AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sr.
No.",No.of Ext.,Land sold,"Sale
consideration","Date of
Transaction",Rate per acre
1,Ext.P-2,14K-04M,"Rs.14,57,500/-",14.10.99,"Rs.8,71,831/-
3,Ext.P-4,0K-12M,"Rs.1,00,000/-",7.11.97,"Rs.13,33,333/-
4,Ext.P-5,0K-12M,"Rs.1,00,000/-",29.8.97,"Rs.13,33,333/-
A perusal of Ex.R2 to R5 would go on to show that there was one common thread running in the said sale deeds is that the market value is,,,,,
Rs.1,75,000/-. It is but obvious that the purpose of getting the sale deeds registered on the said rates would be at the Collector's rate and therefore,",,,,,
uniformity in price for the 8 kanals sold. It is well known that sale deeds are always executed at the Collector rate which is generally below the,,,,,
market value, to avoid impounding and rather the uniform rate of sale consideration ranging from December, 1994 to January, 1995 would only go on",,,,,
to show that these sale deeds were being executed at a uniform rate and were, thus, grossly undervalued.",,,,,
The other issue which arises for consideration is whether the Reference Court was correct in applying the belting system as the land which is,,,,,
acquired is 783 kanals 14 marlas and works out to around 98 acres and is for a public purpose, i.e., for construction of a Sub-Station. Thus, it is not a",,,,,
case of setting up a residential or a commercial colony and there would be minimum wastage of land and therefore, the respondents cannot plead that",,,,,
there has to be a development cut. In Lal Chand Vs. Union of India and another 2009 (15) SCC 76,9 40% development cut had been applied by the",,,,,
Apex Court on account of the land being close to Municipal limits. The issue of land being acquired for industrial purposes and the wastage being,,,,,
minimal, was also discussed. Similarly, in Chakas Vs. State of Punjab & others 2011 (10) SCR 618 also, uniform compensation had been awarded for",,,,,
550 acres which had been acquired for the purpose of a Industrial Corporation. Resultantly, only a 10% development cut had been applied as most of",,,,,
the land would have been utilized by the Corporation. The relevant portion reads as under:,,,,,
“19. The Reference Court committed a grave error in deducting 50% of the value assessed by him, towards development charges and further",,,,,
reduced the said amount for the reasons not assigned by him. The learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment has enhanced the amount of,,,,,
compensation but committed an error in fixing the base price as 2,75,000/- per acre for the acquired land, applying the doctrine of reasonable cut to the",,,,,
average price worked out by him at Rs.3,42,527/- per acre. We do not approve of the reasonings adopted either by the reference Court or by the High",,,,,
Court. How much amount is to be deducted from the base price would depend on various factors.,,,,,
As mentioned hereinabove, in the case in hand the bulk of the land that is almost 525 acres has been given to respondent No.3, the Corporation for",,,,,
setting up its own industry and other infrastructure thereon. Thus, the lands likely to be used towards roads, sewage and other such facilities would be",,,,,
minimum as most of the vacant land would be utilised by respondent No. 3 for its own benefits.,,,,,
Needless to say, once the industry is set up, it would be for the financial benefit and gain of respondent No.3 year after year. Thus, looking to the",,,,,
matter from all angles, respondent No. 3 - Corporation would be a great beneficiary at the cost of depriving the appellant - land owner of his sole",,,,,
livelihood of agriculture.â€,,,,,
The Collector, vide its award, specifically noticed that a path has to be provided for the balance land and has changed the path to the edge of the",,,,,
acquired land. It had also been noticed that the Punjab Government had desired that the Power Grid Corporation shall employ one member from each,,,,,
of the family whose land had been acquired and necessary directions had also been issued. An extra amount of Rs.10,000/- had been awarded per",,,,,
acre in addition for those persons whose more than 3/4th land had been acquired and they would be injuriously affected on account of the acquisition,,,,,
forcing them to shift from their place of residence and occupation. Similarly, Rs.10,000/- per acre in addition had been awarded for the land which had",,,,,
been left from acquisition and which is less than 2 acres, as it would not be viable for agricultural use. While assessing the market value, it had been",,,,,
noticed that the District Collector had sent two rates, one for the Chahi land and one for GT road, upto 1 acre, @ Rs.2,66,147/- and Rs.3 lakhs per",,,,,
acre, which had been proposed. However, the LAC granted Rs.3 lakhs as uniform compensation as it was a whole block of land which was acquired,",,,,,
keeping in view the proximity of the acquired land to the GT Road and the overall development vis-a-vis the construction of a cold storage adjacent to,,,,,
the land, a residential colony opposite it and the proximity to the town of Kartarpur. The under-valuation of the sale deeds was also kept in mind.",,,,,
Thus, it is apparent that the LAC had also granted uniform compensation and the Reference Court was in error in resorting to the belting system as",,,,,
one compact piece of land was acquired. The Apex Court in Haridwar Development Authority, Haridwar Vs. Raghubir Singh and others' 2010 (11)",,,,,
SCC 581 had granted uniform compensation on account of the land being contiguous, falling on the Highway and being developed for housing project.",,,,,
In HSIIDC Vs. Pran Sukh' (2010) 11 SCC 17, 5whereby the land was acquired for Industrial Model Township of Gurugram, the Apex Court granted",,,,,
a sum of Rs.20 lakhs per acre as uniform compensation.,,,,,
Thus, keeping in view the close proximity and the fact that there was a cold storage in proximity and housing colony opposite the road and the",,,,,
potentiality of the land, this Court is of the opinion that appropriate deduction should have been applied on the sale exemplar dated 10.03.1995.",,,,,
Keeping in view the judgment of the Apex Court in Chandrashekar (D) by LRs & others Vs. Land Acquisition Officer & another 2012 (1) SCC 39,0",,,,,
whereby it has been held that deduction could go upto 75%, this Court deems it fit to place a cut of 60% on both accounts (development and",,,,,
smallness) on Rs.15,68,000/- (Ex.P-3) and the amount works out to Rs.9,46,800/-. Therefore, the market value of the land acquired works out @",,,,,
Rs.6,27,200/- per acre along with all statutory benefits. The said amount of compensation would offset and being inclusive of damages which has been",,,,,
suffered by the landowners, as has also been noticed by the LAC. The present appeals, filed by the landowners are, accordingly, partly allowed, to the",,,,,
above extent. However, in RFA-5499-2017, the landowner shall not be entitled for the benefit of interest for the period of 4366 days, on the enhanced",,,,,
compensation i.e., the period of delay in filing the appeal against the second award dated 26.09.2012. The appeals filed by the Power Grid Corporation",,,,,
are, hereby dismissed.",,,,,