Hargian vs State of Haryana

Naresh Chander Jain, J.—This judgment of mine would dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 677, 700 to 721, 785, 786, 895, 1287 to 1290, 1398, 1485, 1541, 1613, 1634, 1991 of 1991 and 107 to 115 of 1992 all filed by the appellants-landowners as they arise out of a common Award of the Additional District Judge, Faridabad.

In pursuance of Notification dated 30.4.1986 published in Haryana Government (Extraordinary) Gazette dated 30.4.1986 u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act''), the State of Haryana acquired land measuring 84.96 Acres situated in village Mewla Maharajpur, Hadbast No. 4, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad for the development and utilization of land as a residential area in Sector 46 of Faridabad. On actual measurement at the spot, the land was found to be 83.59 acres. Out of the said land measuring 605 Kanals 17 Marlas was Chahi, 5 Kanals 1 Maria was Narmot, 5 Kanals was Benjar Kadim and 52 Kanals 17 Marlas was Gair Mumkin. The Land Acquisition collector by his Award dated 28.12.1988 assessed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 20/- per square yard at a flat rate. On reference u/s 18 of the Act, the Additional District Judge has determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 25/- per square yard.

While evaluating the land at Rs. 25/- per square yard, the Addition al District Judge has placed reliance upon another Award given by Shri J.K. Sood, Additional District Judge, Faridabad (Exh. R-16) dealing with the same notification. The Additional District Judge discarded Awards Exhibits P-1 to P-3 of the Land Acquisition Collector and the two sale deeds Exhibits P-5 and P-6 and in my opinion no fault can be found with the approach of the Additional District Judge in this respect.

A perusal of the two Awards Exhibits P-1 and P-3 would make it clear that the Land Acquisition Collector determined the market value of the land acquired vide notification dated 20.4.1987. The land was situated in village Badkhal. Besides the difference in the dates of the notifications, that is, in the present cases and the notifications in the Awards Exhibits P-1 and P-3, it has come in evidence of the two witnesses PW-1 Ram Kumar Patwari and Bhim Singh PW.3 that there was a lot of distance between the land acquired in the present case and the two Awards Exhibits P-1 and P-3. Ram Kumar Patwari PW-1 has stated that the distance was 4 kilometres whereas Bhim Singh PW-3 has stated that the distance was 2 kilometres. On the ground of distance and difference in the dates of the notifications, Exhibits P-1 and P-3 cannot be held to be a safeguard for assessing the market value of the ac quired land. Similarly, Exh. P-2 another award of the Collector can also be held to be irrelevant as the notification in Exh. P-2 u/s 4 of the Act is dated 24.8.1988. In view thereof, the three awards given by the Collector granting higher rates will have to be held to be irrelevant for the purpose of determining the market value of the acquired land in the present cases.

Adverting to the two sale deeds Exhibits P-5 and P-6 produced by the claimants, a close scrutiny thereof would reveal that the same will have to be held to be irrelevant for evaluating the acquired hand. By virtue of sale deed Exh. P-5 dated 14.1.1986 land measuring 2 Kanal 19 Marlas sold to M/s Sinkari Olympic Manufacturing Co. Ltd. On the plot, one shed, time office and two rooms stood constructed. Apparently, a plot of such a type having substantial construction cannot be said to be comparable vis-a-vis the ac quired land. On somewhat similar grounds sale deed Exh. P-6 was also rejected. The Additional District Judge took into consideration the fact that there was price rise after the notification in question was issued.

This leads me to decide whether compensation granted at the rate of Rs. 25/- per square yard following the Award Exh. R.16 deserves to be upheld or the same needs modification by granting more compensation in view of the potentialities of the acquired land.

With the help of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the oral evidence and after going through the statements of the wit nesses, I am of the firm view that the landowners are entitled to have an increase of Rs. 10/- per square yard over and above the increase allowed by the Land Acquisition Court in view of the high potentialities of the acquired land which is proved by oral evidence to which reference would be made in the subsequent paragraph.

It has been stated by PW 3 Bhim Singh that the acquired land is situated within the revenue estate of Mewla Maharajpur in controlled are of Faridabad and is surrounded by Mathura road on one side i.e. East whereas on the second side i.e. West is Badkhal tourist complex. It has further been stated by this witness that on the 3rd side i.e. toward South is Sector 21 and on the 4th side i.e. Faridabad old is situated at one mile from the acquired land. According to this witness, all the amenities of life are available near the acquired land. He further stated that the acquired land was Chahi but it has urban potential value also. PW 5 Girraj Gupta has stated that on the Mathura Road Industries had come into existence for the last more than 20 years ago. RW 2 J.D. Arora, Naib Tehsildar, a witness produced by the state was constrained to admit in the cross-examination that it was correct that the land of Mewla Maharajpur is situated adjoining Mathura Road on both sides. He further admitted that it was correct that abutting Mathura Road is between railway line and Mathura Road there were factories in the revenue estate of Mewla Maharajpur. It was further admitted by him that factories of M/s Machine Ameteep Tools, M/s Usha Telehoist, M/s Escorts Limited and other international fame companies were situated in the revenue estate of village Mewla Maharajpur. This witness had given the Award.

It is clear from the evidence discussed above that the land had high potentialities for being used for industrial purpose though it was acquired for residential purpose. The Additional District Judge is not correct in his observation that at an earlier stage the Land Acquisition Court while giving the Award Exh. R-16 granting a sum of Rs. 25/- per square yard examined the same evidence. Maybe, Shri J.K. Sood, Additional District Judge, Faridabad, in his Award Exh. R-16 did comment upon the documentary evidence which has been led in the instant case but it cannot be successfully maintained that oral evidence regarding potentialities of the land was examined by him. A perusal of the Award Exh. R16 makes it clear that only one witness, namely, Anoop Singh PW 2 was examined by the claimants. At least from the Award it is not clear whether any other witness on behalf of the landowners had stepped into the witness box. In any case, this Court is inclined to believe the oral evidence regarding high potentialities of the acquired land and is inclined to assess the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 35/- per square yard.

For the reasons recorded above, the appeals filed by the land owners are allowed to the extent indicated above with proportionate costs. They are further held entitled to the grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended provisions of Sections 23(1A): 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.