of village Nanhera which is close to the Urban area of Ambala Cantt. A further analysis of the plain, Ex. P3 would show that in between the G.T. Road and the double rail track to its West, the area has been inhabited by a locality called as Kuldip Nagar. In fact, this Kuldip Nagar is separate from the acquired area of Nanhera just by the railway line".
With regard to accessibility of the land by motorable road, learned Additional District Judge, observed as follows :
"The area lying in between rail track to Delhi via Karnal is punctuated by various commercial establishments in a locality which has been given the name of Kuldip Nagar. The distance of the acquired land from Ambala Cantt. Bus Stand/railway station is four kilometres. It is accessible by one motorable road via Machhaunda level railway crossing. The acquired area is however close to the G.T. Road as compared to the aforesaid instances. It is separated from Kuldip Nagar by rail track alone."
The sale instances, that were relied upon by the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the claimants), and on which reliance was placed by the counsel representing them all through the course of litigation, are Ex. AI, Ex. AX and Ex. AY. Vide sale deed, Ex. AI, 60 kanals of land was sold on November 4, 1982 for a sale consideration of Rs. 9,10,000/. The price per acre works out to be Rs. 1,21,312/. Sale instance Ex. AX represents sale of 1 kanal 1 marla of land on March 17, 1983 for a total price of Rs. 20,000/. The average price per acre at this rate works out to be Rs. 1,50,000/ whereas vide sale instance Ex. AY land measuring 1 kanal 1 marla was sold on October 19, 1983 for a consideration of Rs. 23,000/. The average price per acre at this rate comes to Rs. 1,74,200/. All these sale instances are for a period prior to when notification u/s 4 of the Act came to be issued in the present case. While assessing the market value of the land under acquisition, learned Single Judge, however, relied upon sale instance, Ex. A1, by reducing the price represented by the said sale instance to the extent of 40%.
It is, however, significant to mention at this stage that it has remained undisputed that all these sale instances are towards East of G.T. Road as per plan, Ex. AW5/2 and South of G.T. Road as per plan, Ex. AW 5/1 produced by the claimants themselves. It has again remained undisputed throughout that G.T. Road bifurcates the acquired land and the one reflected by sale instances, Exs. A1, AX and AY. In fact, in between G.T. Road and the acquired land, there is a big chunk of open space and thereafter a railway line and it is across the railway line that the land under acquisition is located. Towards East of the G.T. Road, as per site plan, Ex. AW 5/2, at a considerable distance, are located pieces of land which, as mentioned above, have been relied upon by the claimants. It is further significant to mention that whereas there has been massive construction on the Western side of the G.T. road as per plan, Ex. AW5/2, on the other side of the road, where land under acquisition is located, only railway colony came to be established but the same is at a considerable distance from the acquired land. There has also been construction of a colony known as Kuldip Nagar but the same is concededly towards. G.T. Road before the railway line. In other words, whereas, Kuldip Nagar is located right on the G.T. Road and, may be, upto the railway line, insofar as land under acquisition is concerned, the whole of it is across the railway line.
Having meticulously seen the location of the land, visavis sale instances relied upon by the claimants, as also the findings of the learned Additional District Judge, which could not be challenged during the course of arguments, but for accessibility of the land under acquisition, time is now ripe to evaluate the contentions of learned counsel for the claimants, in their endeavour to further increase the market value of the land.
Before, however, we might comment upon the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, it will be useful to deal with the findings of learned Additional District Judge with regard to accessibility of the land, to the limited extent, same have been challenged. It may be recalled that the learned Additional District Judge held that "the land under acquisition is accessible by one motorable road via Machhaunda level railway crossing". Learned counsel for the claimants, however, dispute the said findings and have canvassed before us that the said land is in fact accessible by three different roads. A bare perusal of plan. Ex. AW 5/1 and Ex. AW/2 produced on record by none other than the claimants, would, however, belie this contention of the learned counsel for the claimants. Plan Ex. AW5/1 does depict three roads. However, whereas one motorable road/passage from Machhaunda railway crossing is depicted, the second road depicted in plan, Ex. AW5/1 is a culvert. The third has been shown as a path. The socalled culvert is immediately below Kuldip Nagar whereas the third one is immediately above and towards the road of military farm. These two paths have not been shown as roads in contrast to the admitted one which has been shown as road. Further, nothing has been shown in the plan aforesaid that might convince the Court that these two roads have either an overbridge from the railway line or the same run under the railway line. Plan, Ex. AW5/1 has been proved by Didar Singh, examined by the claimants as AW 5. Not a word has been stated by him in his examinationinchief that the land, subject matter of acquisition, has an access from three different roads. Further, he admitted in his cross examination that he is not aware as to when notification under Section 4 was issued and that he had pinpointed the position on the site plan and lay out plan as he observed it on the date of his inspection, i.e. September 15, 1987. The claimant Krishan Lal, in LPA No. 2301 of 1989 who was examined as AW2, stated in his examinationinchief that the land was linked with three approach road. One was from G.T. Road, the second was from Ambala Cantt. market and the third one took off from near the octroi post. However, in his crossexamination, he admitted that if one starts from Ambala Cantt bus stand for the acquired land through the main G.T. Road, there was one railway level crossing called Machhaunda level crossing. There was no other road or passage through which motor or scooter could go. This statement of the claimant himself, in our view, completely nails the contention of learned counsel for the claimants that land under acquisition had an access from three different roads.
The twin arguments raised by learned counsel for the claimants asking for further enhancement are that 40% cut, in the facts and circumstances of this case, is far in excess and further that the land having been acquired for establishing railway staff colony, for which notification was issued on the same date and located in the same revenue estate of village Nanhera, it had to be evaluated on flat rate, i.e., same rate for the entire land irrespective of its nature and quality. We are afraid, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no merit whatsoever in either of the contentions of the counsel, noted above. Sale instance. Ex. A1 that has been made a base for working out the market value of the land, concededly, is located on the other side of the G.T. Road, i.e., Northern side as per plan, Ex. AW5/1. We have already mentioned that insofar as Northern side of the G.T.. Road is concerned, there is no railway line in the said area and there has been a lot of building activity going on from a long time. All kinds of commercial, industrial and housing building have sprang up there. It is, however, not the position insofar as Sothern side of the G.T. Road, where the land under acquisition is located, is concerned. As mentioned above, only Kuldip Nagar with residential houses has come about there. However, the said Kuldip Nagar is on the Northern side of the railway line and not across that. It is significant to note that Kuldip Nagar starts from G.T. Road and ends before the railway line starts. The land represented by sale instance, Ex. A1 was not in fact comparable to the land under acquisition. Nonaccessibility of the public to reach the land under acquisition or to reach the same from a distance, i.e., from Machhaunda railway crossing made all the difference between comparability of the land represented by sale instance, Ex. A1 and the one under acquisition. It is only in absence of a sale instance coming from the comparable area, like from across the railway line, that the learned Additional District Judge or the learned Single Judge made, Ex. A1 as a base for working out the market value of the acquired land. It is in these circumstances that a cut of 40% has been applied. In other words, the disadvantage of the location of the land under acquisition, as compared to the one represented by sale instance, Ex. A1 has been set off by slashing the price represented by Ex. A1 to the extent of 40%. We are of the firm view that by so slashing the price represented by Ex. A1, the learned Single Judge has neither erred in law nor on facts. In fact, a cut of 40% in the facts and circumstances of this case, has rightly been applied.
Insofar as second contention of the learned counsel, with regard to allowing flat rate of the entire land, irrespective of its nature and quality, is concerned, we find the same to be equally devoid of any merit. Nothing at all could be canvassed before us that might, either under the provisions of the said Act or some judicial precedents, even remotely suggest that it is not permissible so as not to grant uniform rate to all affected by same acquisition. The halfhearted contention of learned counsel that when the notification is the same as also the purpose for which the land is acquired, everyone affected of the said acquisition, should be granted uniform rates, thus, cannot be accepted. Quite on the contrary, settled law, even as per the judicial precedents, cited before us by learned counsel for the claimants is that it is permissible to do belting or to grant different rates to different persons affected by the acquisition when large extent of land under acquisition comprises of land of several persons and where some land is far better located, like abutting a main national highway. It is also well settled that if the entire land under acquisition does not have the potential of being converted into industrial, commercial or residential area, there is no reason to grant same rates to all concerned of the land under acquisition. Learned counsel representing the claimants, however, rely upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Mangatu Ram & Ors., 1998(1) PLR 160 : 1997 (3) RCR (Civil) 342 (SC), for granting same rates to all affected persons of the acquisition irrespective of nature, quality and location of the land. The question that had arisen before the Apex Court in the aforesaid case was as to whether the belting was necessary in the circumstances of those cases ? It was held that "when a large extent of land under acquisition comprises of lands of several persons and some lands are abutting the main road and some lands are in the interior, the same would not have the uniform rate market value. Necessarily, reasonable demarcation/classification should be made before determination of the compensation." The Supreme Court justified the classification of land in Category ''A'' and ''B''. It was further held that "it is equally settled law that Article 14 has no application visavis determination of the compensation for the obvious reason that it is hardly possible that all the lands are equal in all respects; they differ from one another and bear different features, e.g., nature, quality and character. Therefore, all the lands do not command the same market value when they are sold to a willing purchaser by a willing vendor in the open market." The observations of the Supreme Court, quoted above, run contrary to the contention raised by learned counsel.
Reliance has also been placed upon a DB judgment of this Court in Harchal Singh v. State of Punjab, 1991 PLJ 20 : 1991(1) RRR (P&H) 353 a Single Bench judgment of this Court in State of Punjab v. Jaswant Singh & Ors., 1996(3) PLR : 1996(2) RRR 602 (P&H) 90 as also another judgment of the Supreme Court in Gulzara Singh v. State of Punjab, 1993(3) RRR 247.
Mr. Laler, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, however, controverts the contention raised by learned counsel for the claimants on the basis of a DB judgment of this Court in Mahant Sher Singh v. Haryana State, 1998(1) LACC 123 : 1998(1) RCR (Civil) 221 (P&H) (DB)
In Harchal Singh''s case (supra), after returning a finding to the effect that the acquired land had gained potential for urbanisation, it was held that "it was wholly wrong to classify land on the basis of agricultural quality". In Jaswant Singh''s case (supra), firstly the findings returned by the District Judge that the land had got potential for being used for commercial and residential purposes were noticed in paragraph 20 and it is thereafter that it was held that "resorting to belting system was not justified". In L. Kamalamma''s case (supra) again, firstly a finding to the effect that the acquired land had potentiality of being developed as urban land was returned by the Apex Court and it is thereafter that it was held that "belting method could not be applied". In Gulzara Singh''s case (supra) also the land possessed potential value for being used for building purposes. It is for that reason that fixation of uniform rate of Rs. 1000/ per Biswa as awarded by Civil Court, to the land abutting abadi and lands upto a depth of 100 ft. was upheld. It is too well settled that the purpose for which the land has been acquired is wholly irrelevant to determine the market value of the land. In other words, it cannot be said that if the purpose of acquisition is same and the entire land is acquired by same notification, market value has to be fixed at uniform rates. The second contention of the learned counsel for the claimants is, thus, also repelled.
DB Judgment, cited by learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, in Mahant Sher Singh''s case (supra), in our view, fits in the facts and circumstances of this case, like a glove in hand, in paragraph 10, it was held as under :
"In the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge relied on the same Exhibit P6 and held that the claimants are entitled to compensation @ Rs. 24000/ per acre in respect of Chahi land, Rs. 16000/ per acre in respect of Barani land and Rs. 8000/ per acre in respect of Ghair Mumkin. In our opinion, the view taken by the learned Single Judge cannot be termed as erroneous. The argument of learned counsel, which he has advanced for claiming compensation at uniform rate, proceeds on a wholly erroneous assumption that there is no difference between Chahi land and barani land or Ghair mumkin. The nature of the land constitutes a valid consideration for determination of compensation as held in Ludhiana Improvement Trust v. Vijayswar Singh, 1996(9) SCC 988."
For the reasons record above, we find no merit in these Letters Patent Appeals and dismiss the same, thus, upholding the order of the learned Single Judge, Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs insofar as present appeals are concerned.
Appeals dismissed.