Jit Singh vs State of Haryana

M.S. Liberhan, J.—The relevant facts which are not in dispute, are taken from the judgment of learned Single Judge, which run thus : the respondent vide its notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'') sought to acquire about 200.71 acres of land situated in village Maheshpur, Tehsil Kalka, District Ambala for development and utilisation of Industrial Area. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 17.9.1986 assessed the market value of the land "as one unit" at the rate of Rs. 57,280/ for chahi, Rs. 38,240/ for Barani, Rs. 19,040/ for Banjar and Rs. 9,440/ for Gair Mumkin Rasta per acre. On reference being sought under Section 18 of the Act, the District Judge awarded Rs. 1,50,000/ per acre uniformly.

The learned Single Judge, during the course of appeal permitted the appellants to place on record four awards Ex.C1 to C4 by way of additional evidence and observed with respect to the the potentialities of the lands to the effect that the lands of village Maheshpur were acquired along with the lands of villages Majri, Haripur, Ralli, Ralla, Abheypur, Dhillan, Tansu, Judian, Ferozepur Kalan and Ferozepur. It is situated on AmbalaKalka road, and is opposite to Sectors 2, 4, 5, 7 and 12A, of Panchkula which is a satellite town of Chandigarh. It was observed that the land in dispute is situated and is said to be surrounded by Bus Stand, Cinema, Commercial Establishments and Residential Houses etc. within a radius of 1/2 kilometer. In spite of the land being situated around the developed area yet it was being used as an agricultural land at the time of acquisition. The learned Single Judge after appreciating the evidence on record held that the land in dispute has potentialities of urbanisation and consequently cannot be assessed as an agricultural land. The learned Single Judge relying on the law laid down in LPA No. 1207 of 1981 decided on 22.9.1982 to the effect that where the lands of different villages fall within the potentiality of urbanisation, the market value of the same has to be assessed or fixed at a uniform rate irrespective of the nature of the land or the estate to which it belongs or in which it falls.

The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the acquired lands of villages Judian and Bhainsa Tibba are situated 1/5 kilometer which means at a distance of 200 yards. So far as comparability of the land of village Bhainsa Tibba is concerned, it was observed that the land of village Bhainsa Tibba is situated on the road linking ManimajraMansa Devi while the land in dispute abuts on the AmbalaKalka road. The learned Single Judge, relying on the site plan Ex. P.1 came to the conclusion that the acquired land of villages Fatehpur and Ralli are adjacent to the acquired land in question. The learned Single Judge finally observed as :

"Once the awards Exhibits C2 and C4 are held to be relevant, the market value of the acquired land, in my considered view, should be determined after taking out the average from the sale transactions Exhibits P3 and P4 and the Awards C2 and C4. By virtue of Exh. P3 and P.4 the two sale deeds, land in village Maheshpur was sold prior to the date of notification at the rate of Rs. 98,000/ per acre. In awards Exh. C2 and C 4, Shri V.P. Aggarwal, Additional District Judge, Ambala and Shri B.L. Gulati, District Judge, Ambala, granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,25,000/ and Rs. 3,63,000/ per acre respectively, for the land acquired in villages Fatehpur and Rally pertaining to the two notifications dated 19.9.1983. When both the transactions of sale are to be clubbed together with the awards Exh. C2 and C4 and average sale price is taken out, it comes to Rs. 1,96,000/ per acre. This much compensation the landowners are entitled to for the acquired land in view of the sale deeds, awards of the Land Acquisition Courts, and in view of the high potentialities of the acquired land. Accordingly, I determine the market value of the acquired land, at the rate of Rs. 1,96,000/ per acre."

The only contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the learned Single Judge should not have assessed the market value of the land by taking out the average price from the awards produced. Since the highest market value represented by the award exhibit C4 with respect to village Fatehpur is Rs. 3,63,000/ per acre and the market value of land represented by exhibit C2 with respect to village Rally is Rs. 2,25,000/ per acre, the compensation at the said rates should be awarded to the claimants also. Alternatively, it was suggested that even if the average price is to be taken, it has to be average of the rates reflected by exhibits C2 and C4 which concededly are the basis to assess the market value, which finding has not been challenged by the State Counsel seriously and calculated on this basis, the rate comes to Rs. 2,94,000/ per acre. In order to support his contention learned counsel for the appellants relies on State of Punjab v. Hans Raj (dead) by L.Rs Sohan Singh, 1994(2) Recent Revenue Reports, 454 wherein in Hon''ble the Apex Court observed :

"Having given our anxious consideration to the respective contentions, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge of the High Court committed a grave error in working out average price paid under the sale transactions to determine the market value of the acquired lands of different kinds at different times, for fixing the market value of the acquired land, if followed, could bring about a figure of price which may not at all be regarded as the price to be fetched by sale of acquired land. One should not have, ordinarily recourse to such method. It is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence, the bona fide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighbourhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place between a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to refect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value. The learned Single Judge did not adopt that method. As stated earlier, it is agreed between learned counsel appearing for contesting parties that R5 dated August 4, 1965 which works out to Rs. 78 per marla, could form the basis for the fixation of the market value of acquired land. On the basis of the said agreement and having regard to lapse of three years time between the date of the purchase under Ex. R5 in August, 1965 and the date of acquisition and sudden developmental activities in and around the acquired land, we are of the view that fixation of the market value of acquired land @ Rs. 100/ per marla would be just and reasonable. The respondentclaimants would be entitled to the proportionate solatium on the enhanced market value of land @ 15% and interest @ 6% on the enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession of the land till payment. We do not propose to interfere with the determination of the market value of structure on the acquired land at Rs. 17,000/ made by the learned single Judge. It is accordingly confirmed."

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and with their assistance have gone through the evidence on the record. It was contended that the award with respect to market value of the land of village Bhainsa Tibba at the rate of Rs. 120/ per square yard is not relevant as the land of that village is situated 6 kilometers away from the road. In fact reference to the market value of the land of village Bhainsa Tibba is with respect to situation where the land is situated away from ChandigarhKalka road while the land in dispute is on ChandigarhKalka as well as AmbalaKalka road and it has better situation and better potentialities than the land of village Bhainsa Tibba. Relying on the award assessing the market value of the land of village Judian, it was contended that initially for the establishment of satellite town of Panchkula, lands of revenue estate of villages Judiana and Maheshpur were jointly acquired in 1971, then in 1972 and thereafter in 1981 and now in 1986. The land under reference of village Judiana is for the development of Sector 12 of Panchkula and the land of village Maheshpur is also for the development of the said sector. The market value of lands of these villages cannot be fixed at different rates. Thus the market value of comparable land of village Judiana is Rs. 250/ per square yard, i.e. Rs. 12/ lacs per acre. The claimants attempted to prove the market value of the land by referring to the sale of plots in the developed sectors of Panchkula situated around the land in dispute. Learned counsel for the appellants referred to Ex. P2 which is sale near to the date of acquisition and the price was Rs. 24,000/ for 12 marlas i.e. Rs. 2000/ per marla.

Neither the State counsel nor the counsel for the appellants has challenged the finding of fact arrived at with respect to the potentialities or proximitly of the lands of village Fatehpur and Ralli. There is not an iota of evidence on record that because of either acquisition or otherwise by way of market trend the prices have arisen disproportionately or to such an extent that it cannot be relied in June and September. It is nobody''s case that prices varied. In our considered view finding on the basis of average of the sale transactions would not ordinarily be a safe, plausible and scientific way of assessing the market value of the land. There is no gainsaying that while assessing the market value, there is no scope for completely fore closing the reasonable assessment. Taking the instances C2 and C4 on which learned single Judge has relied, even if principle of average is applied the market value of the land comes to Rs. 2,90,000/ per acre. Keeping in view the rising trend of prices of the real estate and awards of the Courts assessing the market value around the relevant date of acquisition of the land of the same situation rather adjoining the land in dispute, which fact is not challenged even in the course of arguments, one may conjecture even that the market value of the land under acquisition cannot be less than Rs. 2,50,000/ per acre, though instance of the sale representing the highest price should ordinarily be considered as representing the market value. The principle of average has not been accepted by Hon''ble the Apex Court as referred to above. Thus the learned Single Judge has erred in favour of the State in fixing the market value of the land. In our considered view the market value of the land on which a willing seller would sell to a willing purchaser cannot be in any manner less than Rs. 2,50,000/ per acre. Thus taking into consideration the totality of the evidence brought on record, relying on awards C2 and C4, we assess the market value of the land in dispute at Rs. 2,25,000/ per acre.

Thus the judgment of learned single Judge dated 20.5.1994 is modified to the extent that the market value of the land in dispute would be Rs. 2,25,000/ per acre. Consequently, the appeal is allowed to the extent stated above with proportionate costs. The appellants/claimants would be entitled to all the statutory benefits on the above said market value as per the amended provisions of Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.