S.C. Garg and Others vs The State of Haryana and Others

Rajesh Bindal, J.—This order will dispose of a bunch of 20 appeals, as common questions of law and facts are involved.

The land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land.

The facts have been noticed from R.F.A. No. 1735 of 1996.

Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 30 kanals and 16 marlas, situated in the revenue estate of village Pala, Hadbast No. 128, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad was acquired vide notification dated 23.3.1993 issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ''the Act'') for the purpose of construction of road for Sector 33, Faridabad-Ballabgarh Controlled Area. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, ''the Collector'') gave award of Rs. 150/- per square yard for the land of khasra No. 34/11/2 and Rs. 50/- per square yard for the remaining land. Aggrieved against the same, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned District Judge, Faridabad, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 150/- per square yard.

Learned Counsel for the land owners submitted that the court below has not considered the evidence led by them in its true perspective. It has failed to appreciate the strategic location of the land. The acquisition was for laying down of a road for Sector 33, Faridabad-Ballabgarh Controlled Area. It was located quite close to Delhi boundary. The evidence led by the land owners in the form of sale deed (Ex. P4) and a judgment of this Court pertaining to other acquisition (Ex. P5) have not been considered at all. However, on a pointed query by the court, learned Counsel for the land owners has not been able to point out as to where the land pertaining to sale deed (Ex. P4) is located and similar is the position with regard to the land dealt with by this Court in judgment (Ex. P5). The only contention was that this Court should take judicial notice of the fact that the land is located in Faridabad close to Delhi border and considering its future potentiality, the compensation, as has been assessed by the Collector, deserves to be enhanced further as generally the Collector does not award the compensation which is in consonance with the actual market value of the land at that time.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State submitted that the impugned award of the learned court below does not call for any interference at all. In fact, it is a case of no evidence. The onus to prove the fact that the value, as has been assessed by the Collector is not correct as on the date of acquisition, is on the land owners and in discharge of that onus, the land owners have not produced on record any evidence. Sale deed (Ex. P4) and judgment (Ex. P5) do not come to the rescue of the land owners, as to place reliance thereupon it was incumbent upon the land owners to show the location of the land dealt with therein so as to enable the Court to compare the value thereof with the acquired land.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record.

In the present set of appeals, the Collector had awarded a sum of Rs. 150/- and Rs. 50/- per square yards for different qualities of land. The learned court below considering the fact that the land had potential for urbanisation and it was acquired for the purpose of providing approach road to Sector 33, Faridabad done away with the categorisation of land and awarded same amount of compensation for the entire acquisition, i.e., Rs. 150/- per square yard. To claim that the value so assessed by the learned court below was not correct, the land owners produced sale deed (Ex. P4) and an earlier judgment of this Court (Ex. P5). A perusal of the sale deed (Ex. P4) shows that the same is pertaining to land forming part of village Mewla Maharajpur. Learned Counsel for the land owners has not been able to point out in site plan on record to show the location of the land dealt with in the aforesaid sale deed. In the absence thereof, this Court is not in a position to decide about the comparability thereof vis-a-vis the acquired land to place reliance thereupon. Similar is the position with regard to judgment (Ex. P5) relied upon by the land owners. Which portion of the land was dealt with by this Court for the purpose of determination of compensation in the aforesaid judgment has not been pointed out on any site plan on record and in the absence thereof, even that judgment cannot be said to be of any evidentiary value for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land. There being no other evidence produced or referred to by the learned Counsel for the land owners, it is a case where practically the land owners have not led any evidence in support of their claim. In the absence thereof, this Court cannot possibly hold that the impugned award of the learned court below suffers from any illegality and the compensation for the acquired land deserves to be enhanced further.

Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.