State of Haryana and Others vs Rajinder Singh and Others etc. etc.

Rajesh Bindal, J.—This order shall dispose of the above mentioned appeals, as the same arise out a common acquisition.

R.F.A. Nos. 2419 to 2452, 2838 to 2440 of 2006, 323 and 324 of 2007 have been filed by the State praying for reduction in the amount of compensation awarded to the land owners.

R.F.A. Nos. 3651, 3652, 3654 to 3669, 3876 to 3880, 3914 to 3918, 3945, 4708 of 2006, 1777, 1834 and 4225 of 2007 have been filed by the land owners seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land.

The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 2419 of 2006.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that land measuring 90 kanals and 11 marlas, situated in village Hathwala, District Jind was acquired vide notification dated 8.5.1997, issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act''), for the purpose of construction of Lajwana-Pauli Drain. The same was followed by notification dated 26.3.1998, issued u/s 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'') assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 1,20,000/- per acre on both sides of the road and Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre for Nahri land after one acre on road. Feeling dissatisfied, the land owners filed objections. On reference u/s 18 of the Act, the learned court below, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre.

Learned Counsel for the State submitted that it is a case in which without there being any evidence led by the land owners on record in the form of sale deeds to justify their claim for enhancement of compensation, the learned court below has arbitrarily assessed the same at Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre as against Rs. 1,20,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre awarded by the Collector. In fact, the State had even produced two sale deeds on record to substantiate the plea that award of the Collector was just and fair and did not call for any interference, whatsoever. The land pertaining to the sale deeds was even pointed out on site plan (Ex. R3) produced on record. The onus to prove that value of the acquired land, as assessed by the Collector, was not just and fair on the date of acquisition, is always on the land owners which has to be discharged by leading trust worthy documentary evidence and not merely oral evidence. The oral evidence cannot possibly be relied upon for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the land. The compensation granted even on account of loss of crops or the value of tubewells is also without any basis.

As regards award of compensation on account of damage to the crops or the value of tubewells existing on the acquired land is concerned, learned Counsel for the State submitted that the assessment of compensation on that account is quite exhorbitant and the same deserves to be reduced. The assessment of compensation was made by the learned court below without there being any material on record. However, he could not dispute the fact that though in the award, it was mentioned that compensation on both the counts shall be assessed and paid later on, but that exercise was not done.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the land owners submitted that the value of the acquired land, as assessed by the learned court below, deserves to be enhanced further. He further submitted that in the statements of various land owners, it has been specifically claimed that value of the land at the time of acquisition was not less than Rs. 6,00,000/- per acre. It is located quite close to NH-71 leading from Jind towards Rohtak. Even the State had fixed minimum rate for acquisition of land in the area at Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre in the year 2005. It was further submitted that though the acquisition in the present case was for the purpose of construction of drain, which necessarily bifurcates the land of the land owners into two parts, but still no amount has been paid on account of severance which should be granted at least @ 50% of the value of acquired land. However, learned Counsel for the land owners could not dispute the fact that barring the oral statements of the land owners, not even a single sale deed was produced by them on record in support of the claim for higher amount of compensation.

As regards compensation on account of damage to the crops the value of tubewells, learned Counsel for the land owners submitted that the same deserves to be enhanced.

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

As far as value of the land is concerned, I find merit in the submissions made by learned Counsel for the State. The undisputed fact on record is that no evidence was led by the land owners in support of the claim to seek higher amount of compensation for the acquired land. It was only oral statements of the land owners claiming that value of the land at the time of acquisition was Rs. 6,00,000/- per acre, which cannot possibly be made basis for assessment of compensation by the court. The onus to prove that the award of the Collector assessing the value of the land is not just and fair is on the land owners, which can satisfactorily be discharged only by leading documentary evidence in the form of sale deeds or any other relevant evidence showing the consideration paid for the land dealt with in the vicinity. The land pertaining to the sale deeds is further required to be ear-marked on a site plan to be produced by the land owners. What to talk of a site plan, even for the acquired land, the land owners had not produced any sale deed to justify their claim for enhancement of compensation. In the absence thereof, the learned court below has totally gone wrong in assessing the value of the land increasing from Rs. 1,20,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre to Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre by applying a thumb rule, which is not permissible. Accordingly, as far as value of the land is concerned, the award of the learned court below is set aside.

As far as contention of learned Counsel for the State regarding assessment of compensation on account of loss of crops and tubewells is concerned, though in the amount of compensation assessed for loss of crops being quite meager and the fact being that at the time of construction of the drain, the land in addition to the acquired land in the vicinity is always disturbed on account of excavation and construction material, the land owners may have suffered some loss and the assessment of compensation merely @ Rs. 3,000/- per acre on that account cannot be said to be unjustified. In his award, the Collector has specifically mentioned that assessment of standing crops for about 1-1/2 months of age is to be made by the Naib Tehsildar and the officials of the Irrigation Department collectively and after his assessment, the same shall be disbursed to the farmers/land owners. However, in spite of the fact that the award was pronounced on 5.1.1999 and the references were decided by the learned court below on 3.2.2006, no such assessment was produced before the court below.

As regards tubewells is concerned, even in the award of the Collector, it is specifically mentioned that there were three tubewells existing on the acquired land. Xen. PWD (Public Health) had been requested for assessment of the value thereof and the compensation was required to be paid after his assessment. However, position in this regard also remained the same as was on account of compensation for the standing crops, as no estimate was produced before the court below. Though the land owners claimed that they had spent Rs. 50,000/- each on installation of the tubewell, but the learned court below on estimation basis had granted Rs. 15,000/- for each of the three tubewells by applying a thumb rule.

As far as claim for compensation on account of severance is concerned, the land owners in their oral statements said that the land had been divided into two parts. The learned court below did not grant any amount on that account and the reason mentioned therefore is that acquisition in the present case was for the construction of drain, which did not bifurcate the land diagonally as the acquisition of land was in straight killa line. This, in my opinion, is totally erroneous. It is not that the land owners face difficulty in cultivation of the two portions of land only in case any canal, drain etc. is crossing the land diagonally. Even if the acquisition is in straight line, still the land of the land owner can be on two sides thereon and on account of acquisition and construction of a drain/distributory, it becomes difficult to cultivate the other portion of the land and to cross over to the other side. The level of the distributory is always above the level of the land, which makes it difficult to irrigate or use the divided portions of the land to its optimum and also to approach the other portion of the land. The bridges are provided at a distance and the land owners have to take a longer route to reach other part of the land. On that account, in my opinion, the land owners deserve to be compensated.

What course should be adopted in the present situation, where it has been found that if assessment of compensation by the learned court below is not in terms of settled principles of law.

Many a times the land owners do not produce relevant sale deeds or the site plans or do not point out the land pertaining to the sale deeds on the site plan so produced in a calculated effort or to enable the court to reach to a right conclusion. As in case the land pertaining to the sale deeds produced by the land owners are marked on the site plan it is quite easy for the Court to consider the relevancy thereof for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land. It is very difficult for the Court to determine compensation in the land acquisition cases unless there is a site plan on record showing the boundary of acquired land. The development existing on or near the acquired land on the date of issuance of notification u/s 4 of the Act and the exact location of the land/plot dealt with in various sale deeds sought to be relied upon by either of the parties in the evidence led by them, to show the fair value of the acquired land. In my opinion, the evidence led by the land owners in the present case was not at all convincing which could enable the Court to reach a fair conclusion to assess the market value of the acquired land.

On the other hand it cannot be disputed that the land is always dear to the farmers. It is their bread and butter. They put hard labour thereon to earn their livelihood. It is with heavy heart that they have to part with the same only on account of the fact that it was a compulsory acquisition. Otherwise one may or may not agree to sell the land. Once some one is being asked to part with his source of livelihood, he deserves to be compensated adequately. In my opinion, merely because of lack on the part of the land owners or their counsel in the Court below in not leading trustworthy and clinching evidence to prove the value of the land on the date of acquisition they should not be made to suffer.

For the reasons mentioned above, I deem it appropriate to set aside the judgment of learned court below and remand the matter back for fresh consideration after giving opportunities to the parties to clarify the exact position on record with regard to the sale deeds sought to be relied upon by the land owners and its exact location, vis-a-vis the acquired land. It is further directed with the setting aside of the impugned judgment the amount of compensation already paid to the land owners shall not be recovered back from them till such time the matter is dealt with and decided afresh by the learned Court below. Thereafter the parties shall abide by the judgments so delivered subject to their statutory rights. The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, on May 1, 2010 for further proceedings. Learned District Judge may either keep the references with himself or entrust the same to any of the Additional District Judge. Considering the fact that the acquisition in the present case was carried out way back in the year 1997, the matters should be disposed of on or before September 30, 2010 positively.

The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above.