Raghunath vs State of Haryana

J.V. Gupta, J.—This judgment will dispose of RFA Nos. 469, 282, 283, 284 of 1984, the appeals preferred by the claimants-land-owners, and the eight cross appeals being RFA No. 724, 725,726,727,728,729, 730 and 731 of 1984 filed by the State, as all the appeals have been filed against the common judgment of the Additional District Judge, Ambala, dated 14th December. 1983, which was passed on a reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act arising out of the common award of the Collector.

Agricultural land measuring 10 acres 6K and 6M situated in villages Milak and Naraingarh, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala, was acquired for the construction of New Bus Stand and a workshop there Notification u/s 4 of the Act was issued on 4th June, 1980. The Collector gave his award on 28th October, 1981, whereby he awarded compensation @ Rs. 13,539/-per acre for Chahi land, Rs. 9,026/-per acre for Barani land, Rs. 4,513/- per acre for Banjar land and Rs. 2.256/-per acre in respect of Gair Mumkin land. On reference u/s 18 of the Act, at the instance of the claimants-land-owners, the learned Additional District Judge enhanced the amount of compensation as under:

Chahi land

...

Rs. 48,00 /-

per acre

Barani land

...

Rs. 33,000/-

" "

Banjar land

...

Rs. 16,000/-

" "

GairMumkin

...

Rs. 8,000/-

" "

Dissatisfied with the same, the appeals have been preferred by the land owners/claimants as well as the State for enhancement of the compensation awarded and for reduction thereof, respectively.

Learned Counsel for the claimants/landowners submitted that the learned Additional District Judge has ignored the instances of sale vide Ex. P5, dated 31st July, 1980, for 8 Marias of land, for a consideration of Rs. 12,000/-, i.e.,@ Rs. 1,500/- per Maria, and Ex. P6, dated 10th March, 1980, in respect of 40 Marias of land for a consideration of Rs. 32,000/-, i. e., @ Rs. 800/- per Maria, on surmises and conjectures. The sale vide Ex. P6 was prior to the notification u/s 4 of the Act and it could not be ignored. Moreover, argued the learned Counsel, the learned Additional District Judge did find that the land acquired had a potential value because of its location, etc., but at the same time the market value was not assessed accordingly. According to the counsel, having found that the land acquired had the potential, even the sale of small plots was good evidence to determine the market value. In support of his contention he referred to the judgment of this Court in R. F. A No. 149/1972 (Smt. Pushpa Devi v. The State of Haryana), decided on 13th November, 1979. It was further contended that the land acquired was situate on two roads and, so, even the cut of l/3rd was not justified. In support of this contention he referred to the judgment of this Court in LPA No. 767/1980 (Siri Paul v. The Collector) decided on 23rd December, 1981. Reference was also made to Ex P9, the judgment of this Court while determining the market price for the land acquired in the year 1971 in the same village, i. e., Naraingarh, @ Rs. 200/- per Maria. Thus, argued the learned Counsel, in these circumstances the market value of the land acquired could not be less than Rs. 9,6000/- per acre, i. e., Rs. 600/- per Maria in any case, on which the court fee has been paid in RFA No. 469/1984, though the claimants are entitled to much more, i. e., @ Rs. 800/ per Maria.

On the other band, learned Counsel for the State submitted that RW2 Shri Malik Singh, Station Supervisor, Haryana Roadways, Naraingarh, has categorically stated that the acquired land has got depression of 7 feet from the road level, and there was no development activity near the acquired land at the time of its acquisition. Thus, argued the learned Counsel, keeping in view his statement and the fact that for the period 1974-78 there was no substantial increase in the market price of the land in the village, and it only varied from Rs. 400/- to 500/-per Maria on which basis the learned Additional District Judge has allowed Rs. 300/- per Maria for the Chahi land which was excessive and that is why the State has filed the appeals for its reduction.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also gone through the relevant evidence on record. A resume of the sale transactions as given by the learned Additional District Judge is as under:

S. No.

Ex.

Date of Sale

Area

Sale price Rs.

Average per Maria

Distance from the acquired land

1.

PI

11-1-74

10 Marias

4,000/-

400/-

11/2 Killas

2.

P2

14-12-77

11 "

4,500/-

409/10

3 Killas

3.

P3

20-10-78

20 "

10,000/-

500/-

5 "

4.

P4

22 3-78

24 "

9,600/-

400/-

2 "

5.

P5

31-7-80

8 "

12,000/-

1,500/-

6 "

6.

P6

10-3-80

40 "

32,000/-

800/-

24 "

(Resume of sale transactions as per judgment Ex. P9)

Date of notification u/s 4 of the Act

Rates awarded by L. A. C.

Rates awarded by Hon''ble High Court

23.3.1971

@ Rs. 8250/- per acre for ChahiRs. 5500/- per acre for Barani-A. Rs. 4500/- per acre for Barani-B. Rs. 3500/- per acre for GairMumkin land.

Rs. 32,000/- per acre for unclassifiedland on both sides of Naraingarh-Jagadhri Road; Rs. 24,000/- per acre for the remaining lands.

S. No.

Ex.

Area

Date of Sale Average per sale price acre

1.

R2

24K 12M (Barani)

6-11-79 25,000/- 8,129.60 (12 Killas away from acquired land)

2.

R3

17K 5M (Chahi)

19-6-79 28,000/- 12,817.60 (40 Killas away from acquired land)

3.

R4

12K 5M (Barani)

23-8-79 11,000/- 7,184,00 (20 Killas away from acquired land)

4.

R5

8 Kanals (Chahi)

5-6-76 8000/- 8,000/- (20 Killas away from acquired land)

5.

R6

24 Kanals (Barani)

18-6-79 27,000/- 9,000/- (18 Killas away from acquired land)

The material instances are the sales vide Ex. P5 and P6. Admittedly, the sale vide Ex. P6 is prior to the notification u/s 4 whereas the sale vide Ex. P5 was after the said notification. Ex. P5 has not been taken into consideration by the learned Additional District Judge because it was after the notification u/s 4 whereas with regard to the instance vide Ex. P6, it has been observed that similarly, the land as per Ex. P6 situate 24 Killas away from the acquired land was sold on 10th March, 1980 whereas the notification u/s 4 of Act was issued in the present case on 4th June, 1980, and the learned Government Pleader is justified in putting forward his argument that the claimants after having come to know of the impending acquisition of their present acquired land have got the sale deed executed by the vendors mentioning therein at much exaggerated sale consideration in order to create evidence in their favour". The said observations of the lower court are not based on any evidence on the record, and, therefore, the said instance vide Ex. P6 could not be ruled out of consideration. Moreover, the learned Additional District Judge himself found that, "However, from the statements of various PWs examined by the claimants we get an idea of the situation, location and the potential value of the acquired land. No doubt, the lands were agricultural at the time of the present acquisition and were beyond the municipal limits but there is no denying the fact that several buildings used for residential and official accommodation have come up near the acquired land and some of them were in existence even at the time of acquisition and as such, the acquired lands had also the potential to be developed as residential and official accommodation and that the acquired land is situated in between Chandigarh-Sadhaura Road and Naraingarh-Ujjal Majri Road which fact has been admitted even by RW1 Rattan Singh, Patwari". Thus, taking into consideration the potential value of land acquired and the instance vide Ex. P6, the market value of the land acquired comes to far more than Rs. 300/-per Maria as determined by the" learned Additional District Judge. Moreover, the evidence led by the State was in the form of mutations, and, therefore, could not form the basis of determination of the market value as held by the Full Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Pohu (1986) 89 P. L. R. 109. Thus, taking into consideration, the situation and potential of the land acquired and the market price as furnished vide instance P6, the market price is fixed at Rs. 600/- per Maria, i. e., Rs. 96,000/- per acre in respect of Chahi land, and for the other kinds of land, the same is increased proportionally to Rs. 48,000/- per acre for the Barani land, Rs. 24,000/- per acre for the Banjar land and Rs. 12,000/- per acre in respect of Gair Mumkin land.

The claimants/land-owners shall also be entitled to solatium @ 30% on the market value as provided u/s 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and additional Compensation @ 12% p. a. as provided u/s 23(I-A) besides interest @ 9% p a. 15% p. a. as provided u/s 28 of the Act. Consequently, RFAs No. 469, 282, 283 and 284 of 1984 filed by the claimants allowed with costs whereas the appeals preferred by the State (RFA No. 724, 725, 726, 727, 728, 729, 730 and 731 of 1084) are dismissed with no order as to costs. In case the court fee paid by the claimants is less than the amount awarded by this Court, they shall be entitled to make up the deficiency in the court fee within two months from today falling which they shall be entitled to enhancement amount of compensation accordingly to the court fee paid by them.