Jagat Singh vs Haryana State

G.C. Garg, J.—In this appeal which is directed against the order dated October 4, 1988, the claimant-appellants, are seeking enhancement in the market value of their land which had been acquired.

Land measuring about 300 acres including the land in question was proposed to be acquired by the State of Haryana for a public purpose, namely, for development and utilisation of land as residential, commercial and industrial area in the Urban Estate, Hisar (site No. 2). The State Government issued notification dated January 30, 1973, u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ''the Act'') in that behalf. Six notification u/s 6 of the Act were issued from time to time on he strength of notification dated January 30, 1973 issued u/s 4 of the Act. Though the land of the appellants had been included in the notification u/s 4 but it was nor notified in any of the six notifications issued u/s 6 of the Act. The State Government issued still another notification dated February 9, 1976, u/s 6 of the Act on the strength of notification u/s 4 dated January 30, 1973 acquiring the land of the appellants. Notification dated February 9, 1976 was challenged in Civil Writ Petition 3680 of 1978 (Jagat Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana). The claim in the writ petition was conceded by the Advocate General, Haryana on October 26, 1978 and consequently the writ petition was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court.

Faced with the above situation, the State of Haryana issued notification dated December 22, 1978 u/s 4 of the Act again proposing to acquire the land of the appellants which was the subject matter of the aforesaid writ petition. This notification was followed by notification dated June 2, 1980 u/s 6 of the Act. As a consequence of the above notification, land owned by the appellants stood vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. Learned Collector by his award dated November 14, 1980 determined the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 12.40 per square yard. On reference u/s 18 of the Act, learned Additional District Judge by his award dated October 4, 1985 assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 19.56 sq. yard. The claimants filed the present appeal seeking still higher market value for their land and they claimed market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 110/- per sq. yard and paid court fee at the first instance at the rate of Rs. 80/- per sq. yard. On a later date, the appellants moved Civil Misc. 2963/C.I. of 1993 seeking permission to make good the deficiency. The Civil Misc. was ordered to be heard with the appeal. On a consideration of the matter, the same is allowed. Thus the court fee on the value of the land at the rate of Rs. 100/- per sq. yard stands paid. The land owned by the appellants and notified for acquisition comprised in khasra No. 5694/1 and 5698/2 situated within the municipal limits of Hisar.

The relevant date for determining the market value of the acquired land is the date of notification u/s 4 of the Act which in the present case is December 22, 1978. It has thus to be seen as to what was the nature of the land at the time of acquisition. Admittedly, the land in question is situated on the Hisar-Delhi Road and the land adjoining to it was acquired by notification dated January 30, 1973, issued u/s 4 of the Act. This land, as already noticed, was acquired for residential, commercial and industrial area, urban Estate Site No. 2, Even at that time the land in question was situated within the municipal limits of Hisar and had been notified for acquisition but could not be finally acquired in view of the sequence of events noticed above.

Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that on the date of notification the land had great potential for being utilised for commercial purposes and had been in fact acquired for the said purpose. The land all around had developed long before and the Collector and the learned Additional District Judge fixed the market value of the acquired land by treating the same as having great potential but erred in fixing the market value at a lower rate. The market value of the land in question could not be fixed at less than Rs. 200/- per sq. yard. Learned counsel for the appellants in support of his submission referred to the statements of Gulab Singh Jain PW-12, Ram Singh Kanungo RW-1 and Harphul Singh, Clerk, Haryana Urban Development Authority Hisar PW-7 to prove that the land had potential for being developed into a commercial site even on the date of notification u/s 4 of the Act. The claimants have already brought out in evidence that the land in question abuts on the Hisar-Delhi Road and is within the Municipal limits of Hisar. D.C. Colony and M.C. Colony are adjacent or very near to the acquired land and were fully developed with proper roads, lauds, sewer, water connection electricity and telephone service even in 1973. Model Town is in front of the acquired land and only a road intervenes. Pushpa Theatre is adjacent to it and it had been in existence even prior to 1978. On the back side of the acquired land, a public road had already been constructed and buildings were fast coming up. When the land was sought to be acquired in the year 1973, it had been earmarked for commercial purpose in the year 1978, it was fully developed with roads on both sides with amenities like sewerage, water connection and electricity. The state did not produce any evidence to negate the stand of the claimants or rebut their evidence about the potential of the land on the date of acquisition.

Reference to site plan Exhibit P-1 would show that the land in question which has been shown in red colour is situated on the Hisar-Pipli Road opposite to Model Town and is adjacent to the Pushpa Theatre and that M.C. Colony and Commercial market are very close to the acquired land and development had taken place much beyond the said land towards Delhi Side. The evidence as noticed above leaves no manner of doubt that the acquired land had good potential for being developed as residential and commercial site as on the date of notification u/s 4 of the Act. Statement of PW-1 Ram Singh Kanungo that the land was lying banjar at the time of acquisition does not help the State. From this statement it cannot be concluded that the land had no potential. But for this, learned counsel appearing for the State conceded that having regard to the over-whelming evidence brought on the record it has to be taken that the land had potential for being used as a residential/commercial site on the date of notification u/s 4 of the Act.

As regards the market value of the acquired land, learned counsel for the appellants first referred to Exhibit P-10 a letter dated July 11, 1985 and its enclose Exhibit P-11. Letter Exhibit P-10 is only a forwarding letter written by the Settlement Officer (Sales) to Tehsildar (Sales). Exhibit P-11 shows that the Settlement Officer (Sales) Haryana fixed the reserve price of Khasra No. 56% measuring 5 Kanals 18 Marlas situated within the municipal limits at different rates i.e. area abutting the G.T. Road at the rate of Rs. 200/- per sq. yard and that of the land along the M.C. Road at the rate of Rs. 150/- per sq. yard, and in respect of the land of residential area at the rate of Rs. 50/- per sq. yard. These two documents, in my view, do not help the appellants in determining the market value of the acquired land as there was no material before the Settlement Officer (Sales), Haryana to arrive at that price. It seems to be based on opinion. Nothing was brought out in the order Exhibit P-11 to justify the price fixed or justify that was the prevalent market price which a prospective buyer was willing to pay and the seller willing to accept on the date of the order of the notification. Thus, the appellants cannot take any advantage from any of the above two documents.

Sales instances represented by Exhibit P-4, P-5 and P-6 and relied upon by the counsel for the appellants again are of not much assistance to the appellants for arriving at the true market value of the acquired land. These transactions reflect market value of Rs. 70/- per sq. yard as on June 16, 1977. All these sale transactions relate to sales made by a member of the appellants'' family to other members of the same family. It thus cannot be said that these reflect true market value of the acquired land These transactions reflect market value of Rs. 70/- per sq. yard as on June 16, 1977. All these sale transactions relate to sales made by a member of the appellants'' family to other members of the same family. It thus cannot be said that these reflect true market value of the acquired land prevalent on the date of notification. Efforts to acquire this land had been made prior to the date of sale more than once. Even on the date of sale the land was under Acquisition and thus was very much in the knowledge of the landowners. Report Exhibit P-13 made by PW-11 R.B.L. Mathur, Valuer-cum-Architect, Ashok Vihar, Delhi about market value of the acquired land again in my view cannot help the landowners as the same is by and far based on opinion.

Faced with the above situation, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in RFA No. 253 of 1979 (Ram Niwas v. State of Haryana), decided on October 10, 1980. The land covered by this judgment was acquired by notification dated January 30, 1973, in which the land in question was also notified. Land of the appellants could not be acquired in view of the circumstances already noticed and it came to be notified for acquisition on December 22, 978. RW-1 Ram Singh Kanungo admitted in his cross-examination that the land of Ram Niwas was acquired vide notification issued to the year 1973. Even otherwise, this fact was not disputed during the course of arguments by the learned counsel for the respondent. This Court in RFA No. 253 of 1979, noticed above, determined market value of the acquired land at Rs. 1285/- per Maria i.e. Rs. 42.50 per sq. yard. Learned counsel for the appellants placing reliance on Inder Singh v. The State of Punjab through Secretary to Government Punjab and Anr. (1988) 94 P.L.R. 190 Jagir Singh v. The State of Punjab (1989) 96 P.L.R. 534 and Sudhir Kumar v. State of Punjab and Anr. (1993) 105 P.L.R. 603 submitted that the appellants are entitled to an increase of 12% per annum for the period January 30, 1973 to December 22, 1978 over the market value determined in the case of Ram Niwas (supra). In other words, the appellants laid claim to the market value of about Rs. 77.50 per sq. yard for their land by seeking enhancement of 70% over and above Rs. 42.50 per sq. yard. It was, however, conceded that there was no evidence available on the record of this case about escalation of the market value of the land in or during the period 1973 to 1978. In Jagir Singh and Sudhir Kumar''s cases (supra), the view taken in Inder Singh''s case (supra) was followed for allowing an increase of 12% per annum while determining market value of the land acquired by a subsequent notification. The view taken in Inder Singh''s case (supra) cannot be applied to the facts of this case in view of the decision of the apex court in Mehtab Singh v. State of Haryana, 1994(2) RLR 167 wherein it was observed that "that apart we have our strongest reservations to the rule evolved by the High Court in Maya Devi''s case as also in Inder Singh''s case aforequoted. The Amendment Act of 1984 is explicit in terms. The limited retrospectivity provided in the amending provisions do not permit adoption of 12 per cent increase in price in each and every acquisition. If it was, so intended the legislature would have expressly provided so. We would decry that rule and express our disapproval for its universal application or for all acquisitions."

This, however, in my view may not mean that the appellants are not entitled to any increase in market value of the land during the period January, 1973 to December, 1978 over the market value of 1973 acquisition. The Courts have often taken judicial notice of unending phenomenon in increase in prices of land while determining market value of the land and on that basis granted an increase in the market value at the rate of Rs. 1/- per sq. yard even in the absence of any evidence of increase on record. Reference in that behalf can safely be made to Puran Singh v. State of Haryana (1986) 89 P.L.R. 453 and Jaswant Rai v. Land Acquisition Collector Punjab Urban Land Development Mohali and Anr. (1989) 95 P.L.R. 270 where an increase of Rs. 1/- per sq. yard over the rate of previous acquisition was given in respect of subsequent acquisition. Admittedly, a period of six years had elapsed between the previous acquisition of 1973 and the present acquisition. In respect of 1973 acquisition market value of the land was determined at the rate of Rs. 42.50 per sq. yard by this Court. Moreover, the SLP preferred by Ram Niwas before the Supreme Court against the judgment rendered in R.F.A. No. 253 of 1979 by this Court, was also dismissed. Thus, having regard to the totality of the facts and the rule laid down Jaswant Rai''s (supra) and Puran Singh''s cast (supra), I fix the market value of the acquired land act Rs. 48/- per sq. yard on the date of notification u/s 4 of the Act. It may also be seen that this will be the rate that would work out if a cut of 30% is applied on the. transactions of sale represented by sale instances Exhibit P-4, P-5 and P-6. Admittedly, the sale transactions Exhibits P-4 to P-6 are in respect of small pieces of land.

In the light of the observations made above, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-before with proportional costs. The appellants shall also be entitled to statutory benefits as permissible other than the one covered by Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act.