Parsan Kaur vs State of Haryana

V.K. Bali, J.—By this order the Court proposes to decide all these connected Regular First Appeals bearing Nos. 192, 193, 194, 195, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 205, 206, 207, 244 and 245 of 1988 as common questions of facts and law arise in these appeals. All these appeals have been filed by the claimants seeking further enhancement in compensation.

Brief facts of the case reveal that the State of Haryana vide notification dated 28.2.1980 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act acquired land of the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the claimants) for public purpose i.e. for establishment of New Grain Market Committee, Gharaunda, District Karnal. The Collector vide his award dated 5.12.1980 awarded compensation @ Rs. 14,240/ per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the claimants moved the Land Acquisition Collector under Section 18 of the Act and demanded Rs. 1,60,000/ per are as market value of their land. The Additional District Judge, Karnal, before whom references came for disposal, vide his award dated October 3, 1984, enhanced the compensation by holding that the market value of the land, when notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued was Rs. 16.53 per sq. yard. Besides enhancing the market value of the land, the claimants were also held entitled to solatium @ 15% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation and further interest @ 6% per annum from the date of taking possession of the land till realisation of the amount. As mentioned above, the obvious prayer of the claimants herein is for enhancing the compensation by fixing the market value of the land at the time of issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act to be far more than the one that has been granted by the learned Additional District Judge.

All these appeals had earlier come up for hearing before D.V. Sehgal, J. who vide his judgment dated March 23, 1987, further enhanced compensation payable to the claimants. The market price of the land as determined to be Rs. 1,60,000/ per acre along the G.T. Road of a belt up to the depth of 150 feet whereas with regard to the rest of the land award given by the Additional District Judge fixing the market value at the rate of Rs. 16.53 per square yard was upheld. The claimants were also held entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value and an amount at the rate of 12% per annum of the market value of the land from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 28.2.1980 upto the date of the award of the Collector. The claimants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of their dispossession from the land for a period of one year and at the rate till the final payment of amount of compensation. The appeals were, thus, allowed.

Still being aggrieved, the claimants filed Letters Patent Appeal bearing No. 238 to 252 and 289 of 1987 which were disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 6th of February, 1997. The judgment of the learned single judge was set aside and the case was remanded to be decided by a Single Judge. Before the matter might proceed any further, it may be mentioned that the first contention of Mr. C.B. Goel, learned Counsel representing the claimants is that the claimants had filed Letter Patent Appeal with a prayer that the market value assessed by the learned single Judge was inadequate and it may be further enhanced and that in the appeals filed by the claimants, the Letters Patent Bench could not set aside even that part of the judgment of the learned single Judge whereby appeals preferred by the claimants were partly allowed. This argument of the learned Counsel has to be summarily rejected as the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court has assumed finality, having not been challenged in the Apex Court and is binding upon the parties. Evaluating the evidence in this case and being totally uninfluenced of what might have been observed by the Letters Patent Bench, while remanding all these cases to a single Judge, this Court is of the considered view that it is not a case where any further enhancement of compensation is at all called for. Quite to the contrary, these are perhaps some of those rare cases where if the State had filed an appeal, there was scope for even upsetting the market value assessed by the Additional District Judge.

The claimants besides bringing some evidence on record to show that the land subject matter of acquisition had a great potential of being converted into a commercial or residential area also brought on record sale instances Exs. P.3, P.4 and P.5. They also led evidence to show that the Municipal Committee had sold shops in the year 1976 in an area in close proximity to the area under acquisition at various rates. Subsequent award of Land Acquisition Collector awarding Rs. 80,000/ per acre was also relied upon by claimants. The evidence adduced by the claimants with regard to sale instances may be noticed at this stage :

Sr. No.

Document

Date of sale

Area

Amount of consideration Rs.

Rate per square yard Rs.

1.

P3

27.5.78

224 Sq. Yards

5,000/

22.86

2.

P4

17.1.77

32 Kanals 10 Marlas

1,42,187/

7.24

3.

P5

15.7.80

4 Marlas

5,000/

41.3

Plots sold by the Municipal Committee for shops in the year 1976

Plot No.

4.

1.

30.10.76

67.22 Sq. Yards

7,000/

104.14

2.

do

do

5,200/

77.15

3.

do

do

4,500/

66.94

4.

do

do

4,010/

59.65

Mr. C.B. Goel, learned counsel representing the claimants during the course of arguments could not bring to the notice of this Court any other relevant sale instance and therefore, besides examining the location of land so as to determine its potential, the Court has to determine market value on the basis of sale instances referred to above and subsequent award of LAC. It is proved on the record of the case that the land subject matter of acquisition is situated within the municipal limits of Gharaunda town. The office of Block Development Officer, Market Committee, Veterinary Hospital, Post Office, Police Station and petrol pump are situated towards the East of the land whereas there is Railway Station on its West. On the North of the land are factories, cold storage, rice sheller and other buildings. It is also proved on record that part of land abuts the G.T. Road. The limits of the municipal committee Gharaunda had already extended to nearly 900 yards beyond the land acquired. In close vicinity to the acquired land there are houses, office of the Electricity Board, banks and other commercial buildings. Even though, therefore, the land at the time of acquisition was under cultivation and used for agricultural purposes alone, it has to be held that it had potential for being developed into commercial, industrial or residential area. Potential of the land for developing it into commercial, industrial and residential area by itself without there being any supporting evidence, in view of this Court is not enough in itself to call for enhancing the market value of the land in excess of what has been settled by the Land Acquisition Collector beyond 10 to 15 per cent and the claimants with a view to have increase in the market value have to independently depend upon sale instance of comparable land. In other words, even though the land subject matter of acquisition may have potential for being developed into commercial, industrial or residential area, determination of market value really depends upon comparable sale instances in the close vicinity. The determining factor in every case is, proof of comparable sale instances.

The sale instances reference whereof has been given above would reveal that in so far as Ex.P.3 is concerned, it pertains to sale of land measuring 224 sq. yards. This piece of land was sold for Rs. 5,000/ i.e. at the rate of Rs. 22.86 per sq. yard. This sale instance can, however, not be of any help to the claimants as it could not be proved as to where the land sold was located. The claimants have produced Ex.P.2 a site plan which shows the land under acquisition and the various sale instances. However, in so far as Ex.P.3 is concerned, the same cannot be located in the site plan Ex.P.2. This is what was held by the learned Additional District Judge as also by the learned single Judge when the matter earlier came up for decision in this Court. Ex.P.5 is a sale instance of 4 Marlas of land for an amount of Rs. 5,000/. Rate per sq. yard works out to Rs. 41.3. This sale instance cannot, however, be relied upon as sale was effected after issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and is of very small area as compared to the land under acquisition. Even the learned single Judge on an earlier occasion when the matter came up for consideration did not rely upon Ex.P.5. In so far as Ex.P.4 is concerned, the same pertains to the sale that came into being on 17.1.1977 vide which 32 Kanals 10 Marlas of land was sold for an amount of Rs. 1,42,187/. The rate per sq. yard comes to Rs. 7.24. In the site plan Ex.P.2, sale instance Ex.P.4 has been shown at point `E''. This sale instance is towards Karnal side and is at quite a distance from the acquired land. That apart, the location of sale instance Ex.P.4 clearly shows that is is right on the G.T. Road and very close to Liberty factory. This sale instance in view of this Court was not comparable to the land subject matter of acquisition. Assuming that some reliance could be placed on this sale instance to determine the market value of the land under acquisition, the price per sq. yard, as mentioned above, of this sale instance works out only to Rs. 7.24. The learned Additional District Judge without there being any positive evidence showing increase in the prices added three rupees per sq. yard per year and inasmuch as sale instance Ex.P.4 pertains to the year 1977, nine rupees per sq. yard. were added, the acquisition of a land being in the year 1980. In view of this Court, the learned Additional District Judge was not justified to give enhancement at Rs. 30/ per sq. yard per year without there being any proof brought on record by the claimants to show that the prices of the land were increasing and that too at the rate so assessed by the learned Additional District Judge. None of sale instances Exs.P.3, P.4 and P.5 were, thus, at all relevant in determining the market value of the land. If sale instance aforesaid are to be excluded for determining the market value, the claimants are left with sales made by the municipal committee of small plots for shops in the year 1976 as also subsequent award of Land Acquisition Collector. There was an auction held on 16.10.1976, plots of 67.22 sq. yards were sold on various rates ranging from Rs. 4,010/ to Rs. 7,000/. These sale instances pertain to very small areas of land located along the G.T. Road. All these plots were sold in public auction where the spirit of competition enters. The difference in prices fetched by these plots ranging from Rs. 59.65 to Rs. 104.14 is in itself enough to demonstrate that it was the competitive instinct which was more prevailing. These small plots of 67.22 sq. yards it is proved from site plan Ex.P.2 are located closer towards where there is habitation of the town. The learned Additional District Judge had given good reason while rejecting these sale instances. Even the learned Single Judge, when the matter earlier came up for disposal before this Court, had held that these sales do not constitute a sound guide. Even after so observing, average price of these plots was worked out at Rs. 77/ per sq. yard upto the depth of at least 150 feet along the G.T. Road, the market value was assessed by just slashing it to half i.e. Rs. 38.50 per sq. yard. As mentioned above, in appeals preferred by the claimants, judgment passed by the learned Single Judge has been set aside and the case has been remanded. Reliance of the learned Single Judge on these sale instances has been adversely commented upon by the learned Division Bench. This Court is not at all going into the reasons adopted by the Letters Patent Bench while not relying upon these sale instances but is of independent view that these small pieces of land which are located on the G.T. Road were not at all comparable with the land subject matter of acquisition and on the basis of the sale price of these plots, the market value of the land under acquisition could not be assessed. Insofar as subsequent award of the Land Acquisition Collector is concerned again in view of this Court, the same could not be relied upon to determine the market value of the land under acquisition, even though it is true that the award of the land Acquisition Collector pertains to the land which was sought to be acquired with the land under acquisition. It is, however, proved that the landowners filed a Civil Writ Petition in this Court and acquisition proceedings qua them were quashed. It was later acquired vide a notification dated 14.8.1981 i.e. about 1 years when land, subject matter of acquisition in the present case, was acquired. By that time, the entire acquired land in this case had become of great value. Even though by that time the land under acquisition might have not been developed for the purpose for which it was acquired, but all concerned knew that the new grain market committee is going to be set up in the land under acquisition. Since the claimants did not rely upon comparable sale instances, therefore, the learned Additional District Judge should not have increased the market value as assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector to that of Rs. 80,000/ per acre. However, there is no appeal preferred by the State to the award rendered by the learned Additional District Judge. The Court in this case has to determine whether claimants are entitled to more compensation than the one that is awarded by the learned Additional District Judge but having found that there is no relevant evidence on the record to call for further enhancing the market value i.e. from the one already granted by the learned Additional District Judge, this Court finds all these appeals devoid of any merit and the same are hereby dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

Appeals dismissed.