State of Haryana and Another vs Om Parkash and Others

V.K. Bali, J.—When Regular First Appeals hearing Nos. 112 to 120 of 1997 and other connected matters came up for hearing before this Court on May 28, 1997, learned counsel for the parties informed the Court that the award rendered by the learned Additional District Judge was entirely based upon an earlier award of the Court which in turn was subject matter of another appeal bearing No. 1767 of 1995 and other connected matters. It is for this precise reason that vide an interim order of the even date, i.e. May 28, 1997, this Court ordered that RFA No. 1767 of 1995 along with other connected matters be fixed for hearing. By this order, I therefore, propose to dispose of these RFAs, i.e. RFA Nos. 112 to 120 to 1997 and other connected matters. It may be mentioned here that in first set of appeals, whereas RFA Nos. 57, 58, 60, 61, 112 to 120, 122, 133, 199 to 206, 136, 293, 320, 326 to 328, 333, 334 of 1997, 2377, 2477 of 1996, 787 to 790 and 496 of 1997 have been filed by the claimants seeking further enhancement of the compensation from the one awarded by the Addl. District Judge. State has filed appeals bearing Nos. 497 to 504, 508 to 513, 516 to 563, 565 to 567 of 1997 with a view to set aside the award passed by the learned Additional District Judge and restore the one passed by the Land Acquisition Collector. Likewise, in the set of RFAs connected with RFA 1767 of 1995 appeals bearing Nos. 1311 to 1328 of 1995 have been filed by the claimants obviously for further enhancement of the compensation assessed by the learned Addl. District Judge, whereas State has filed appeals bearing Nos. 1767 to 1789 of 1995 for setting aside the order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge and for restoring the award rendered by the Land Acquisition Collector. The facts leading to filing of RFA No. 1767 of 1995 need a necessary mention.

439.25 acres of land was sought to be acquired by the Government when it issued a notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on March 8, 1989 for a public purpose, namely, for the development and utilisation of land for residential and commercial area in Sector 9, 9-A and 10 at Gurgaon. The land, subject matter of acquisition is situated at village Basai, Hadbast No. 50, District Gurgaon. The follow up declaration u/s 6 of the Act was issued on March 7, 1990. The award that was rendered by the Land Acquisition Collector was, however, with regard to land measuring 356.57 acres. After issuance of notification u/s 4 and follow up declaration u/s 6 of the Act, Land Acquisition Collector issued a notice u/s 9 of the Act, pursuant to which the claimants preferred their claim applications and demanded market price of the land from Rs. 500/- to 3000/- per sq. yard. The Land Acquisition Collector, however, vide Award No. 15 of the year 1990-91, awarded compensation @ Rs. two lacs per acre. The market price of the land which was under brick-kiln, was assessed at Rs. 1, 60,000/- per acre. In addition to the market price, land owners were also held entitled to solatium @ 30% as well as compulsory acquisition charges @ 12% per annum. Being dissatisfied, with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, having not been given market price as demanded by them in their claim application filed by them pursuant to notice u/s 9 of the Act, claimants filed their applications u/s 18 of the Act wherein they averred that at the time of acquisition, the land had potential of being used for residential and commercial purposes, being in the close vicinity of Gurgaon town and falling under the controlled area and master plan sanctioned by the State of Haryana and Union of India. They also stated that Sectors 4 and 7 as well as Housing Board Colony had already been in existence on a part of the land falling within the revenue estate of village Basai itself and, therefore, the market price of that land was as- sessed @ Rs. 1,009/- per Sq. yards and as such they too were entitled to receive compensation at the same rate.

The State of Haryana, while entering defence, pleaded in the written statement filed by it that the compensation awarded to the claimants by the Collector was adequate and fair and there was no reasonable ground to enhance the same.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :-

"1. What was the market value of the acquired land at the time of relevant notification? OPP

Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

1-A: Whether the construction or trees of some of the petitioners were in existence on their respective land holding and they are entitled- to claim compensation of the same? If so, to which extent?

Relief."

After resultant trial, learned Addl. District Judge vide his order dated March 13, 1995, determined market value of the land @ 150/- per sq. yard. Besides this, claimants were also held entitled to solatium @ 30% and other statutory benefits in accordance with provisions of Section 23(1)(A), 23(2) as well as Section 28 of the Act.

Before the matter might proceed any further. It may be mentioned here that arguments have been advancveed only on Issue No. 1 whereas findings on Issues 1-A, 2 and 3 only have not been challenged by either of the parties. The findings on the main issue that the land had potential of being converted into residential/commercial sites has likewise not been disputed. It may, however, be mentioned that not only from the oral statements made by Singh Ram PW 1 but also from the statement of Satbir Singh, RW 1 Patwari of the area and other attending circumstances, it had to be held that the land, subject matter of acquisition, had residential and commercial potential. The Housing Board Colony, Gurgaon was already in existence at a short distance from the acquired land. Some industrial plots were in existence even beyond the acquired land which joined the municipal limits of Gurgaon town. Ex P1 which is the copy of development plan for controlled area of Gurgaon, further shows that many sectors had been planned on the acquired land us well as around it and even the land in question had been acquired for developing it into residential-cum- industrial sectors.

The real controversy between the parties is however, with regard to fixation of the market value based upon sale instances that have been relied upon by the learned Addl. District Judge. The claimants brought on records sale instances, Ex.PA to PC as also PE and PF. Vide these sale instances, some plots in the revenue estate of village Basai were sold @ Rs. 200/- per sq. yard in the month of September to December, 1989. Learned Addl. District Judge relied upon these sale instance and inasmuch as these sale instances were of small pieces of land, made a cut to the extent of 25% in the sale consideration of these sale deeds and, thus, assessed the market value of the land under acquisition @ Rs. 150/- per sq. yards. Besides relying upon sale instances aforesaid, learned Addl. District Judge also relied upon Ex. PJ another award in LAC No. 85 of 1991 (Chander Singh v. State of Haryana). In that case notification u/s 4 of the Act was issued on July 13, 1988 and 125 acres of land in the revenue estate of village Basai itself was acquired for developing and utilising the land for residential and commercial purposes and market price of the same was determined @ 90/- per sq. yards. The Addl. District Judge also relied upon some other awards pertaining to village Jharsa situated in the close vicinity of village Basai. Land of village Jharsa was acquired vide notification issued u/s 4 on August 27, 1987 for development of Sector 32 and market price of the land was assessed between 272/- to 300/- per sq. yard for the land abut- ting the main road whereas the price of land located on Gurgaon-Jharsa road, was held to be Rs. 204/- per sq. yard. Further, the land which did not touch any of the road, was determined @ Rs. 136/- per sq. yard.

Mr. H.S. Hooda, learned A.G., Haryana, vehemently contends that the learned Addl. District Judge clearly erred while relying upon sale instances Ex. PA to PC, PE and PF. All these sale instances pertained to the period after notification u/s 4 of the Act was issued and while discussing these sale instances, learned Addl. District Judge took into consideration the date of notification issued u/s 6 of the Act. He also contends that market price of the land pertaining to other villages could not be taken into consideration as nothing at all was bought on records to show the location of such villages vis-a-vis village Basai as also that sale instance relied upon while rendering the said awards, could not furnish any evidence for determining the market price of land of village Basai. There is considerable merit in the first contention of the learned Counsel in so far as it pertains to reliance made by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon on sale instances Exs. PA to PC as also Exs. PE and PF. It has been clearly recorded by the Additional District Judge in para 21 that appraisal of sale deeds Ex.PA to PC as well as to Ex. PE and Ex. PF shows that some plots in revenue estate of village Bassi were sold at the rate of Rs. 200/- per sq. yard in the months of September to December 1989 and it would be noted that the acquired land is also located in revenue estate of the same village and its notification u/s 4 of the Act was issued in March 1989 whereas subsequent notification u/s 6 was issued in March, 1990. It has further been mentioned by the learned Additional District Judge, "Hence these sale instances are very much relevant for the correct estimation of the market price of this land, at or nearing the time of this acquisition." Even after recording that all these instances pertain to months of September to December, 1989 i.e. after the issuance of notification u/s 4 which was issued in this case on 8th March, 1989, these instances are relied upon as if the relevant date to be seen was when follow up declaration u/s 6 was issued. By holding that since subsequent notifications were issued u/s 6 of the Act which was in 1990, the aforesaid sale instances were relevant, the learned Additional District Judge clearly erred in law. It is settled proposition of law and which could not be disputed by Mr. Goel the learned counsel appearing for the claimants that the relevant date for determining the market value is when notification u/s 4 is issued and not when follow up declaration u/s 6 is issued. These sale instances which came into existence after notification u/s 4 was issued, could not at all be relied upon by the learned Additional District Judge. In so far as contention of the learned Counsel based upon awards pertaining to village Basai and Jharsa is concerned, these does not appear to be much merit in the same. It shall be seen that in so far as the earlier notification pertaining to Basai is concerned the same is of 1988 to be precise 13.7.1988. The land therein was acquired for the purposes of making water works. The Court assessed the market value of that land @ Rs. 90/- per sq. yards. In so far as the land subject matter of acquisition in this case is concerned, the same was acquired for establishing Sectors 9, 9A and 10. At this stage it shall be relevant to mention that the land pertaining to village Jharsa was acquired vide notification which was issued u/s 4 on 27th of August, 1987 and the purpose of acquisition was for development of Sector 32. The petitioners have brought on the record of the case Controlled Development Plan of Gurgaon Town. Both Sectors i.e. 32 and Sector 9, 9-A and 10 can be located in this plan. It may be mentioned that in so far as the land of village Jharsa is concerned, the same was evaluated by the learned Additional District Judge at various rates. While land abutting the main road was evaluated at Rs. 272/- to Rs. 300/- per sq. yard, the land within ten yards was assessed at Rs. 136/-. From the factors given above, it transpires that whereas earlier acquisition from village Basai was in the year J.988, the land subject matter of acquisition from village Jharsa was in 1987, whereas the present acquisition was in the year 1989. Even though it might appear in the first blush that the land of village Basai is more comparable with the land subject matter of acquisition in this case but on deeper consideration, it cannot be said that acquisition of land in village Jharsa has no comparability with the acquisition in hand. As mentioned above, the purpose of acquisition of land in village Basai was for setting up of water works, the later acquisition i.e. present one from village Basai is for setting up sectors 9, 9-A and 10 and that was the precise public purpose i.e. for establishing of residential sector for which purpose the acquisition was made in village Jharsa.

In view of this Court both the awards i.e. one pertaining to village Basai and other pertaining to village Jharsa are relevant for determing the market value of the land in this case. It is a common knowledge and of which judicial notice can be taken that the prices of the land in Gurgaon are increasing very rapidly. The price do not accelerate in Gurgaon at the rate of Rs. 2 or 3 per sq. yard but the increase every year is manifold. The land subject matter of acquisition can atleast be compared with the land for which minimuir. price was given for acquiring the land of village Jharsa i.e. Rs. 136/- per sq. yard and to give enhancement of Rs. 7I- per sq. yard per year, the present acquisition being later than 2-1/2 years than village Jharsa would not be unreasonable. In fact, this is the only way to determine the correct market value of the land subject matter of acquisition in this case. The award given by the learned Additional District Judge even though, therefore, cannot stand on the basis of sale deeds relied upon, it certainly deserves to be upheld on the basis of awards Ex. PG, PH, PI and PJ. It is settled proposition of law that judicial precedents in the shape of awards are best evidence in determining the market value of the land. This Court, is, thus, of the considered view that the award rendered by the learned Additional District Judge needs no interference. That being so I dismiss all appeals preferred either by the, claimants or the State.

Consequently, all these appeals are dismissed. Parties are left to bear their won costs.

The learned counsel representing the parties have informed the Court that R.F.A. Nos. 836 of 1996, 837 of 1996, 846 to 863 of 1996, 873 to 889 of 1996, 2406 of 1996, 2253 of 1995, 2109 of 1995, 1858 of 1995, 2097 of 1995, 2041 of 1995, 1853 of 1995, 214 of 1996, 1898 of 1996, 1822 to 1836 of 1995, and 309 to 319 of 1997 are not connected with this case. These R.F. As shall be taken up separately.