State of Haryana vs Bachan Singh

Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.—This judgment shall dispose of eight appeals, seven filed by the State of Haryana bearing RFA Nos. 1247 to 1253 of 1992 and one filed by the landowners bearing RFA No. 28 of 1996 as also four cross-objections bearing No. 46-CI, 47-CI, 48-CI and 49-CI of 1992 filed by the landowners in RFA Nos. 1247, 1250, 1252 and 1253 of 1992 respectively.

For convenience and clarity, so far as the appeals filed by the State of Haryana are concerned, facts are being taken from RFA No. 1247 of 1992 titled State of Haryana and another Versus Bachan Singh.

For the construction of Panjokhra-minor, land measuring 8.58 acres situated in village Patti Sheikhan which included the land of landowners of these appeals pursuant to notification of 7.10.1983 issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) was acquired by the State of Haryana. The Land Acquisition Collector, Ambala (hereinafter mentioned as the Collector) vide Award No. 23 dated 8.9.1986 determined the market value of the acquired land at the following rates:

Aggrieved with the Award of the Collector, the landowners filed petitions u/s 18 of the Act claiming Rs. 200/- per Sq. yard as compensation of the acquired land. The Collector referred the petitions of the aggrieved landowners to the District Judge, Ambala for determining the market value of the acquired land.

In its written statement, the State of Haryana asserted validity and legality of the Award of the Collector urging that compensation had rightly been paid on the basis of the market value prevailing at the time of acquisition.

After considering oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the parties, the reference court had arrived at market value of the land @ Rs. 93,000/- per acre acquired on the date of notification issued u/s 4 of the Act. In these appeals, State of Haryana has taken up a stand that the reference court made reliance on judgments Ex. P1 and Ex. P2 rendered in evidence by the landowners passed in RFA No. 261 of 1985 and RFA No. 259 of 1985 claiming further that these judgments are under challenge before the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India. Thus, the only ground taken by the State of Haryana in these appeals is that since the decisions Ex. P1 and Ex. P2 referred to in the impugned Award had yet not been affirmed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India, those could not have been made basis for determination of compensation by the reference court.

As regards cross-objections bearing No. 46 to 49-CI of 1992 filed by the landowners in RFA Nos. 1247, 1250, 1252 and 1253 of 1992 respectively are concerned, the landowners finding the compensation @ Rs. 93,000/- per acre as deficient have claimed it to be Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre pleading further that compensation of Safeda trees has not been paid. It is claimed that assessment of compensation by arriving at market price of Rs. 93,000/- per acre on the date of issuance of notification u/s 4 of the Act, is erroneous.

So far as RFA No. 28 of 1996 filed by landowners Aalam Singh and others is concerned, their reference u/s 18 of the Act wherein they had demanded compensation @ Rs. 5 lacs per acre, was declined by the reference court vide judgment of 3.11.1995. Claiming the impugned Award to be erroneous, compensation @ Rs. 5 lacs per acre has been sought. It is claimed that compensation of 105 Safeda trees which were more than 5 years old at the time of acquisition of land has also not been granted. Compensation @ Rs. 200/- per tree has also been claimed.

Hearing has been provided.

Land of village Patti Sheikhan is involved. Notification issued u/s 4 of the Act is of 7.10.1983. From the side of landowners, Bharpur Singh and Baldev Singh were examined as PW1 and PW2. Instead of giving any concrete evidence, there is sweeping stand of the landowners. When Bharpur Singh (PW1) has sweepingly mentioned that market value of the acquired land at the time of notification issued u/s 4 of the Act was not less than Rs. 2,000/- per Sq. yard, statement of Baldev Singh (PW2) is no better when he has stated that his land was also acquired by the same notification.

When other instances of sale could be the best possible documentary evidence, sweeping statements made orally by Bharpur Singh (PW1) and Baldev Singh (PW2) could not be of any probative value and thus, were rightly not taken into consideration by the reference court. Sale deed Ex. P2 pertains to a very small piece of land i.e. 134.44 Sq. yards which was sold for Rs. 25,000/-. Similarly, sale deed Ex. P3 is again for a very small piece of land i.e. 81 Sq. yards which was sold for Rs. 18,500/-. These sale deeds pertain to land situated in Patti Jattan. Since the land sold vide sale deeds Ex. P2 and Ex. P3 is very small and the reference court had rightly not taken such sale instances into consideration.

Even otherwise, locational aspects of land sold vide sale deeds Ex. P2 and Ex. P3 have not been ventured to be evaluated by the landowners by showing their respective location in comparative assessment of the location of the huge tract of acquired land with the help of Aks Sajra of the entire area. It was in this light that the reference court had refused to be influenced with the instances of sale deeds Ex. P2 and Ex. P3 produced by the appellants. It may be noticed that the reference court did not take into account the Award (Ex. P1) rendered on 29.3.1984 whereby this Court increased the price to Rs. 93,000/- per acre from the Award passed by the Collector.

So far as appeals filed by the State are concerned, the only objection taken therein is that the decisions rendered by this Court in RFA No. 261 of 1985 and RFA No. 253 of 1985 have yet not been affirmed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India. This stand of the appellant-State is neither here nor there. The reference court was right in taking judgments Ex. P1 and Ex. P2 into consideration. These judgments have been rendered by this Court in Regular First Appeals filed by the landowners of Patti Kalalan and Patti Jattan. Their land had been acquired for the construction of Panjokhra-minor. The reference court took pains and by comparative analysis of the land acquired in the present appeals as also the land acquired in judgments Ex. P1 and Ex. P2 had come to a firm conclusion that the land of the Pattis which had been acquired was situated near Ambala city. Evaluating the findings rendered in these judgments, the reference court had determined the market rate of acquired land @ Rs. 93,000/- per acre in the year 1982. With a short gap thereafter, notification in question had come. There being no evidence available with reference court that there was any decrease in the price of the land upto the date of notification of 1983, price of Rs. 93,000/- per acre had been taken.

In the case of landowners Aalam Singh and others, particularly when the Award Ex. P1 whereby land had been priced at Rs. 93,000/- per acre as on the date of notification had been produced there was no reason with the reference court to refuse to accept the same for any cogent or specific reason. It is worth notice that land of Patti Sheikhan and Patti Jattan was not only similarly situated but was also in close proximity of the city as was the findings in judgment Ex. P1.

Sequelly, in RFA No. 28 of 1996 filed by landowners Aalam Singh and others, taking clue from judgment Ex. P1 cited therein and there being proximity of the land acquired in this appeal with lands mentioned in judgment Ex. P1 as also their being same potentialities because of their location near the city, market value at the time of acquisition is assessed @ Rs. 93,000/- per acre with all other statutory benefits.

So far as plea of cross-objectors is concerned, there is absolutely no material on record to enhance compensation of Rs. 93,000/- per acre to Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre as has been demanded by the cross-objectors. Neither factual matrix nor evidence on record support their claim.

Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, dismissing the appeals bearing RFA Nos. 1247 to 1253 of 1992 filed by the State of Haryana as also cross-objections bearing No. 46 to 49-CI of 1992 filed by the landowners in RFA Nos. 1247, 1250, 1252 and 1253 of 1992, maintaining the impugned Award dated 8.3.1991 passed by the reference court, appeal bearing RFA No. 28 of 1996 filed by landowners Aalam Singh and others, is accepted.