State of Haryana vs Hari Singh

Swatanter Kumar, J.—The Government of State of Haryana vide notification dated 23.11.1986 u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') published on 20.1.1987 in the official gazette, intended to acquire land measuring 8 bighas 10 biswas for the purpose of construction of link road from village Sudhali to Khera. This notification was followed by a notification dated 18.5.1987 published on 2.6.1987 u/s 6 of the Act.

After giving notice to the land owners, the Land Acquisition Collector vide award dated 29.12.1988 awarded the following compensation to the land owners:

Chahi, Baag Chahi, Gair Mumkin Garha and Khud Land : Rs. 52,000/- per acre Gair Mumkin Johri : Rs. 9,000/- per acre

The land owners felt dis-satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded to them by the Land Acquisition Collector and they preferred reference u/s 18 of the Act praying for enhancement of the amount. The learned Additional District Judge, Jagadhri, vide his judgment/award dated 20.11.1997 answered 14 references including the case of Hari Singh (supra). The learned Additional District Judge enhanced the compensation at a uniform rate i.e. Rs. 86,424/- per acre in regard to all kinds of land with statutory benefits.

The State felt dis-satisfied from the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge and, therefore, preferred 14 regular first appeals including the case of Hari Singh (supra) before this Court. As all these 14 appeals arise from a common notification, common award of the Land Acquisition Collector, common judgment of Additional District Judge and are based on common evidence, it will be appropriate to dispose of all these appeals by a common judgment.

The claimants had produced and proved on record Ex.P-1 to P-3 sale deeds and had examined PW-1 to PW-3, three witnesses, to support their claim for enhancement of compensation before the learned Additional District Judge. The State to counter the evidence of the claimants placed on record Ex. R-1 to R-3 sale deeds. Exhibit R-4, AK-Shijra in relation to village Khera showing the acquired land and also examined Bhim Sain, Patwari (RW-1). This was the total evidence produced on the basis of which the learned Additional District Judge while mainly relying upon Ex.P-3 with conjectures and surmises, retrospectively, determined the marked value of the land by granting the afor-estated compensation to the claimants.

The basic contention raised on behalf of the State is that the compensation awarded is unreasonable, excessive and that infact there is no direct reason to justify the awarding of such compensation.

At the outset, I must notice that the reliance placed on Exhibit P-3 by the learned Additional District was not a correct method of computation. Exhibit P-3 relates to sale of the land measuring about 4 bighas on 22.2.1990 in village Khera while the notification in the present case u/s 4 of the Act is dated 20.1.1987. In the face of other evidence, I see no occasion for the learned trial Court to calculate and compute the market value of the land retrospectively on the basis of a document which is nearly 2 and 1/2 years subsequent to the date of notification. It is a settled principle of law that the post notification sale deeds or other documentary evidence cannot be made materially relevant for determining the market value of the land. The Court is concerned only with the market value of the land on the date of acquisition as such post notification period is not materially relevant at all. At best it could be referred to for the purposes of determining the increasing trend in the costs of land or for some other ancillary factors, it must be noticed that the learned trial Court on the same reasoning had itself rejected Ex.P-2. The trial Court noticed as under: -

"Ex.P-2 is a sale instance dated 28.1.1992. It is executed more than five years after the acquisition and it is also a sale of plots."

Thus, it is clear that the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge is self contradictory to some extent as the principle on which sale instance. Ex.P-2 has been rejected being post notification by a considerable lapse, ought to have been applied while assessing the relevancy of Ex.P-3.

Thus, the only relevant document would be Ex.P-1 vide which 18 Biswas of land was sold for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- on 15.2.1985 in village Khera itself. This exhibit has been duly proved by PW-2 and the vendor was also examined. Thus, the genuineness of this document stands established in accordance with law. With the aid of Section 15-A of the Act. I am unable to see why Ex.P-1 should not have been made the basis of computation for the amount payable to the claimants.

As far as the documents Ex.R-1 to R-3, produced by the respondents are concerned, they are inadmissible because they were just tendered in evidence and vendor, vendee or any other competent person was not examined to prove the genuineness of these exhibits. Resultantly, I would affirm the view taken by the learned trial Court that these documents were inadmissible in evidence and, therefore, these documents cannot be looked into for determining the controversy between the parties. The learned trial Court rightly followed the principle enunciated by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case of G. Narayan Rao v. The Land Acquisition Officer 1996(2) AC J 147 (S.C.).

As far as Ex.R-4 is concerned, it is an Ak-shijra produced by the respondents, before the Court below, showing the acquired land and its location etc. I would shortly proceed to discuss the location and potentially of the acquired land.

In Ex. R-4 acquired land has been shown and the position in relation to Exhibits R-1 to R-3 has also been indicated therein. Firstly, the sale instances produced by the respondents are inadmissible and secondly they appear to be at a great distance from the acquired land. The acquired land is around the abadi of the village Khera and then extend further to the other end of the village. PW-1 has clearly stated that the land is about 1 kilometre away from Ambala Jagadhri Road. He further states that in the year 1994 the prices of the land was 2.5 lacs to 3 lacs per acre. PW-2 who proved Ex.P-1 and P-2 stated that land subject matter of the Exhibits P-1 and P-2, was very near to the acquired land. Nothing material was stated by RW-1 in his examination-in-chief. The above evidence shows that the location and potential of the land was easily comparable to Exhibits P-1 to P-3.

As per Exhibit P-1, 18 Biswas of land was sold for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as already noticed. There is no reason for this Court to doubt the contents and correctness of Exhibit P-1. Apparently, Ex.P-1 is the smaller piece of land measuring only 18 biswas but his evidence cannot be said to be totally incomparable sale instance as the total land acquired in the present case was only 8 bighas and 10 biswas. May be, it would require a higher element of deduction but the sale deed is certainly admissible in evidence as a comparable evidence keeping in view the location, potential and year of sale which is 1985. The land under Ex.P-1 was sold at the rate of Rs. 27.77 per square yard with reasonable increase of 12% for nearly two years and by applying the principle, of deduction at the rate of 65-70% the claimants would nearly entitle to the amount awarded by the learned trial Court.

The value on the basis of Ex.P-1 no matter by which method is computed cannot be less than what has been awarded by the learned trial Court. Applying the reasonable element of increase on Exhibit P-1 and principle of deduction to a greater extent it would in any case bring no result other than one arrived at by the learned Additional District Judge. I do not consider it appropriate to remand the case to the learned trial Court for consideration afresh because it would not be in the interest of justice and in any case, the ends of justice demand that the parties who have already been litigating since 1987-88 should not put to the rigours of further indefinite delay, more particularly when there is sufficient evidence before this Court to decide the appeal on merits.

The learned Judge has awarded the claimants compensation at the rate of Rs. 17.85 per square yard. For the reasons aforestated. I find no error in awarding of compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 17,85 i.e. Rs. 86,424/- per acre, though for different reason.

Consequently, all the appeajs4ued by the State are dismissed without any orders as to costs.