State of Haryana vs Buta Ram

Swatanter Kumar, J.—Land measuring 2.60 acres was intended to be acquired by the State of Haryana vide notification dated 20.10.1981 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, in village Sounda, District Ambala. This land was acquired for a public purpose namely for development of the urban area for residential and commercial purpose. In furtherance thereto, notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 10.1.1983 and possession of the land was taken by the State. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded a compensation of Rs. 53,000/ per acre vide Award No. 5 dated 27.6.1984. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded to the landowners/claimants, they preferred objections and references were made by the Land Acquisition Collector under Section 18 of the Act to the learned District Judge, Ambala. The claimants averred that they should be awarded at least Rs. 250/ per square yard as compensation of their respective lands. These references were registered as L.A.C. Cases No. 8/4 of 1987 to 11/4 of 1987. As all the references related to the same land, the learned District Judge, Ambala consolidated the references and disposed them of together vide judgment dated 14.2.1992. The judgment was passed in L.A.C. Cases No. 8/4 of 1987. The learned District Judge awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,38,800/ per acre to the claimants. Discontented with this judgment of the learned District Judge the claimants filed appeals before this Court for enhancement of compensation while the State Government filed appeals for reduction of amount of compensation awarded by the learned District Judge to the landownersclaimants. Thus, it resulted in filing of eight appeals being Regular First Appeals No. 1605 to 1608, 1761 to 1763 & 2859 of 1992. All these appeals are, thus, being disposed of by the common judgment.

In order to determine the fair market value of the land at the time of acquisition the learned District Judge had relied upon the various evidence produced by the parties. The claimants examined 9 witnesses i.e. PW 1 to PW 9 in support of their cace and proved in accordance with law Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 and other documents which were exhibited by the respective witnesses during their statements. The petitioners relied in the sale instances Ex.PW 5/2, Ex.PW 6/1, Ex.PW 7/1, Ex.P.1 and Ex.P. 4. Ex.P.2, Ex.P.3, Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6 were the judgments/awards relied upon by the claimants. Site plans Ex.PW 3/A and Ex.PW 9/A are the documents showing the land acquired.

To rebut this evidence of the petitioners, the respondents examined no oral evidence but produced on record documents Ex.R.1 to R.3. While Ex.R.1 is the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge awarding compensation of Rs. 57,000/ for the land acquired in all the three villages Patti Mehar, Jandli and Sounda vide notification dated 26.5.1981. Ex. R.2 and Ex.R.3 were the sale instances relied upon by the respondents.

Out of the sale instances produced by the respective parties on record only three sale instances were proved in accordance with law. Ex.PW 5/2, Ex.PW 6/1 and Ex.PW 7/1 were the sale instances which have been proved on record in accordance with law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case of A.P. State Transport Corporation Hyderabad v. P. Venkaiah & others, A.I.R. 1997 Supreme Court 2600. As such only these sale instances are admissible and referable in evidence. It the other sale instances neither the petitioners nor the respondents examined, vendor, vendee or any official from the Registrar''s office to prove the documents in accordance with law settled by the Hon''ble Apex Court. Consequently, other sale instances are liable to be rejected and are neither admissible nor can be relied upon for determination of the controversy in the present case.

Even the three sale instances which have been proved in accordance with law cannot have any material bearing on the matter in issue. The sale instances are of such small plots that they would be incomparable for such acquisitions. The land measuring 225 sq. yards and 39 sq. yards were sold under the admissible aforestated sale instances. They being such small instances cannot form the basis for determination of fair market value of the land sought to be acquired at the relevant time. It has been repeatedly held by the Courts that too small pieces of land acquired would not be indicative for consideration of fair market price of the land at the time of acquisition. As such I would reject these sale instances from the zone of consideration.

Resultantly, this Court has to primarily discuss the effect of Ex.R.1 from the side of the respondents and Ex.P.2, Ex.P.3, Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6, which are the judgments/awards of the Courts for proper determination of the value of the land acquired. Ex. R.1 is the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, where a compensation of Rs. 57,000/ per acre was awarded in relation to acquisition of land situated in the revenue estates of all the three villages i.e. Patti Mehar, Jandli and Sounda. Ex.P.2 is the judgment of the High Court, but it only refers to Ex.P.3, which is the case titled as Pala Singh v. State (R.F.A. No. 985 of 1989) and compensation of Rs. 70/100 per square yard was awarded following the belting system where the land was acquired for construction of overbridge within the Municipal limits and in the heart of Ambala City Ex.P.5 is the judgment of the High Court in the case of Om Parkash v. State of Haryana, L.P.A No. 1340 of 1982 decided on 28.11.1990, where the compensation of Rs. 70/ per square yard was awarded of acquisition of land of village Patti Mehar. The L.P.A. preferred by the State was dismissed, thus, affirming awarding of compensation of Rs. 70/ per square yard. Ex.P.6 is also the judgment of the learned District Judge, Ambala awarding Rs. 100/ per square yard as compensation for acquisition of the land in village Patti Mehar.

Copy of Ex.PW 9/A and Ex.PW 3/A clearly depicts the location of the land acquired in the present case. The boundary of village Patti Mehar is common with villages Jandli and Sounda. The small piece of land acquired under the present notification is situated in village Sounda which again has its boundaries common with other two villages. At this state it must be noticed that for the development of Ambala City the State had acquired huge chunks of land in the revenue estates of villages Patti Mehar, Jandli and Sounda. Whereas sectors of Haryana Urban Development Authority were developed on the acquired land. This huge acquisition of land had given rise to various references and appeals which have been decided by this Court vide separate judgments.

Like in other cases, case of Pala Singh has been made the basis for awarding the compensation of Rs. 3,38,800/. The case of Pala Singh is not at parity with the facts of the present case. The land of Pala Singh was acquired within the Municipal limits and was a small piece of land for construction of over bridge. This over bridge was constructed over the railway line and was to link the main Hissar road. As such these huge acquisitions of land in the revenue estates of all the three villages aforestated cannot be compared in their entirety though that may form a reasonable basis for awarding the compensation.

In the connected Regular First Appeal No. 2872 of 1992 where acquisition of the same villages, subject matter of Awards No. 11 and 12 have been discussed and decided by this Court in the case of Harpal Singh v. The State of Haryana, 1999(3) RCR(Civil) 211 (P&H). The following findings are relevant for determination :

"As such, I would proceed to discuss these awards in some elucidation. Vide Ex.P.5 the learned District Judge enhanced the compensation by judgment dated 12.11.1984 to Rs. 200/ and Rs. 100/ per square yard adopting the belting system. This land was acquired in village Patti Mehar. The land acquired under this award was only 1 kanal 9 marlas and was acquired as an additional land for completion of the overbridge which was being constructed in the crowded city and was on the crossing of AmbalaHissar Road. The Ex.P.6 on which the basic reliance has been placed by the learned District Judge as well as by the claimants before this Court is in relation to the case of Pala Singh where compensation was enhanced by Rs. 70/ to Rs. 100/ by adopting the belting system for an acquisition of the land in May, 1978 measuring only 8.59 acres in village Patti Mehar for the construction of the over bridge. This land at the time of acquisition was within the municipal limit of Ambala City. It is a conceded case that the land under acquisition in the present case was not in municipal limit at the time of acquisition and also that the land acquired by present notification is of much larger area than the land acquired in Pala Singh''s case. As such, the present cases are totally distinct and different from the two cases referred to above. The land was acquired in those cases for the construction of over bridge while in this case it is for development of residential and commercial sectors."

"Thus, reference by this Court to Ex.P.7 becomes necessary. Ex.P.7 depicts that the acquired land which has been shown in red colour is on the one side of the railway track while Prem Nagar, Sessions Court and Market etc. are on the other side of the railway track. The land for which the compensation was paid in Pala Singh and Satish Kumar cases (supra), in relation to construction of over bridge, is quite at some distance from the present land and is on Hisar road near the railway track."

The learned District Judge has placed total reliance upon Pala Singh''s case (supra) but did not notice certain basic distinguishable features which have rendered that case as a relevant piece of evidence but still not as an instance on which the entire evidence could be concluded. In Pala Singh''s case, which relates to village Patti Mehar, the land was acquired within the municipal limits of Ambala City and comparatively small pieces of land were acquired for construction of bridge over the railway line passing through Ambala City. The main road leading to Hissar as well as the railway line were the main points which were likely to be covered by the over bridge. In other words, the land was located within the City''s municipal limits and that too at thickly populated place. Thus, it could form sole basis for granting the compensation which has been awarded by the learned District Judge. The instances of judgments in aforereferred awards may be the relevant pieces of evidence but they are not absolutely identical instances in comparison to the land sought to be acquired by the present notification."

In view of the above discussion, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the claimants in the present case are not entitled to receive the same compensation which was paid in the case of Pala Singh. However, that can be treated as a relevant factor for determination of the compensation. It is also not disputed before this Court that even on the date of acquisition of land in the present case, the land had not come within the municipal limits of Ambala City. In other words, the clear distinction maintained itself as on the date of issuance notification under Section 4 of the Act the land was not located in the municipal limits in the present case, while in the Pala Singh''s case it was so located when acquired.

The proper course which has been approved by the Hon''ble Apex Court for determination of fair market value is to work out the price on the principle of averages and also the adjacent lands should be awarded similar compensation to avoid inequality between the claims of the owners in relation to the land which is somewhat similarly located. In this regard reference can be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Khushi Ram and another v. The State of Haryana, 1988 LACC 653 : 1988(2) RRR 572 (P&H); Surinder Singh v. Punjab State, 1995(1) P.L.R. 533 : 1995(1) RRR 674 (P&H); Ram Mehra v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1987 Delhi 130; Karrappa Ranghiya v. Special Deputy Collector Land Acquisition, A.I.R. 1982 Supreme Court 77 and Krishna Yachendra Bahadurvaru v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore and others, A.I.R. 1979 Supreme Court 869.

For the reasons stated above and more particularly the detailed judgments of this Court in the case of Harpal Singh v. The State of Haryana, R.F.A. No. 2872 of 1992 of even date and State of Haryana and another v. Jagir Kaur and others, 1999(3) RCR(Civil) 135 (P&H) : R.F.A. No. 716 of 1995 decided on 24.12.1998., I would set aside the judgment of the learned District Judge, Ambala and would award uniform compensation as awarded in these cases to the present claimants. Consequently, it is directed that the claimants landowners would be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,91,800/ per acre with all the statutory benefits.

Consequently, the Regular First appeals No. 1605 to 1608 of 1992 filed by the State are accepted and the compensation awarded by the learned District Judge, Ambala is reduced to the aforesaid amount, while the Regular First Appeals No. 1761 to 1763 and 2869 of 1992 preferred by the claimants are dismissed. Now the claimants would be entitled to compensation of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 2,91,800/ per acre with statutory benefits provided under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there would be no order as to costs.