Kamlesh Kumar and Others vs State of Haryana and Another

A.L. Bahri, J.—Vide this judgment 70 Regular First Appeals (RFA Nos. 105 to 107, 324 with X-Objections No. 57-CI, 325 with X-

Objections No. 116-CI, 326,327,328 with X-Objections No. 59-CI, 329 with X-Objections No. 60-CI, 330 with X-Objections No. 117-CI,

331 with X-Objections No. 112-C-I, 332 with X-Objections No. 58-CI, 333 with X-Objections No. 119-CI, 334 with X-Objections No. 61-

CI, 335, 336 with X-Objections No. 62-CI, 337, 338 with X-Objections No. 63-CI, 339 with X-Objections No. 118-CI, 340 with X-

Objections No. 94-CI, 341 with X-Objections No. 113-CI, 342 with X-Objections No. 114-CI, 343 with X- Objections No. 64-CI, 344 with

X-Objections No. 115-CI, all of 1989. RFA Nos. 350 to 352, 367 to 369, 370 with X-Objections No. 107-CI, 371, 372 with X-Objections

No. 128-CI, 373, 374 with X-Objections NO. 97-CI, 375 with X-Objections No. 129-CI, 376, 377 with X-Objections No. 101-CI, 378 with

X-Objections No. 110-C, 379 to 381, 382 with X-Objections No. 98-CI, 383 with X-Objections No. 130-CI, 384 with X-Objections No. 8-

CI of 1991, 385 with X-Objections NO. 131-CI, 386 with X-Objections No. 100-CI, 387 with X-Objections No. l32-CI, 388 with X-

Objections No. 133-CI, 389 with X-Objections No. 134-CI, 390 with X-Objections No. 135-CI, 391, 392, 393 with X-Objections No. 71-

CI/1989, 394 with X-Objections No. 99-CI 395, 396 with X-Objections No. 136-CI, 397 with X-Objections No. 111-CI, 398 with X-

Objections No. 137-CI, 362, 407 and 408 all of 1989. RFA Nos. 1858 to 1861, 2052 to 2054 of 1989 and 2630 of 1989) are being disposed

of together as they relate to the same acquisition proceedings. The main judgment is prepared in R.F.A. No. 105 of 1989, Kamlesh Kumar and

Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr..

State of Haryana acquired 3609 Kanals 16 Marias of land for a public purpose, namely, for the extension of Hissar Cantonment area in Hissar.

Notification u/s 4 read with Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called ''the Act'') was issued on June 18, 1984. A notification

u/s 6 of the Act was issued on June 25, 1984. The Land Acquisition Collector (Cantonment), vide Award No. 3 dated January 31, 1986,

determined compensation payable for the acquired land category-wise as under:-

Annexures Rate Per Acre

A Rs. 50000/-

B Rs. 30000/-

C Rs. 25000/-

D Rs. 15000/-

E Rs. 10000/-

The land-owners were not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded. Hence they moved references u/s 18 of the Act before the District

Judge. Such references were determined by the Additional District Judge vide judgment dated October 28, 1988. He determined compensation

for the acquired land dividing into two blocks as under:-

(i) Block ''a'' as shown At the rate of

in the site plan Rs. 100000/-per acre

Exhibit RW1/A

(ii) Block ''B'' as shown At the rate of

in site plan Rs. 50000/- per acre

Exhibit RW 1/A.

On the amount of compensation so determined, the landowners were to be allowed solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value and an

additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum u/s 23(1A) of the Act and interest at the rate of 9% for a period of one year from the date of

taking over possession and at the rate of 15% per annum for the subsequent period till payment of the compensation. Still the land-owners were

not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded that they have approached this Court in these appeals.

In order to appreciate the question debated as to whether in the facts and circumstances of this case belting system of determination of market

value could be adopted or not, it would be useful to refer to the site plan produced on the record to know the situation of the acquired land vis-a-

vis other portions of land covered by sale deeds as well as situation and location of development near the acquired land. Exhibit PW 8/A is the site

plan. The existing cantonment is shown in green colour. The land in dispute is towards the East of the existing cantonment. Highway to Delhi is

situated towards the South of the existing cantonment as well as the acquired land. Just across the highway and in between the highway and the

railway line, there has been development. Several factories have come up. The railway station is towards the South of the highway. Public school

already existed which is towards the East of the existing cantonment as situated on the highway itself. ''A'' to'' I are such plots which are situated

near the highway and near the acquired land where manufacturing units have already come up, such as, H.P. Cotton and Textile Mills etc. The

residential colony of H.P. Cotton and Textile Mills is further towards the South of the railway line in Rectangle No. 95, as already stated above just

near the acquired land, across in between highway and the railway line is the factory of Prakash Tubes. Just towards the railway line from the

acquired land existed S.B. Oil Industries. There also existed other industries while going towards the East of the existing cantonment as aforesaid

was also acquired. That piece of land was surrounded by Housing Colony plots, Associated Distilleries and other industries.

Before evidence produced in the case by the parties is referred to it may further be observed that apart from the factories having been installed

and there existed a school with its own colony for the staff there was no other development of this area for residential or commercial activities. The

development referred to above is of industrial nature i.e., manufacturing units have come up near the acquired land on a road leading towards

Delhi. PW 1 Ram Kumar Aggarwal deposed about the land measuring about 8 Killas located on the highway adjoining Vidya Devi Jindal School

having been purchased for the purposes of installation of factory for running such a factory, a Company was got registered known as Rawalwasia

Oil and Textile Mills. They also wanted to install B.T. Steel Factory for the manufacture of stainless steel. The plan Exhibit PW 8/1 was proved by

PW 8 Vinod Kumar draftsman. PW9 Suraj Mal Bhaskar deposed about the existence of Vidya Devi Jindal Public School at the time of

acquisition, the old cantonment, H.P. Textile Mills and Parkash Pipes Factory near the acquired land. PW 10 Suraj Mal did state that the land

acquired could be used for residential and commercial purposes. PW 12 D.N. Mathur, Administrative Officer of the School aforesaid deposed

that the foundation stone of the school was laid on February 25, 1982 and the building was completed in January 1983. The school started

functioning in March 1983. On the other hand RW 1 Madan Lal Patwari also produced site plan Exhibit RW 1/A. RW 2 Brij Lal Patwari

produced list Mark X with respect to the mutations registered showing the sale of land. It is on the basis of this evidence that the Additional District

Judge observed that there was no justification for the Land Acquisition Collector in categorising the acquired land into plots on the basis of their

agricultural quality. The following observations were made with respect to the potential of the acquired land:-

The National Highway No. 10 abuts on a part of the acquired land and part of the same stands sandwiched between Abadi-deh of village

Mayyar and Vidya Devi Jindal Public School. The existence of Parkash Tubes on the date of acquisition and that of H.P. Cotton Mills is not

denied by the respondents. Further, towards the Hissar town, the said National Highway is dotted with factories on the southern side. Beyond

Vidya Devi Jindal Public School, towards the east is the old cantonment, existence of which is not denied by the respondents. So, it cannot be

denied that the acquired land had residential and commercial potential and its categorisation into 5 blocks by the Land Acquisition Collector on the

basis of its agricultural quality especially of land shown in Annexures ''C, ''D'' and ''E'' appended with his award was not at all justified, though he

committed no error in awarding higher compensation to the parcel of land abutting the National Highway and slightly less compensation of land

shown in annexure ''B'' proximate to the land abutting the National Highway.

Shri Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants, has argued that the Additional District Judge was not justified in

making two blocks of the acquired land for the purposes of fixation of the market value. The land had great potential for being used for residential

and commercial purposes and uniform market rate should be fixed. He referred to the decision of this Court in Charan Dass and Others Vs.

Punjab State and Others, . In that case a piece of land on Gurdaspur to Pathankot i.e. G.T. road was acquired and it was held that the sale

transactions relating to barani kind of land could not be considered for determining market value of chahi or nehri land. This decision is not of much

help in deciding the case in hand. Further reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the decision of this Court in Amar

Lal and Ors. v. The State of Haryana through Land Acquisition Collector, Kurukshetra 1990(4) LACC 447. The Collector fixed the market value

of the land acquired block-wise. There was evidence that the claimants had purchased small pieces of land for business purposes. The land was

within the Municipal limits and situated on Pipli-Kurukshetra road. There was evidence of residential houses as well as shops near the acquired

land. Just across Pipli-Kurukshetra road a residential colony had come up. It was in such circumstances that it was held that fixing market value

block-wise was not justified and uniform rate should be applied. Such land had great potential value for being used for residential and commercial

purposes. The aforesaid decision would have been helpful if there had been evidence in the present case of any type of development of residential

and commercial building. The other decision relied upon on behalf of the appellants is of this Court in Joginder Singh v. State of Haryana 1987

LACC 1. The acquired land area was in the close vicinity of Ambala City and its Municipal boundary. It was held that the land had potential for

urban purposes. The ratio of the decision cannot strictly be applied to the case in hand. The other decision relied upon on behalf of the appellants is

that of this Court in Harchal Singh v. The State of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector, Industries Department, Punjab, Chandigarh 1991

LACC 203. The acquired land being from near the urban area was held to have great potential for urbanisation and the compensation was

enhanced by the High Court. Again this decision is not of much assistance in deciding the case in hand.

On the other hand Shri Hira Lal Sibal, Advocate General, Haryana, has argued that belting system is not to be followed in all cases of

determination of market value of the land which is situated beyond Municipal limits of any town and there being no evidence of urbanisation or

commercial buildings coming up, the Addl. District Judge rightly fixed the market value. He referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sher

Singh etc. v. State of Haryana etc. 1991 LACC 196. 331 acres of land was acquired for residential-cum-commercial complex in the town of

Hissar. The Collector determined compensation block-wise. The District Judge maintained the belting system. The High Court, instead of 3

blocks, confined it to two blocks. In the Supreme Court it was argued that there should be uniform rate of market value. The land was situated

along the G.T. Road Delhi to Hissar, approximately in a strip 3 K.Ms in length, on the other side of which was railway line. Rejecting the argument

that it should fetch uniform rate of compensation, the Supreme Court observed that there was supportive material on the record to change the

decision of the High Court on the comment that belting is normally not resorted to. It is in the background of the position of law as stated above

that the evidence produced in this case is required to be considered as to whether belting system is altogether to be ignored from consideration. As

already stated above there is no material to indicate development of any residential or commercial buildings towards this side of the cantonment

area where the acquired land is situated. There is only evidence of existence of one school and factories situated on the G.T. road with respect to

the land. Slightly away from the G.T. road there has been no evidence of any type of residential or commercial activity. Thus the Additional District

Judge was right in dividing the land into two blocks for the purposes of determining the market value. The fact cannot be lost sight of that the land

which is abutting the G.T. road or is situated at some reasonable distance can be used for establishing factories whereas the agricultural land

situated at some distance from the G.T. road though they have acquired some potential from the development around G.T. road cannot be equated

with the land abutting G.T. road. The division of the acquired land into two blocks for determination of market value is quite justified.

Learned counsel for the claimants referred to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Balbir Singh v. The State of Haryana 1983

P.LJ. 86 which is to the effect that carving out of land into different belts or blocks is not a universal principle to be applied in every case. The

contention is that the entire block of land which has been acquired should be evaluated at a fixed rate. This contention as such cannot be accepted.

As a matter of fact this question whether the entire block of land acquired is to be evaluated universally at one rate or at different rates according to

the kind of the land acquired is to be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case. The land which was subject matter of dispute in the

aforesaid case of Balbir Singh (supra) was situated on Mani Majra-Panchkula road near Chandigarh. Needless to say that the land situated around

Chandigarh had great potential for being used for residential and commercial buildings. On the same ground decision of this Court in Harchal Singh

v. The State of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector Industries Department, Punjab Chandigarh 1991 LACC 203 is not of much assistance

in deciding the case in hand. The land which was acquired was situated in village Kambali and Kambala and was acquired for extension of

industrial focal point Mohali on the outskirts of Union Territory of Chandigarh. Another decision which was pressed into service on behalf of the

claimants was of N.C. Jain, J. in Chander Parkash Vs. The State of Haryana and Others, . The land was situated within the Municipal limits and

was held to have great potential for urbanisation. The fixation of compensation for such land category-wise was not proper. As already stated

above, in the present case the land acquired is outside the cantonment area.

Coming to the evidence produced by the claimants they relied upon the sale deeds Exhibit P.5 to P.9, all the sale deeds are of October 1, 1982

and the average sale price of sale deeds Exhibits P. 5 to P.8 are to the tune of Rs. 83000/- per acre roughly whereas average sale price of sale

deed Exhibit P. 9 is to the tune of Rs. 75000/-. On the other hand the State relied upon sale deeds Exhibits R. 2, R. 7, R.8 to R. 10, R. 12, R. 15.

These sale deeds are of April 1981 and the average price is about Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 23,000/-. It is worth noticing that in all six sale transactions

relied upon by the State, the land was already on lease of 99 years or the lease was with 3rd parties for such a period. Thus such sale transactions

produced by the State cannot form basis for fixing market value of the land acquired which was not subject to any such impediment.

Oral evidence produced by the claimants is in respect of some of the sale transactions already referred to above as well as with respect to the

situation of the acquired land and the land of such sale transactions being situated on the National Highway No. 10. PW 1 Ram Kumar Aggarwal,

referred to his piece of land of 8 Killas located on the National Highway adjoining Vidya Devi Jindal Public School. He had purchased land for

installation of a factory under the name and style M/s. Rawalwasia Oil and Textile Mills. They also wanted to install B.T. Steel Factory. According

to him the land should be valued at the rate of Rupees Five lacs per acre. PW 2 Om Parkash, PW 3 Rajinder Parkash, PW 4 Kuldip Malhotra

and PW 5 Sham Lal also deposed about their pieces of land abutting the National Highway aforesaid. PW 6 Mahabir Prashad and PW 7 O.P.

Jain, Advocate deposed about the market value of the land abutting the National Highway at Rs. 3 lacs per acre. Their land is also situated on the

highway, PW 9 Suraj Mal Bhaskar deposed about the existence of the school at the time of acquisition. Old cantonment already existed. H.P.

Textile Mills had also come up. PW 10 Suraj Mal also deposed about the situation of his land abutting the National Highway. On the other hand

RW 1 Mohan Lal Patwari produced site plan Exhibit PW 1/A. Another Patwari Brij Lal appeared RW.2. Relying upon the aforesaid evidence the

trial Court rightly came to the conclusion as under:-

The acquired land stood sandwitched between Vidya Devi Jindal Public School constructed in an area of more than 24 acres and R.P. Cotton

Mills covering an order of more than 14 acres. Beyond the R.P. Cotton Mills is the Abadi Deh of village Mayyer. So, the acquired land

sandwitched between these two has to be assessed at a higher value than the land farther towards the north. The categorisation of the land into two

blocks may be conjectural but unavoidable because the entire acquired land cannot be put in the same block. So, taking into consideration the

totality of circumstances, the acquired land is divided into two blocks ''A'' and ''B'' as shown in site plan Ex. RW 1/A and the acquired land falling

within the purview of rectangle Nos. 40, 41, 44, 45 and 46 is put in block ''A'' and the remaining land comprised in rectangle Nos. 2, 3, 7, 8, 9,

11, 12, 13, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29 and 30 is put in block ''B''.

Fully concurring with the finding aforesaid it is held that in the peculiar facts of the present case the entire land could not be evaluated as one

piece at a uniform rate. This is a case where land abutting on the road was being used and could be put to use for installation of factories. Land

slightly away from the highway could also be used for such purposes provided some approach road is made or other type of development done.

The additional District Judge took the average sale price of the different sale transactions produced at Rs. 83,000/- per acre. He also took into

consideration that the aforesaid rate was prevalent in 1982 whereas the relevant date for fixation of the market value was June 18, 1984 when

notification u/s 4 of the Act was issued. He also took into consideration that the land covered by some of the sale transactions was situated

towards the western side of the old cantonment area abutting another road (not the highway). Thus he in fact fixed market value of the land

abutting on the national-highway at rupees one lac per acre, learned counsel for the ''claimants argued that the claimants were entitled to fixation of

the market value at the rate maximum derived for smaller land by the land-owners. A particular reference has been made to sale-deeds Exhibits P.

6 to P.8. The rate of the land covered by these sale deeds was about Rs. 84390/- per acre (round figure) as shown in Exhibit P. 7. The additional

District Judge should have allowed further increase thereon for two years at the rate of 12% per annum. In support of this contention reference has

been made to the decisions of this Court in Inder Singh v. State of Punjab (1988) P.L.R. 190 and State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh 1990

L.A.C.C. 320 on account of general appreciation at the rate of 12% per annum increase was allowed. There is force in this contention. Allowing

such increase on Rs. 84, 390/-, the figure would come to Rs. 1,04,642/-, making it a round figure, it would be Rs. 1,04,640/- per acre. This

should be reasonable rate for fixing market value of the land covered by ''A'' Block. As far as the land situated in the other block is concerned the

Additional District Judge rightly sliced it to half i.e. Rs. 52320/- per acre should be the reasonable rate for fixing market value for such land.

For the reasons recorded above, Regular First Appeals filed by the claimants are allowed with costs fixing market value of Block ''A'' at the

rate of Rs. 1,04,640/- per acre and for Block ''B'' at the rate of Rs. 52320/- per acre. The claimants would also be entitled to all the benefits of

Land Acquisition Act as amended. Appeals filed by the State are dismissed with no order as to costs. Cross-Objections filed therein are allowed

and the compensation and other benefits are enhanced as has been done in the appeals filed by the claimants.