Shiv Ram vs The State of Haryana and Another

Naresh Chander Jain, J.—This Judgment of mine would dispose of regular first appeals No. 1871 of 1987 to 1880 of 1987 and 1710 of 1987 as they arise out of common award of the Additional Distt. Judge dated 30.1.1987. The State of Haryana by issuance of a notification dated 11.5.1981 u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') sought to acquire land measuring 1872 Kanals 8 marlas equivalent to 243 acres 8 marlas, situated in village Ramgarh Sawai, district Ambala, for a public purpose, namely, ''social aforestation project etc. for forest department.'' The Land Acquisition Collector by his award dated 6.3.1986 determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per acre. While maintaining the award of Rs. 3,000/ per acre, the Additional Distt Judge on reference u/s 18 of the Act, determined the market value of about 200 acres of land at Rs. 3,500/-per acre. This land comprised of that area which was Gair Mumkin Jangal. Gair Mumkin Jangal land is that land where trees etc are grown.

Before the Additional Distt. Judge, the claimants relied upon following registered sale deeds :

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S. Exhibit Area Sale con- Date of Village to Average price No. sideration sale which it per acre cal- relates culated by the cl for claimants ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Ex. A. 5 18,000/- 5.11.80 Alisherpur 19,444/- 7K-8M Majra 2. Ex. A. 6 3K 6,000/- 3.11.78 Alisherpur 16,000/- Majra 3 Ex A 78K 14.000/- 7 10 74 Chhalaur 14,000/- 4 Ex. A. 8 6,000/- 28 6.79 -do- 18,720/- 2K-IIM ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apart from the above mentioned registered sale deeds, the claimants also placed reliance upon an award Exhibit A-13. It relates to the acquisition of an area measuring 12 kanals 12 Marlas, though wrongly noticed in paragraph 14 of the award under challenge as measuring 0.72 acres. The Additional Distt. Judge has discarded the sale transactions on the ground that the sale deeds pertain to the land in different villages. The kind of land was not revealed from the sale deeds and since the kind of land covered by the sale instances was not known they were not held to be proper guide for determination of correct compensation of the acquired land which was either Gair Munakin Choe or Gair Mumkin Jangal As regards Exhibit A. 13, the award given for the acquisition of 12 Kanals 12 Marlas of land, it was not related upon by the Additional Distt. Judge on the ground that the area acquired and which was evaluated vide Exhibit A-13 was either Nehri or Barrani whereas the area acquired in the present case was Gair Mumkin Jangal and Gair Mumkin Choe. It was further observed that the perusal of the award Exhibit A-13 clearly pointed out that the Distt Collector, Ambala, in the previous award recommended the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per acre for Gair Mutt kin land and this is the precise rate which has been adopted by the Collector in the present case.

The unquenched claimants have preferred the present appeals for claiming enhanced compensation. Mr. M.L. Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellants, has at the outset argued that the sale deeds Exhibits A-5, A-6, A 7 and A-8 should have been relied upon for determining the market value of the acquired land as there are no other sale instances brought on the record of the case. It has further been argued that by virtue of sale instance Exhibits A-5 to A-8. 7 Kanals 8 Marlas, 3 Kanals, 8 Marlas and 2 Kanals 1 Marias respectively were sold and, therefore, the sale deeds deserved credence. Having given thoughtful consideration to the argument, the same deserves to be replied It has not been brought in the evidence on the record as to what was the distance of the villages which pertain to sale deeds, Exhibits A 5 to A-8 and the acquired land. These Instances of sale relate to land in different villages, the distance of which has not been proved. Moreover, the kind of land in the sale instances was not given and, therefore the acquired land cannot be said to be comparable vis-a-vis the land forming part of sale deeds, Exhibits A-5 to A-8 Faced with this situation, the learned counsel has banked upon the Award of the Collector, Exhibit A-13. As has been observed above, Award Exhibit A-13 was not relied upon by the Additional Distt. Judge and cannot be held by this Court as correct safeguard f or determining the market value of the acquired land as vide Exhibit A-13, only Chahi and Barani lands were evaluated whereas the land in the present case is either Gair Mumkin Choe or Gair Mumkin Jungle. In view thereof the land forming part of valuation, vide Exhibit A-13 cannot be said to be comparable vis-a-vis the acquired land. Moreover, the location of the acquired land vis-a-vis the land forming part of Exhibit A 13 is also not comparable. In this view of the matter ; neither sale instances, Exhibits A-5 to A-8 can be held to be safeguard nor Exhibits A-13 can be held to be relevant for determining the market value of the acquired land and, therefore, Exhibits A-5 to A-8 and A-13 deserves to be discarded.

After discarding the sale instance as irrelevant, the question which remains to be decided is as to what should be the correct compensation to be awarded to the owners of that part of the land which does grow trees etc. As regards determination of the market value regarding Gair Mumkin Choe land which does not grow anything, determination of compensation @ Rs. 3,000/- per acre, as has been held by the Additional Distt. Judge, is quite correct. However, as regards valuation of the land under Gair Mumkin, Jungle which grows trees, it cannot be said to be on the same footing. Even the Additional Distt. Judge while giving the Award has not placed both kinds of land on the same footing He has given upward compensation for Gair Mumkin Jungle land by evaluating the same at Rs. 3,500/- per acre. The precise question which falls for determination before this Court is whether higher evlauation of Rs. 500/- acre only would be sufficient or still higher compensation needs be given After applying all my rational guess work which is inherent in land acquisition cases, as has been held in so many judicial pronouncements. I think that the land which grows trees i. e Gair Mumkin jungle land, should be evaluated at least 11/2 tines than the land which does not grew anything. In view thereof, the market value of the acquired land under challenge is determined at Rs. 4,500/- per acre. No other point has been urged.

In the light of the observations made above, the appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. The appellants are also held entitled to the grant of all statutory benefits of the amended provisions of Section 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The above mentioned benefits would be made available to all the landowners whether their areas fall under Gair Mumkin Choe or Gair Mumkin jungle. In other words, all the land owners would be entitled to the statutory benefits even if no enhancement has been made in the cases of some of them.

All the civil miscellaneous applications seeking amendment in the grounds of appeal would stand allowed.