Ravi Nandan (Dead) through LRs vs State of Punjab

G.S. Singhvi, J.—These appeals have been filed against the judgments dated 25.11.1988 and 26.4.1989 passed by two learned single Judges in R.F.A, Nos. 1147, 1158, 1159, 1160 and 1377 of 1987 filed by the appellants against the common judgment dated 15.1.1987 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhatinda on the reference applications filed by them. In view of the identical nature of the claim made by the appellants, we are deciding all the appeals by a common judgment.

Vide notification No. SFRS7/3365 dated 9.3.1981 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ''the Act''), the land of the appellants and others was acquired by the Government of Punjab for the purpose of construction of an overbridge at Bhatinda at the railway crossing. In the award passed by him, the Land Acquisition Collector, Jalandhar assessed the market value of the land in the following manner :

(1) Block A

Rs. 100/ per sq. yard.

(2) Block B

Rs. 50/ per sq. yard.

(3) Block C

Rs. 15/ per sq. yard.

In the reference applications filed by them the appellants pleaded that the market value of the acquired land should be fixed at Rs. 12,000/ per sq. yard. After hearing the parties, the learned Additional District Judge, Bhatinda rejected the plea of the appellants for enhancement of the compensation but directed that they be given benefit of amended provisions of sections 23(1A) and 23(2) of the Act. In the Regular First Appeals filed by the appellants, the learned Single Judges directed the payment of enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 450/ per sq. yard. Still dissatisfied, the appellants have filed the present appeals and have pleaded for payment of enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 450/ per sq. yard. Still dis satisfied, the appellants have filed the present appeals and have pleaded for payment of enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 1200/ per sq. yard.

Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Land Acquisition Collector, learned Additional District Judge and the learned Single Judges have seriously erred in not relying on Exhibits AX, AX/1 and AX/8. He pointed out that sale deeds produced by the claimants related to the land which is very near to the acquired land and, therefore compensation payable to the appellants should have been assessed by taking into consideration those sale deeds. Learned Advocate General argued that the compensation awarded by the learned Single Judges is on the very higher side and no further enhancement should be granted by the Appellate Bench. Shri Grewal submitted that the learned Single Judge who decided the appeals on 29.9.1988 has taken into consideration various sale deeds before recording a conclusion that the appellants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 450/ per sq. yard and there is no basis for the claim made by the appellants that they be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1200/ per sq. yard.

In our opinion, the learned Advocate General is right in contending that the judgments passed by the learned Single Judge do not suffer from any error of law requiring interference by the Appellate Bench. A careful reading of the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge shows that he has thoroughly discussed the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the parties. This is crystal clear from the following extract of the judgment dated 15.1.1987 of the learned Reference Court :

"Krishan Chand AW1 who stated that the acquired land is near Multania Phatak, Bhatinda Khalsa Higher Secondary School is near the acquired land, Police Station Saddar Bhatinda and Sirki Bazar are also near the acquired land. Then there is a statement of Darshan Singh House Tax Clerk, M.C. Bhatinda, who stated that the acquired land was in M.C. since 1977. The acquired land abuts on the road which goes from Gaushala to Railway Phatak, Grain Market and Vegetable Market. He further stated that there are tea shops, houses and Khalsa School near the Railway Phatak i.e. the acquired land and there are houses near the acquired land. Then there is a statement of Girdhari Lal, Building Inspector, M.C. Bhatinda, who stated that the acquired land starts from Multania Railway Phatak and goes upto the Tubewell of M.C. There are shops the Municipal Committee near the Tubewell. There are shops of the Municipal Committee near the Veterinary Hospital. Then there is a statement of S. Nardev Singh Advocate (AW6) who stated that the Grain Market is half furlong from the acquired land. Sirki Bazar is also near the acquired land. Then there is a statement of Manohar Lal AW8 who stated that there are shops and houses near the acquired land. It has also come into the evidence of the respondent that there were houses and shops. Moreover, houses and shops of the claimants were acquired which means that the acquired land is of potential value as there are houses and shops near the acquired land and were also in the acquired land. Moreover, the Collector has also given the award keeping in view of the fact that the acquired land is of potential value and he did not give the award according to the categorization of the land. So it proved that the acquired land is of potential value. In order to prove the market value there is a statement of S. Nardev Singh AW6 who stated that in the year 1984 the market value of the land was Rs. 2500/ per square yard. He nowhere stated that what was the market value of the acquired land on 13.3.1981 when the Notification under section 4 of the Act was made. It is stated by Mohinder Singh AW 7 that the market price of the acquired land was Rs. 1500/ or Rs. 1600/ per square yard at the time of Notification. The evidence of the witness cannot be relied upon as he is one of the claimants. Then there is a statement of Manohar Lal AW8 who stated that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 1200/ per square yard. The evidence of this witness also cannot be relied upon as he is also one of the claimants. In order to determine the market value of the acquired land the sale instances can be taken into consideration. The claimants have produced copies of the sale deeds Exhs. AX/1 to AX/8, the details of which, are given as under :

Exh. No.

Saledeed No. & Dated

Area Sold

Amount of consideration

Average price per sq. yard

Distance from t h e acquired land

AX/1

1836/12.5.81

25 /sq.. Yard

Rs. 30000/

Rs. 1200/

Near the acquired land distance not given

AX/2

386/10.11.80

130"

40,000/

701/

do

AX/3

4687/8.1.81

100"

20,000/

200/

Adjacent

AX/4

3103/26.9.95

75"

20,000/

250/

do

AX/5

3863/10.11.80

68"

40,000/

701/

do

AX/6

3843/20.12.79

20"

45,000/

2,307/

300/400 Yards.

AX/7

436/1.4.80

20"

45,000/

2,307/

do

AX/8

3810/19.8.81

110"

49,000/

445/

300 Yards

In order to prove the market value of the acquired land it is to be proved by the claimants that what was the market value of the acquired land at the time of Notification U/s 4 of the Act, as per Section 23 of the Act. In this case the Notification U/s 4 of the Act was made on 13.3.1981. So the sale instances one year prior to the date of notification are to be taken into consideration, because one year period is considered to be a reasonable period according to the different judicial pronouncements. So the sale instances between the period of 13.3.1980 to 12.3.1981 are to be taken into consideration. So the sale deed copies of which are Exh. AX/1, AX/4, AX/6, AX/8 cannot be taken into consideration as being not in the prescribed period. As regards the sale deed copy of which is Ex AX/1 is concerned it is not evident from that what is the distance of that property from the acquired land. Moreover, i.e. in the Sirki Bazars of Bhatinda town. Then there is a sale deed copy of which is Exh. AX/2 and from the perusal of that sale deed it is also not known where that property is situated because the distance of that property from the acquired land is not given or proved. Moreover, that sale deed is regarding the house and not of a land. Then there is a copy of the sale deed which is Exh. AX/3 and that property is also not near the acquired land. Then there are sale deed copies of which are Exhs. AZ/4 and AX/5 which are regarding the houses. Moreover, it is not proved from the sale deeds what is the distance of the property from the acquired land. Then there is a sale deed copy of which is Exh. AX/6 and that is regarding the shop which is in Dhobi Bazar, Bhatinda. Then there is a sale deed copy of which is Exh. AX/7 that is also regarding the house which is in Dhobi Bazar. Then there is a sale deed copy of which is Exh. Ax/8 and that is a shop which is in Sirki Bazar. It is well known and admitted that Dhobi Bazar and Saddar bazar are one of the best commercial areas of Bhatinda city so the prices which were prevalent in those areas cannot be considered to determine the market price of the acquired land at the time of Notification U/s 4 of the Act. As regards the sale deeds of Sirki Bazar are concerned, Sirki Bazar is also one of the good Bazars of Bhatinda City and that Bazar also starts from Dhobi Bazar. So if any shop or house is sold in Sirki Bazar that does not determine the market price of the acquired land. No sale deed has been produced showing the sale which is near the acquired land. Moreover, it has come into the evidence of Manohar Lal AW8 that there is a pond near the Khalsa Higher Secondary School and Romana House. He further stated that there is no structure in the land which was meant for pond. M.C. was throwing the refuge/waste there. it has also come into the evidence of Karnail Singh RW 1 that there is a pond in the acquired land. Municipality was throwing rubbish in some of the land. He stated that at the back side of the acquired land dirty water of the city goes through a drain and the water of that drain remains stagnant in the playground of Khalsa School. Moreover, in the Award 4 Bighas 12 Biswas land was shown of pond which means the pond was very big. Moreover, the land which is adjoining the pond are also not considered to be very good for the constructions of the houses etc. So the acquired land was not of much value. So the sale instances produced by the claimants which are Exhs. AX/1 to AX/8 are concerned they are regarding the houses and shops and these sale instances do not help in order to determine the market value of the land. No copy of the sale deed has been produced regarding the property which was near the pond etc. where the acquired land was situated. Moreover, that area was not a posh area. Where there is a pond the abadi near that area will not be of good type, because that land cannot be considered as good as one for establishment of respectable persons. So these sale deeds cannot be taken into consideration in order to determine the market value of the acquired land.

As regards the document Exh. AX/9 is concerned i.e. the copy of the award. No doubt in that award the compensation was at the rate of Rs. 450/ per square yard. The market price of the land is to be determined according to the sale instance as per 1986 R.R.R. 228 : 1986 P.L.R. 109 (The State of v. Pohu and another) where it was held :

"that the market price of the acquired land was to be assessed according to the average price of the relevant or comparable sale instances relied upon by the parties and not according to a sale instance which might be fetching the maximum price, except where sale instances have been produced by the government are relied upon, then a particular sale deed representing the highest value should be preferred unless there are other strong circumstances which may justify resorting to a different Course."

So the copy of the award Exh. AX/9 cannot be taken into consideration. Moreover, that land is not comparable with the acquired land, that land was situated in one of the good locality of Bhatinda city that is Bhagu Road. It has also come into the evidence that that was a Kothi of Sh. Ajit Singh M.P. and from the perusal of that award it seems that the revenue authority has given exorbitant price in their award being under the pressure of that M.P. so that award does not help in determining the market value of the acquired land."

In his judgment, the learned Single Judge has also discussed various sale deeds produced by the claimants and then observed :

"On perusal of the plan, Exhibit AW/A4, as well as on going through the oral evidence produced by the parties, it is clear that land which is sought to be acquired is situated in the town of Bhatinda itself. Various shops, saw mills, oil mills are situated on the road which is a mostly commercial area and other buildings are residential. The land has been acquired for constructing over bridge on the railway track. This land has great potential as it is being used for commercial and residential purposes as buildings are already existing thereon for which compensation was also fixed by the Additional District Judge. In such circumstances, it was not at all proper to adopt belt system.

The claimants produced evidence of eight sale deeds, Exhibits AX/1 to AX/8. These sale deeds, except two sale deeds Exhibits AX/3 and AX/4 relate to built up houses or shops. Since in the present case, market value of the land has separately been assessed and that of superstructure separately, the sale transactions of buildings are not considered appropriate for determining the market value of land. Sale deeds, Exhibits AX/3 and AX/4, relate to vacant plots situated near old police station. Vide sale deed, Exhibit AX/3, plot measuring 100 square yards was sold at the rate of Rs. 200/ per square yard and vide sale deed, Exhibit AX/4, plot measuring 75 square yards was sold at the rate of more than Rs. 266/ per square yard. Although exact distance of these plots from the acquired land is not available, however, since after discussion of the entire evidence, the market value of the acquired land is going to be fixed at a much higher rate, much importance cannot be attached to the sale deeds referred to above.

Exhibit AX/9 is a copy of award of the Land Acquisition Collector with respect to acquisition of land in pursuance to notification issued under section 4 of the Act on October 13, 1982. The market value was fixed at the rate of Rs. 450/ per square yard. As per evidence collected, this land is near the house of Sardar Ajit Singh, M.P., which is also shown on the plan, Exhibit AW4/A. No doubt, the said land is situated in the town of Bhatinda but is slightly going towards outside the town. On behalf of the State, it has been argued that since this piece of land was acquired in October, 1982 whereas the present land is being acquired in March, 1981, there should be some reduction from the rate as given in this award. In my view, no case for reduction is made out as the fact that the acquired land is in the heart of the town and is near important business market, such as Sirki Bazar, has also to be taken into consideration. It would be just and proper to follow the rate adopted in the acquired land. The Additional District Judge fixed inadequate compensation and the adequate compensation would be at the rate of Rs. 450/ per square yard."

After going through the impugned judgments, we are convinced that the argument of Shri Kataria regarding nonconsideration of the documentary evidence produced by the appellants is clearly misconceived and unacceptable.

We also do not find any merit in Shri Kataria''s submission that the prices of the property in Dhobi Bazar and Saddar Bazar should have been made basis for determination of the market value of the acquired land because it has not been proved by the appellants that the situation of Dhobi Bazar and Saddar Bazar on one hand and that of Sirki Bazar on the other hand is identical. Rather, the learned Advocate General has submitted that the prices of the land in Dhobi Bazar and Saddar Bazar (Bhatinda) are much higher than the prices of land in Sirki Bazar. This fact has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants. That apart, we find that not a single document was produced by the appellants evidencing the transaction of sale of land in Sirki Bazar. Therefore, the assessment of the market value of the acquired land made by the learned Single Judges cannot be termed as erroneous, arbitrary or unjust requiring interference by the Appellate Bench.

For the reasons mentioned above, the appeals are dismissed.

Appeals dismissed.