AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.V. Sehgal, J.
This judgment will dispose of R.F.As Nos. 964, 977 to 992, 1138, 1304, 1361 to 1363 & 1633 of 1985 filed by the landowners, R.F.As Nos. 887 to 909 of 1985 filed by the State of Haryana and Cross Objection Nos. 28Cl to 31Cl 87 of 1987 filed by the land owners in R.F. Nos. 899, 888 and 990 of 1985 respectively. All these appeals and Cross. As objections arise out of one and the same award dated 20.4.1985 made by the learned Additional District Judge (1), Jind, while disposing of references under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short `the Act'').
In pursuance of the notification dated 25.3.1983 under section 4 of the Act land of village Jhanj and Ahirka, tehsil and district Jind, was acquired for the purpose of construction of a Cooperative Sugar Mill at Jind. The total land acquired is 122 acres 7 Kanals 10 Marlas out of which 11 acres 2 Kanals 1 Marla is from the revenue estate of village Ahirka and 111 acres 5 Kanals 9 Marlas is from the revenue estate of village Jhanj. It is, however, not disputed on both the sides that the entire land acquired is one large chunk for establishing the sugar mill.
The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 13.7.1984 determined the market value of the land as under :
Village Jhanj
Nehri/Chahi
Rs. 21,000/ per acre
Barani
Rs. 20,000/ per acre
Mukhluth
Rs. 21,000/ per acre
Ghair Mumkin
Rs. 30,000/ per acre
Village Ahirka
Nehri/Chahi
Rs. 30,000/ per acre
Barani
Rs. 25,000/ per acre
Mukhluth
Rs. 30,000/ per acre
Ghair Mumkin
Rs. 12,500/ per acre
While disposing of the references through the award under appeal, the learned Additional District Judge has divided the land into two blocks. Block `A'' consists of the land contiguous to JindNarwana road upto a depth of 132 feet from either side. Block `B'' is comprised of the remaining land. For the land in Block `B'' he has determined the following market value:
Nehri
Rs. 30,000/ per acre.
Barani
Rs. 25,000/ per acre.
Mukhluth
Rs. 30,000/ pre acre.
For the land falling in Block `A'' in both the villages he has increased the market value as determined above by 20% meaning thereby that for Nehri and Mukhluth land he has awarded Rs. 36,000/ per acre while for the Barani land he has awarded Rs. 30,000/ per acre.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documentary and the oral evidence on the record. Strangley enough in this case the State has not produced any instance of sale which might have assisted in arriving at the correct market value of the land on the relevant date. It rest content by examining court witnesses. R.W.1 Hari Kishan Patwari, Ahirka deposed that the land of village Ahrika is about 10 Killas from the municipal limits of Jind and it is of best quality for the purposes of cultivation. He admitted in cross examination that some people had developed their plots of land to the front across the road and the present market value of the land was Rs. 40,000/ per acre but he pleaded ignorance as to the rates of land prevailing in the year 1983 when the notification under section 4 of the Act was issued. R.W. Jagmohan Lal, Patwari of village Jhanj, stated that the land of village Jhanj is 34 Killas away from the municipal limits of Jind. No information could be elicited from him regarding the market value of the land on the relevant date. R.W.3 Dharam Paul, Junior Engineer P.W.D. Public Health, Jind, produced a report Ex. R.4 prepared by the Executive Engineer to the effect that the subsoil water in the area of village Jhanj was found not potable while the subsoil water of the land of village Ahirka was found fit for drinking. The last witness appearing on behalf of the State was R.W. 4 Makool Ahmed Querishi, Chief Engineer of the Cooperative Sugar Mill, who deposed that there were pits on the land of village Jhanj and the subsoil water was brackish, though he frankly stated that the water of the land of village Ahirka was good. The statement of this witness to the effect that there were pits on the land was rightly not accepted by the learned Additional District Judge on the ground that no such fact was pleaded on behalf of the state in its written statement. The remaining evidence simply brings out that the nearest limit of the land acquired is about 10 Killas from the municipal limits of Jind, which brings out that it is in close proximity of the town. As it would be found from the instance of sale produced by the landowners, this land was gradually acquiring building potential and small pieces of land were sold from time to time for building activity. Thus, the land can reasonably be described as `suburban agricultural land'' having latent potential for its development.
The landowners, on the other hand, have claimed that the market value of the land acquired is Rs. 50/ per square yard. They produced P.W.1, Hari Kishan, Patwari, who proved on the record Masawi from the Aks Shajra and deposed that the land acquired for the sugar mill adjoins the main JindNarwana road, P.W.2 Jagmohan, Patwari Halqa Jhanj, also produced copies of Aks Shajra Exs. P. 2 to P. 5 showing locations of the land of village Jhanj.
The following instances of sale produced by the landowners through P.W. 3 Chhoto. P.W. 4 Rajni and P.W. 14 Dharam Singh have been rightly discarded by the learned Additional District Judge on the ground that all these instances of sale are subsequent to the date of notification under section 4 of the Act :
Sr. No.
Exhibit
Date of sale
Area
Sale price Rs.
1.
P.6
18.9.83
5 marlas
4000/
2.
P.7
29.14.83
3.5 marlas
1500/
3.
P. 19
12.4.83
130 sq. yards
5000/
Likewise, the learned Additional District Judge has rightly ignored sale deed Ex. D. 3 dated 12.12.1980 whereby Phool Kumar P.W. 5 purchased land measuring 2 Biswas (Pukhla) for Rs. 10,300/ for the reason that this witness candidly admitted that the land so purchased by him is 10 killas away from the land acquired for the sugar mill, which therefore, could not constitute an admissible instance for determining the market value of the land in question. The learned counsel for the landowners could not persuade me by any cogent argument that the above sale instances could be taken into consideration for determining the market value of the land acquired.
The landowners also proved on the record the following in Ahirka :
Exhibit
Date of Sale
Area
Sale Consideration Rs.
Price per sq. yard. Rs.
P.10
12.10.81
300 sq. yard
6000/
20/
P.12
30.10.81
250 sq. yard
5250/
20/
P.13
30.10.81
250 sq. yard
5250/
20/
P.18
4.11.81
7 Marlas
5000/
25/
P.9
10.10.81
7 Marlas
3000/
15/
All the above sale instances are before the relevant date, i.e. 25.3.1983. These are nearly 11/2 years earlier. The average rate worked out from these instances is Rs. 20/ per square yard. The learned counsel for the landonwers stressed that the sale instance Ex. P. 11 should also be taken into account for working out the average price. Ex.P.11 is a sale deed dated 19.5.1978 vide which 3/4 biswas of land was sold for Rs. 8000/, which roughly means Rs 200/ per square yard. On a close examination of Ex. P. 11, I find that this land had some construction over it and a right of path was also given. It is, therefore, difficult to find out the net price of the land underneath the said construction excluding the right of path. This transaction cannot, therefore, be taken into consideration. There is no other sale transaction produced on the record to assist the Court reaching at the correct market value of the land acquired.
The learned Additional District Judge has discharged the aforementioned instances of sale on the ground that these pertain to small piece of land which were purchased by the vendees for construction of shops or a house. Most of these pieces of land no doubt situated in village Ahirka are nearer to Jind city as compared to the land acquired, but if these instances are rejected altogether I find that no evidence worth the name is left on the record to determine the market value of the acquired land. The learned Additional District Judge while determining the market value as mentioned above has not indicated any basis whatsoever for the same.
In my view, the instances of sale Exs. P.9, P.10, P.12, P.13 and P.18 do provide a guideline for working out the market value of the acquired land. No doubt these transactions relate to small pieces of land and many of them abut the road and may have fetched more price being in the revenue estate of village Ahirka, comparatively nearer to the city of Jind, than the land acquired. Normally for taking into consideration sale transactions of small pieces of land 1/3rd of the price is slashed to reach at the market value of a bigger chunk of land, but taking into account the three factors, namely, smallness of the area represented by these sale instances, nearness to the road and comparative nearness to the city of Jind, I am of the view that their price should be slashed to one half to work out the correct market value of the land acquired, which would thus come to Rs. 10/ per square yard. I have already pointed out above that the land, being at a very short distance from the city of Jind, had the latent potential for building activity. That is why in a span of two months in the year 1981 five instances of sale for construction of shops and a house took place in the area in question.
The learned AdvocateGeneral contended that the land of village Jhanj is inferior as compared to the land of village Ahirka and thus the market value of the same should be assessed at a lesser rate. This contention was rejected by the learned Additional District Judge by relying on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Bakhshish Singh v. The Collector Land Acquisition, etc., 1982 Current Law Journal 249. The land acquired by the same notification forming one tract ought to be assessed at the same rate. The mere fact that the subsoil water of the land underneath the revenue estate of village Jhanj is not potable would not reduce the value of the same particularly when most of the land is either Nehri or Barani. There is no Chahi, that is well, irrigated land in the entire land acquired. I therefore, uphold the view taken by the learned Additional District Judge.
I, however, agree with the submission made to the effect that there was no ground for carving out a block of land adjoining JindNarwana road on either side up to a depth of 200 feet and determine a special rate for the same. It is not disputed that the entire land is under cultivation at present. The possibility of its latent potential for building activity does not necessarily mean that the same would be along with JindNarwana road. The land as a whole or a part of it could have been developed for establishing a residential estate, industrial estate or a shopping centre. Thus, there is no special significance to be attached to the land adjoining JindNarwana road.
In view of the above discussion, I hold that the market value of Nehri and Mukhluth land on the relevant date, i.e. 25.3.1983, was Rs. 10/ per square yard, i.e. Rs. 48,400/ per acre. It would be appropriate to scale down the market value of the Barani land by rupee one per square yard which would thus be Rs. 9/ per square yard or Rs. 43,560/ per acre. The land owners shall thus be entitled to compensation at the market rates determined above.
In R.F.A. No. 983 of 1985, Mr. R.K. Malik, learned counsel for the appellant, invited my attention is Nehri girdawaris Exs. P.15, P.16 and P.17 and contended that the kind of their land in Nehri, but the Collector has treated it Barani. The Collector, shall verify this fact from the records and if the land is found to be Nehri he shall pay compensation accordingly.
It may be mentioned here that in R.F.A. No. 1304 of 1985, the landowner appellant has made an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Now, that in the light of the provisions of section 28A of the Act inserted by Central Act No. 68 of 1984 a land owner can apply within a period of three months to the Collector for redermination of the price of his landsubjectmatter of the same acquisition. I find that there is no ground for disallowing this application. The delay caused in filling the appeal is otherwise bona fide. The C.M. is therefore allowed.
As a result, R.F. As Nos. 964, 977 to 992, 1138, 1304, 1361 to 1363 and 1633 of 1985 and Cross Objection Nos. 28Cl to 31Cl of 1987 filed by the land owners are allowed with proportionate costs and R.F. As Nos. 887 to 909 of 1985 filed by the State of Haryana are dismissed without any order as to costs.
It is made clear here that the landowners shall be entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value of the land determined above under section 23(2) of the Act. They shall also be entitled to an amount at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of notification under section 4 of the Act, i.e. 15.3.1983 to 13.7.1983, i.e. the date of the award of the land Acquisition Collector under section 23 (IA) of the Act. Interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of compensation for a period of one year from the date of dispossession from the land acquired and at the rate of 15% per annum for the period subsequent thereto till the date of final payment of the amount of compensation shall also be allowed to the landowners.