L.A.C. N.A.C., Mani Majra vs Dharam Pal

Swatanter Kumar, J.—The learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, vide his judgment and award dated 3.2.1998 answered 24 references u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and enhanced the compensation payable to the land owners to Rs. 3,87,200/- per acre with statutory benefits. However, the parties to the proceedings before the learned Additional District Judge felt dis-satisfied from the amount so awarded. The Chandigarh Administration (N.A.C. Mani Majra) filed 23 regular first appeals submitting that the amount awarded to the claimants was unreasonable, excessive and prayed for restoration of the amount awarded by the Collector, while 12 claimants also preferred regular first appeals claiming enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded to them vide the impugned judgment. In other words, 35 regular first appeals have arisen from the above judgment/award of the learned Additional District Judge. As a common question of law and facts arises in these appeals and they arise from one and same judgment., it will be appropriate to dispose them together by a common judgment.

The Chandigarh Administration issued a notification u/s 4 of the Act on 25.5.1989 intending to acquire 29.7 acres of land form the revenue estate of village Mani Majra. in furtherance thereto, notification u/s 6 was is-sued on 11.8.1989. The land in question was acquired for development of residential-cum-commercial complex scheme No. 2 (Pocket No. 1), Mani Majra, Chandigarh. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 5.1.1990 after affording opportunity to the claimants awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,65,000/- per acre uniformly to all the claimants. The claimants felt dis-satis-fied from the judgment and preferred references u/s 18 of the Act to the learned District Judge, Chandigarh. As already noticed, the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh enhanced this compensation to Rs. 3,87,200/- per acre vide judgment dated 3.2.1998 which is impugned before this Court.

The claimants in order to claim enhancement had produced before the learned Additional District Judge six witnesses (PW1 to PW6) and tendered in evidence'' two sale instances Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3. They also produced on record Ex.PZ/1 Aksh Shijra and mutations Ex.PZ/2 and PZ/3. Reliance was also placed on site plans Ex.A/1, Ex.PY/5 and letter Ex.PW 5/A. Ex.A.4, Ex.A.9 and Ex.A.10 were the certified copies of the judgments relied upon by the petitioners.

To rebut this documentary and oral evidence the respondents only produced on record sale deeds Ex.R. 1 to Ex.R. 3 relating to the sale of land in village Mani Majra, but ho other documentary or oral evidence was produced by the respondents.

The learned Additional District Judge while exclusively relying upon Ex.A.9 granted the afore-stated compensation to the land owners.

As far as location and potential of the land is concerned, there could be hardly any dispute. The site plans produced on record clearly show that the acquired land forms part of the same revenue estate which has already been developed commercially as well as residentially. Ex.A.1 which has not only been proved on record but is duly substantiated even by the oral evidence produced by the claimants without any substantive contradiction in the cross examination cropping up. As per Ex.A/1 land of Pocket No. 1 is adjacent to village abadi. It is adjacent to Pocket No. 2 and Pocket No. 4. Motor Market complex is on the other end and the acquired land is abutting the pacca road leading from Dhillon Complex to Grain Market and Timber Market. Across the road, on the other side, the Railway Station Area falls.

AW3 H.L Dhami, Retired Superintending Engineer proved Ex.PY-5 the site plan and report Ex.A.8. While discussing the precise effect of the documentary and oral evidence produced by the parties before the Court, the learned District Judge came to the following conclusion:-

hearing the counsel at length, I agree with the counsel for the petitioners that the acquired land being surrounded by residential and commercial complexes, its value cannot be fixed by taking it as an agricultural land. The acquired land is the potential of being developed for the purpose of commercial and residential purposes. Near the acquired land, boundary of Panchkula town-ship stArts. Manimajra complex was already in existence. I have also found in one other LAC case that the market value of the land belonging to Chandigarh Territory situated towards Panchkula and towards Mohali is higher than the market value of the land situated towards other side of Chandigarh."

I have no reason to differ with the above said finding.

The sale instances produced by either of the parties to the proceedings are inadmissible. The claimants as well as the Chandigarh Administration did not examine any vendor or vendees. They also did not examine any concerned official from the Registrar/revenue authorities to prove the authenticity, genuineness, consideration and even location of the property indicated in the sale-deeds. As per the law enunciated by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. P. Venkaiah and Ors. AIR 1997 S C 2660 and Special Deputy Collector and another etc. Vs. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others, etc., these documents were rightly excluded by the learned trial Court from the zone of consideration. This finding also calls for no interferenc.

It is a commonly conceded case before me that the learned trial Court ought to have totally relied upon Ex.A.9 for awarding the amount of compensation payable to the claimants. It is also commonly conceded that Ex.A.9, which is a judgment relating to the acquisition of the land in village Kajheri, where the land was acquired vide notification dated 8.7.1986, is at a distance of nearly 15 kilometers from the land acquired in the present case. Thus, according to the claimants their land ought to have been valued at a much higher price than the land in Ex.A.9 while according to the State Ex.A.9 in any case forms no comparable instance and, therefore, ought to have been excluded from the zone of consideration. Whatever may be the reason, the fact remains that Ex.A.9 does not provide a comprehensive and appropriate comparable instance which could be treated as a precept to the determination of a fair market value of the acquired land at the relevant point of time. It will be more so when other relevant and material evidence was on record.

Somewhat on similar lines Ex.A.10 can also not be treated as a directly relevant evidence to the controversy in issue. But one material fact which emerges from the reading of Ex.A.9 and Ex.A.10 is that the lands which were acquired in 1977 or 1986, there was increasing trend in the value of the land, and the lands, subject matter of these two exhibits, were falling in the area which at that time were apparently so developed as the land acquired under the present notification. These two documents, therefore, demonstrate that the lands surrounding Chandigarh for their acquisition in the year 1986 were awarded a sum of Rs. 3,87,200/- per acre. The compensation awarded under Ex.A.9 was enhanced by the High Court in R.F. No. 2511 of 1997 titled Bhajan Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 29.7.1999 to Rs. 4,35,600/-.

The material piece of evidence and a correct guide to determine a fair market value, on record is only Ex.A.4 Ex.A.4 is the judgment passed by the learned District Judge on 12.2.1990 awarding a compensation at the rate of Rs. 2 lacs per acre in relation to the acquisition of the land in village Mani Majra itself vide notification u/s 4 dated 10.12.1986. The land under Ex.A.4 was acquired for development of slum dwellers in village Mani Majra itself.

The learned counsel appearing for the claimants relied upon another judgment of this Court in the case of Surinder Singh and Ors. v. U.T. Chandigarh, R.F.A. No. 2879 of 1998, decided on 27.5.1999, where compensation was allowed at the rate of Rs. 3,87,200/- per acre for development of Pocket No. 4 (Scheme No. 20), Mani Majra and for development and extension of Indira Colony, compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 3.01,315/- per acre. Both these lands were acquired vide notification dated 25.5.1989 and 12.6.1989. This would clearly show that the compensation awarded for Kajheri was based upon better evidence and higher compensation was awarded by the learned courts below in those cases while in the present case the legally admissible evidence before the Court appears to be Ex.A.4 or the judgment delivered in the case of Surinder Singh (supra) and that is to be taken as a judicial precedence being judgment of the High Court.

The learned counsel for the claimants lastly placed heavy reliance upon Ex.PW5/A, which is a letter written by the Finance Secretary, Chandigarh, to the President of Notified Area Committee, Chandigarh. Vide this letter the authorities had informed the committee that the area had been released from restrictions imposed under the Punjab New Capital Periphery Control Act, 1952 for the change of user of land from agricultural to residential/commercial. In the light of the statements of AW4 and AL1 proving this document, the claimants are claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 500/- per square yard. It is contended that AW4 Kuldeep Singh was a witness of the Committee itself, who was senior assistant of Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh and he had clearly stated in his statement that from November, 1986 to 26.3.1998 shops-cum-flats/shops-cum-offices were sold in N.A.C. Mani Majra for Rs. 1,900/- per square yard to Rs. 10,800/- per square yard measuring about 244 and 110 to 285.5 square yards.

This evidence at the very outset appears to be very attractive to the advantage of the claimants, but in fact when examined in depth, it is not so. These are developed commercial plots and shops which have been sold by the Administration after developing the area completely and constructing the shop-cum-offices in accordance with development/zonal plans. AW4 in his cross-examination fairly conceded that shops were sold after development and providing complete infra-structure. The claimants did not put anything in the examination-in-chief of this witness which could show that the acquired land is just opposite to these shops and has the same infrastructure or development as the Shops, which were put to auction.

Similarly PW3, a registered valuer who was produced at the instance of the claimants, has obviously deposed in exaggerated figures in favour of the claimants. I would not consider it to be safe to rely upon such statement entirely. Though one fact which has to be taken into consideration is that the lands may be at some distance from the acquired land, yet were fully developed and had great residential and commercial potential. They, for certain, would show increase in the valuation of the property. Even otherwise, the fully developed plots having complete infra-structure cannot be equated to a land which was undeveloped or at best had some super structure attaching the acquired land. The effect of Ex.PW5/A would certainly go to the advantage of the claimants whose land was abutting the main road, but that itself cannot be a ground for enhancing to such an extent the compensation payable to the claimants for acquisition of their lands.

In the cross-examination of AW1 a suggestion was put to the witness that the acquired land was lying waste at the time of acquisition. This witness also stated that Nadi (river) was passing about 500 yards from the boundary of the land. In other words, this land was not as well located as the lands across the road. Therefore, it cannot have the same advantage like the other lands where the Committee has developed marketing complex. Thus, advantage of the letter Ex.PW5/A will incur to the claimants but io a very limited extent. PW6 stated that the commercial complex is at a short distance. It is also recorded in his statement that the land abuts the National Highway; is near to the commercial complex and Dhilion Cinema. He further states that some facilities were available. Statement of this witness to some extent is supported by Ex.A.1. As per Ex.A.1 and as already noticed; the acquired land is covered on three sides by roads. Thus, this land must have some advantage over and above the lands acquired for surrounding areas like Pocket No. 4 and Indira Colony.

I have already noticed that the only plausible evidence, which can be stated to be comparable evidence, is Ex.A.4 the judgment of District Judge, where compensation of Rs. 2 lacs was awarded for the land acquired vide notification dated 10.12.1986. Statement of AW4 and the instances of auction referred therein are of no good precept for the reason that even compliance to the terms and conditions of the alleged auction and completion of a sale deed have not been proved. This, however, is in addition to the afore-stated reasons. It can be of relevant to a limited extent.

The judgment of this Court in the case of Surinder Singh can certainly be taken into consideration because it relates to the land acquired from the revenue estate of the same village; vide notification of the same date as in the present case i.e. 25.5.1989 and for development of Pocket No. 4 under the same Scheme. This could be a safe indicator to the extent of amount which should be awarded to the claimants with some advantage because of the better location of the land in question. In Surinder Singh''s case, the Court had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 83/- pe square yard (Rs. 4,01,753/- per acre).

There can be only two ways on which the fair market value of the acquired land can be considered. One is with reference to Ex.A.4 which was an acquisition of the same village in December, 1986. Thus, giving the claimants reasonable benefit on account of lapse of time as the present acquisition is of May, 1989. In addition to that the claimants would also be entitled the better location, potential and utility of the land more particularly keeping in view the contents of Ex.PW5/A.

The other document which can safely form basis for such determination is the judgment of this Court in the case of Surinder Singh (supra). I have already noticed that the land in question in the present case is much better located than the lands acquired in Surinder Singh''s case (supra). Thus, because of better location, potential, approach as well as the effect of Ex.PW5/A and that the authorities concerned are themselves being auctioning the shop-cum-flats across the road at a very high rate, it will be just and fair to award higher compensation than the one awarded by the learned Additional District Judge.

There would be infact a common rate of market value of the land which would follow as a result of the above two different methods of computation. The element of deduction need not be applied because of the development of the surrounding area, location and potential of the land as well as the fact that in Surinder Singh''s case the element of deduction had already been applied by the Court. As a cumulative effect of the above discussion and applying some guess work, I am of the considered opinion that it will be just and fair to grant compensation at the rate of Rs. 90/- per square yard to the claimants with statutory benefits.

As a result of the above discussion, the State appeals are devoid of any merit and are, as such, dismissed, without any order as to costs. However the appeals preferred by the claimants are partly accepted with proportionate costs. Now the claimants would be entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs. 90/- per square yard (Rs. 4,35,600/- per acre), with all statutory benefits u/s 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act.