Smt. Vidya Wanti and Others vs The Municipal Committee and Others

V.K. Bali, J.—By this order, I propose to decide two connected Regular First Appeals bearing No. 1603 of 1980 and 1616 of 1990 as common questions of law and fact arise in both these appeals.

Vide notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, dated February 7, 1974, the government sought to acquire land of the appellants for establishing Meat Market and Slaughter House within the municipal limits of the town Jind. The follow up declaration u/s was made followed by the award given by the Land Acquisition Collector on 13.5.1975. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his Award referred to above assessed market value at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with inadequate compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector the appellants sought reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned District Judge before whom the matter came up for final adjudication declined the reference as no compensation. In R.F.A. 1603 of 1980 Smt. Vidya Wanti and others who had purchased part of the acquired land immediately before the notification u/s 4 of the Act were allowed enhanced amount of compensation so as to give them the sale price mentioned in the sale deed by which they had purchased the piece of land measuring 260 sq. yards. Dissatisfied with the Award rendered by the District Judge, the present appeals have been filed. In so far as the appeal preferred by Smt. Vidya Wanti and others is concerned, learned counsel representing the appellant on the basis of the evidence that has been led in this case could not successfully plead for enhancement of compensation. He has, however, seriously assailed the finding of learned District Judge granting no enhancement in compensation to the appellant in RFA No. 1616 of 1980. Before the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants are noticed, it will be useful to mention that concededly the land in dispute is situated within the municipal limits of Jind. It has been the case of the appellants that the land was located near the cinema house, a school, a hospital and diary farm and that is habitation of colonies in and around the land in question. Even though a finding with regard to land being within municipal limits was returned, the land Addl. District Judge, however, did not believe the version of the appellants that other features like cinema hall etc. were located near the land in question. It has been observed by the learned Addl. District Judge that comprehensive site plan has not been filed to show the location of the various places like cinema house from the acquired land and, therefore, the correct idea could not be formed. While discussing oral evidence, the learned Addl. District Judge observed that the claimants had made a tall claim by saying that the land had a potential value by saying that there were colonies named Indira Colony, Government Circle School connected by pucca road and there were other residential houses and diary farms etc. This version was disbelieved in view of the cross-examination of Sukhbir Singh PW-1 wherein he stated that even at present there were 5/7 houses in Indira Colony and the said houses were 3/7 in Indira Colony and the said houses were built in 1970. PW-5 Badra Nath stated that there were 4/5 houses in the colony and to the same effect was the statement of Ram Kishan. About the cinema hall, it is observed by the learned Additional District Judge that the only evidence available on record is the statement of RW-1 Phool Singh who stated that Bharat Cinema is located at a distance of two furlongs from the acquired land. With regard to diary farm, the learned District Judge observed that by keeping few buffaloes, it could not be presumed that the one who had kept the buffaloes was carrying on business of diary farming. This Court is quite convinced that the findings recorded by the learned Addl. District Judge are not correct. As mentioned above, the land is located within the municipal limits of Jind and to that effect even a finding has been recorded by the learned District Judge. The evidence led by the claimant/appellants that there were houses located in the land in question as also the school and a diary farm was not rebutted at all. So much so Phool Singh, Patwari who was examined as RW-1 admitted that Bharat Cinema was located at a distance of two furlongs from the acquired land. The very fact that the land was located within the municipal limits of Jind town and in close vicinity, there were houses and school clearly shows that land has the potential to be developed for the residential and commercial purposes.

The claimants besides relying upon the sale instances from the same very land also relied upon Ex.P.4, P.5, P.7 and P.8. By virtue of one sale deed forming subject matter of land under the land acquisition itself, Sham Lal and others have sold plot measuring 200 sq. yards to Avtar Singh of Aftabgarh for an amount of Rs. 2,500/-. The rate per sq. yard works out to Rs. 12.50 per sq. yard. The sale instances Exs.P-2, P-4, P-5, P-7 and P-8 as anumerated in paragraph 13 of the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge are as follows:

Sale Date of sale Area sold Price Rate per Deed sq. yd. P-2 09.07.1971 180 Sq.Yds. 5000 Rs. 27/- P-4 14.10.1971 200 -do- 2500 Rs. 12.50 P-5 07.12.1970 124/2/3 2500 Rs. 20/- P-7 25.08.1969 270 -do- 5500 Rs. 20/- approx. P-8 07.12.1970 220 -do- 4500 Rs. 20/- approx.

The Addl. District Judge further observed that the transactions relied upon by the claimants were of small plots and, therefore, the same could not afford a reliable guidance in ascertaining the agricultural value of the land when notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued. The learned Addl. District Judge further observed that the plot was carved out in a sort of colony and the site plans attached to the various sale deeds would reveal that at least two roads - one sixteen and half feet and the other thirty feet wide were left out and the burden of carving out these roads was put on the purchaser of the plot. He also observed that it is permissible to assume that some more facilities, like the setting up of parks would also be provided and burden of that was also bound to be reflected in the price paid by the purchaser of the plots. It is further observed that the land subject matter of acquisition was located near a canal which is at a distance of 100 feet.

This Court is of the clear view that the learned Additional District Judge erred while completely ignoring the sale instances on the grounds referred to above. These plots even though of small area could not be said to be providing no guidance for working out the market value of the land when notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued. As mentioned above, two plots were sold from the very land subject matter of acquisition and in so far as the claimants of the said sale deeds are concerned, they have been given the price, they paid to their vendors. Considering the potential of the land at the most in the facts and circumstances of this case, reasonable cut should have been made from the sale price evidenced from various sale instances referred to above. If roads and other public places have to be carved out, it is well settled that a cut of 1/3rd is reasonable. The fact that the land was located near the canal, it is surprising to note how no one could like to develop the area near the same. If one is to go by the least price of the sale instance and make 1/3rd cut the minimum price that has to be worked out would be Rs. 8,25 per sq. yard. Rounding it off. Rs. 9/- would be reasonable as all other sales instances as mentioned above are of higher price.

In view of what has been said above, whereas R.F.A. No. 1603 of 1980 filed by Smt. Vidya Wanti and others is dismissed. R.F.A. No. 1616 of 1980 filed by Basant Kaur is partly allowed. Appellants shall also be entitled to statutory benefits as admissible under the Land Acquisition Act on enhanced compensation.