Sheela Wanti and Others vs The Tribunal, Improvement Trust, Sonepat and Others

D.V. Sehgal, J.—This judgment shall dispose of C. W Ps Nos. 5232 to 5238 and 5679 of 1985, 472 to 478, 1004 to 1021, 3752 and 3755 of 1986 filed by the land owners and C.W. Ps Nos 2322 to 2326, 2510 to 2556 of 1986 filed by the Sonepat improvement Trust, Sonepat (Haryana) (for short ''the Improvement Trust''). These petitions are directed against two awards dated 15.6.1985 and 3.10.1985 made by the Tribunal Improvement Trust, Sonepat. The former award relates to the acquisition of land measuring 13.22 acres for implementation of a development scheme by the Improvement Trust for the construction of General Bus Stand and a commercial centre at Sonepat. The latter award pertains to acquisition of land for imple-mention of a development scheme by, the Improvement Trust for setting up a new vegetable market and a Housing Board Colony at Sonepat. The land acquired for both these schemes is situated on the same road and in the same locality. Notices u/s 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (as applicable to (he State of Haryana) (for short ''the Act''), in respect of both these schemes were published on 3.11.1970. In fact, to a large extent the latter award is based by the Tribunal on the former one. I have, therefore, found it convenient to decide all those writ petitions by one and the same judgment.

I shall first discuss C.W.P. No. 5232 of 1985 and other connected writ petitions, which are directed against the award dated 15-6-1985 (Annexure P. 2) made by the Tribunal The reference to the documents Shall, however, be made from C. W. P. No. 5232 of 1965. The Land Acquisition Collector had originally made his award dated 7-2-1973 (Annexure P 1), by which he determined the market value of the land acquired at the rate of Rs. 5/- per sq. yard. The learned Tribunal, however, on references made to it u/s 54 of the Act vide its award dated 15-6-1985 divided the land acquired into two belts. The land up to 20 depth from Dram No. 6 was considered to be of lesser value and as such its market value was determined at Rs. 16/- per sq. yard, while the market value of the rest of the land was determined at Rs. 22/(sic)- per sq yard. The learned Tribunal also awarded solatium, at the rate of 30% of the market value of the land acquired and interest at the rate of 9% per annum for a period of one year from the date of taking possession of the acquired land by the Improvement Trust and at the rate of 15% per annum thereafter till payment/ realisation of the compensation amount so determined. It may be noted here that possession of the land was taken by the Improvement Trust on 28-4-1973.

The learned Counsel for the land-owner-Petitioners has contended that the President of the Tribunal has acted illegally and against the provisions of the Act when he has discarded the opinion of the assessors, i.e. the other two Members of the Tribunal, and has proceeded to determine the market value of the land of his own. He invited my attention to the following passage from the award:-

I may mention here that I had held discussion with the assessors (the other Members of the Tribunal) on 14-6-1985 and they were of the view that the acquired land should be assessed at Rs. 26/- to 28/- per sq yard.

Yet, the President of the Tribunal has without assigning any reason discarded this opinion and determined the market value of the land as mentioned above. His next submission is that the land acquired is situated in the heart of the town and had great building potential for commercial, industrial and residential purposes as is evident from the following observations made in the award:

As regards the location of the acquired land it was a tract lying between drain No. 6 towards the east, Sonepat-Bahalgarh Road, towards the south, road fronting the bus-stand and Mohalla Kot towards the west and Kacha passage towards the north. The acquired land was to be evaluated with regard to its potentiality for being developed for commercial, industrial, residential purposes of this developing and expanding town of Sonepat situate in the close vicinity of Delhi. The land was contiguous to Sector No. 14, Housing Board, Sikka Colony, Hem Nagar, Nandwani Nagar, Shivaji Colony, Khanna Colony and Mamu Bhanja Chowk. It has come in the statements of the witnesses that at least 12 colonies have been set up adjacent to the area in the close vicinity of the acquired land. Mohalla Kot is situate on a mound. At its feet is situate the acquired land, which is the face or frontage of this sprawling town Housing Board Colony and Sector No. 14 are situate beyond it towards east The State Government and Improvement, Trust have utilised the acquired land for setting up of the bus stand, shopping centre, meat market and residential plots. Chilling centre run by the Government, house of E O. Sant Nishchal Singh''s hospital, hotels and guest houses, Tarana cinema, another cinema, which is under construction are situate at a stone''s throw from the acquired land (within 100 yards). The acquired land is situated in the heart of the town. It is by far the busiest locality of the town

In fact, there is no dispute whatsoever so far as the potential of the land acquired for building activity is concerned and the finding of the Tribunal on this point is positive.

What the learned Counsel from, the land owner-Petitioners, however, wanted to assent on the basis of the potential value of the land is that by keeping, in view the evidence, of the sale transaction brought on the record the learned Tribunal ought to have determined the market value of the acquired land at a much higher rate than it has so done. As many as 16 instances of sale were brought on the record. Most of them however, are long before the date of notice u/s 36 of the Act, which is equivalent to a notice u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and thus do not form a relevant data for determining the compensation. The only transaction which could be taken into consideration are the following two:

Sr. No. Name of vendor Name of vendee Exhibit/ Dated Area

1 2 3 4 5

HarKishanLal etc. ss/o Ram-ditta Mal Brij Lal s/o ThakurDass AW. 13/1 22.5.69 133-1/3 sq. yards

II. HarKishanLal s/o Ramditta Mal Ashwani Kumar etc. ss/o Vishnu Kumar A-429.10.69 2600 sq. yards

Sale proceeds Rate per Sq. yard Remarks.

6 7 8

4000/- 30/- Comprised of Khasra No. 3546 Patti Musalamanan, situate in Krishnagar, Sonepat, part of the acquired land abutting on the road fronting the bus stand indicated by Mark in the site plan Ex. AW. 15/1.

44000/- 16/92 Plots 1 to 7 situate with in the municipal limits in Patti Musalamanan, forming part of acquired land bounded on the north by colony on the south by plot of MoolChandDayal etc. on the cast by road 24 wide on the west by circular road.

The average market value of the land based on these two transactions works out at Rs. 23.50 per sq. yard but he contends that since the transaction at S No. 1 pertains to be a part of the acquired land, it was the best piece of evidence which should have been made the basis for determining the market value of the land acquired In support of this proposition, be placed reliance on The The Dollar Company, Madras Vs. Collector of Madras, . He further submits that as far back as on 5.5 1965 the land for re-modelling Drain No. 6 abutting the acquired land was acquired. Market value of this land was determined by the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak, at Rs. 16/- per sq. yard vide his award dated 5.6.1971, which was affirmed on appeal by this Court in R. F. A. 462 of 1971 decided on 15.11.1979. He, therefore, submits that the present land having been acquired more than 5 years after the aforesaid acquisition and being within the town of Sonepat its market value had appreciated many fold. On this basis he submits that firstly there was no reason for the learned President of the Tribunal to fix the market value of the land abutting Drain No. 6 at Rs. 16/- per sq. yard and secondly the market value of the entire land ought to have been determined at Rs. 30/- per sq. yard.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the landowner-Petitioners and have also heard the learned Counsel for the Improvement Trust As regards the first submission of the learned Counsel for the land-owners, I find it has force Section 65(1)(a) of the Act, inter alia, lays down as under:-

For the purposes of determining the award to be made by the Tribunal under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894-if there is any disagreement as to the compensation or costs to be allowed, the opinion of the majority of the members of the Tribunal shall prevail.

No doubt, Clause (b) ibid provides that the decision on all questions of law and title and procedure shall rest solely with the President of the Tribunal and such question may be tried and decided by the President in the absence of assessors unless the President considers their presence necessary. But it is abundantly clear that so far as the point of quantum of compensation is concerned the opinion of the majority is the deciding factor. It was, therefore, incumbent on the learned President of the Tribunal to have given the weight to the opinion of the two assessors, i e. the other Members of the Tribunal. Since as noted in the award they were of the view that the market value of the land should be determined at Rs. 26/- to Rs 28/- per sq. yard, the learned Tribunal ought to have fixed the market value thereof at Rs. 27/- per sq. yard.

I find that the above opinion of the assessors was based on the evidence and material on the record. A piece of the acquired land had been purchased by Brij Lal, one of the Petitioners herein, from one Har Kishan Lal a year before the publication of notice u/s 36 of the Act at Rs. 30/- per sq yard. On the other hand, land abutting the land under acquisition had been valued at Rs. 16/- per sq yard when the same was acquired adjoining Drain No. 6 more than 5 years earlier on 5-5-1965. It is, thus, clear that the assessors had reasonably formed their opinion with regard to the market value of the acquired land.

However, I cannot go by the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the market value of the entire acquired land should be determined at Rs. 30/- per sq. yard, as in the case of transaction at Sr. No. 1 tabulated above If I do so, I shall be out stepping the limits of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. A Division Bench of this Court in The Jullundur Improvement Trust, Jullundur v. Inder Singh (1983) 85 P. L. R. 190, has held that where the conclusions of the Tribunal were found in no way perverse and there was no error on the face of the record and after the appraisal of all the relevant evidence produced by the claimants, the Tribunal had fixed the price of the land in dispute and the Tribunal had not taken into account any inadmissible piece of evidence nor had the Tribunal omitted to consider any important circumstance of evidence and after appreciating different pieces of evidence the Tribunal gave a finding of fact regarding the location, nature, quality and potential value of the land in dispute, this Court should not embark on appreciating the evidence and reach at a different conclusion. It has to be shown that the award of the Tribunal is perverse and there is an error on the face of the record, so as to justify that the award requires interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. I, thus, find that there is no scope for re-appreciating the evidence.

Since, however, there is an error of law on the face of the award, namely, the opinion of the two assessors which ought to have prevailed with the President of the Tribunal has been disregarded by the latter for no reason whatsoever, it is their opinion forming the majority of the Tribunal which ought to be the deciding factor, I, therefore, partially modify the award of the Tribunal and fix the market value of the land acquired at Rs. 27/- per sq yard Since there is no cogent reason forming a belt of 20 feet depth from Drain No. 6 out of the acquired land because whole of the land is of the same quality haying the same potential, the market value of Rs. 27/- per sq yard is determined in respect of the entire land acquired for the scheme.

I further find from the award of the learned Tribunal that it has not awarded to the Petitioners additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum on the market value of the acquired land from the date of notice u/s 36 of the Act till the date of award of the Collector. In view of the amended provisions of Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act the Petitioners are entitled to this amount also. Consequently, I direct that is respect of the land acquired for this scheme the land owner-Petitioners shall be entitled to payment of compensation, on the basis of the, market value at Rs. 27/- per sq. yard. They shall also be entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value of the land an additional amount at, the rate of 12% per annum from the date of notice u/s 36 of the Act, i e. 3-11-1970, till the date of the award of the Collector, i e. 7-2-1973. They shall also be entitled to payment of interest at the rate of 9% per annum for a period of one year from the date of taking possession of land from them and at the rate of 15% per annum for the period subsequent thereto till the date of final payment.

It is, however, made clear that so far as Brij Lal son of Thakur Dass Petitioner is concerned, he shall be paid compensation by taking the market value of the land acquired forming part of transaction of sale Ex AW. 13/1 dated 22-5-1969 at the rate of Rs. 30/- per sq. yard besides, stamp fee and registration charges, as also the other statutory benefits mentioned above.

Now, I proceed to discuss C. W. P. No. 472 of 1986 and other connected writ petitions arising out of the award dated 3-10-1985 made by the learned Tribunal. Reference to the documents shall, however, be made from C.W.P. No 472 of 1986. The Land Acquisition Collector made his award in respect of this land on 5-10-1972 and determined Us market value at Rs. 3/- per sq. yard besides awarding solatium at the rate of 15%. The learned Tribunal, however, vide its award dated 3-10-1985 (Annexure P. 1) divided the rend into two twits. In respect of the land forming part of the belt up to 100 feet depth from the road it determined its market value at Rs. 25/- per sq. yard, while for the second belt. i.e. the rest of the acquired land, it based its finding on the award dated 15-6-1985 and determined its market value at Rs. 22/-per Sq. Yard. It awarded solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value, an additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum u/s 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act and interest at the rate of 9% for one year and at the rate of 15% for the subsequent period as envisaged by the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.

The learned Counsel for the land owner-Petitioners however, invited my attention to the transactions of sale tabulated in the award itself which are the following:

Sr. No. Name of vendor Name of vendee Exhibit/ Dated Area

1 2 3 4 5

I. HarKishanLal etc. ss/o Ram-ditta Mal Brij Lal s/o ThakurDass AW. 13/1 22.5.69 133-1/3 sq. yards

II. HarKishanLal s/o Ramditta Mal Ashwani Kumar etc. ss/o Vishnu Kumar A-4 29.10.69 2600 sq. yards

Sale proceeds Rate per Sq. yard Remarks.

6 7 8

4000/- 30/- Comprised of Khasra No. 3546 Patti Musalamanan, situate in Krishnagar, Sonepat, part of the acquired land abutting on the road fronting the bus stand indicated by Mark in the site plan Ex. AW. 15/1.

44000/- 16/92 Plots 1 to 7 situate with in the municipal limits in Patti Musalamanan, forming part of acquired land bounded on the north by colony on the south by plot of Mool Chand Dayal etc. on the cast by road 24 wide on the west by circular road.

He contended that out of the above transactions the one at S. No. 3 is subsequent to the date of notice u/s 36 of the Act and has, therefore, to be excluded from consideration. The average price of the remaining four transactions works out to Rs. 29/- per sq. yard and contends that the learned Tribunal has given no reason whatsoever for not determining the market value of the land acquired at this rate, and instead proceeded to fix whimsical market value of Rs. 25/-per sq. yard for the land abutting the road and Rs. 22/- per sq. yard basing it on the award dated 15-6-1985. I, however, find that while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution I cannot reappreciate the evidence in view of the law laid down in Inder Singh''s case (supra) Since, however, I have modified the market value determined vide award dated 15-6-1985 discussed above and have fixed the same at Rs. 27/- per sq. yard, I find it appropriate that in the case of the land acquired for the scheme which is the subject matter of the award Annexure P. 1 the same market value should prevail I, therefore, hold that the market value of the entire acquired land shall be uniform discarding the belting system adopted by the learned Tribunal and the market value of the same shall be at the rate of Rs. 27/- per sq. yard. However, in the case of Sant Ram son of Sohan Lal Petitioner whose land forming subject matter of the transaction evidenced by the sale deed Ex. P. 2 dated 14-8-1970, he shall be paid compensation at the rate of Rs. 40/- per sq. yard besides stamp fee and registration charges. The land-owner-Petitioner shall also be entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value so fixed, an additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of notice u/s 36 of the Act, i.e. 3-11-1970, till the date of the award of the Collector, i. e. 5-10-1972. They shall also be entitled to payment of interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date possession of the land was taken from them for a period of one year and at the rate of 15% per annum for the period subsequent thereto.

The learned Counsel for the land-owner Petitioners has brought to my notice that they have not been paid the amount of compensation even as determined by the learned Tribunal so far. It does not behave the Improvement Trust to withhold the amount of compensation when it has taken possession of the land long back and has implemented-the development schemes thereon. I, therefore, direct the Improvement Trust, Sonepat, and its successor Municipality, Sonepat, to make payment of the entire amount of compensation along with statutory benefits mentioned above to the landowner-Petitioners within three months from today.

All the petitions filed by the land-owner-Petitioners are, thus, allowed in the above terms with costs, while the petitions filed by the Improvement Trust are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.