State of Haryana vs Pala Singh

V.K. Bali, J.—In this set of eleven Regular Fist Appeals bearing Nos. 2002 to 2012 of 1994, as in every such like matters the only question that needs determination is as to what was the correct market value of the land that was acquired and for which the claimant/respondents had made an application u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

Brief facts of the case reveals that vide notification issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, on October 26, 1971, the Government sought to acquire 8.03 acres of land in village Talheri, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra for a public purpose, namely, for construction of link road from Ambala-Hisar road to village Chanalheri via village Talheri in District Kurukshetra. This notification was followed by declaration issued u/s 6 of the Act on June 3, 1973. In ultimate analysis, however, land measuring 5.11 acres was acquired. The land Acquisition Collector, Kurukshetra assessed the market value of the land as per its nature. Whereas, chahi land was assessed at Rs. 5000/- per acre, Banjar. Banjar Wadim and Gairmumkin land was assessed at Rs. 4000/-, 3000/- and 2000/- respectively. Aggrieved by this decision of the Land Acquisition Collector, the claimant-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the claimants) made their applications u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and sought reference before a court of competent jurisdiction. They pleaded that market value of the land was not less than Rs. 40,000/- per acre. Their claim as made out in the petitions was contested by the State as it was pleaded in the written statement that the site was inspected by the Land Acquisition Collector before assessment of compensation and the compensation was reasonable, legal and fair.

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

(1) What was the market value of the acquired land at the time of issue of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act ? OPP

(2) Relief.

In support of their claims, the claimants examined PW1 Gurbachan Singh, PW2 Gurdeep Singh, Sarpanch of Village Talheri. They also tendered into evidence sale instances. Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. The State in rebuttal examined Land Acquisition Officer as RW1, and tendered sale instances, Ex.R1 and R2 and Sajra, Ex.R3.

It is no doubt that the claimants and one of the witness examined on their behalf i.e. Sarpanch at the time clearly stated that market value of the land at the time when notification u/s 4 of the Act was issued, was not less than Rs. 50,000/- but insofar as documentary evidence of the parties in the shape of sale instances is concerned, the same is tabulated as follows :-

Sr.No. Ex./date Area Sold Total price Per acre ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Ex.P1/14.6.90 14-06 1,36,000/- 76,080/- 2. P2/30.5.90 16-00 1,38,000/- 69,000/- 3. P-3/7.6.88 4-00 20,000/- 40,000/- 4. P-4/21.5.87 8-00 34,000/- 34,000/- 5. P-5/22.3.84 20-12 77,250/- 30,000/- 6. Ex.R1/12.8.71 8-0 4,000/- 4,000/- 7. EX.R2/12.8.71 2.16 2,500/- 4,286/- A bare look at the sale instance would clearly demonstrate that all the sale instances cited by the claimants were at least 12 years later when notification u/s 4 of the Act was issued. The learned Court while discussing these sale instances rightly observed that Ex.P1 to P-4 could not be taken into consideration as was even contended by learned counsel for the claimants. It is, however, strange that whereas sale instances, Ex.P1 to P4 were ignored, Ex.P5 which is of the year 1984 i.e. approximately 13 years after the notification u/s 4 was issued, was relied upon, even though to the extent of observing rise in prices of the real estate. The learned court also observed, that the acquisition proceedings continued for about 14 years and, therefore, to some extent its benefit should be given to the land owners and not to the State as also that annual increase of 10% can be given. On this analogy, the learned Court assessed the market value of the land @ ''8000/- per acre in the year 1972. Operative part of the judgment reads thus :-

"It is well settled law that the annual increase of 10% can be given. On this analogy the rate of sale instance Ex.P5 could be Rs. 8000/- per acre in the year 1972 and if the 10% annual increase is worked out it comes to Rs. 27615/- per acre in the year 1984. The approximate rate as per Ex.P5 is Rs. 30,000/-. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that taking into consideration the principal of annual increase of 10%, I feel satisfied that the petitioners can be given a reasonable rate of Rs. 8000/- per acre without marking any classification of the land as only about 13 kanals is barani, Gair Mumkin school or Gair Mumkin Basic Mawesian out of the total land measuring 40 kanals 17 marlas. Out of this 13 kanals of land only about 4 Kanals 19 marlas of land is Gair Mumkin. The land of a owner is a land whether it is Barani or Gair Mumkin it does not make such difference for an owner. Hence in view of my above discussion, and for the foregoing reasons, I award a rate of Rs. 8000/- per acre of the entire land measuring 40 kanals 1 marlas for which compensation has to be paid."

Mr. Hooda, learned Advocate General, Haryana, vehemently contends and in my view rightly, that there was no legal admissible and relevant evidence for giving any increase and determining the market value @ Rs. 8000/- and that the reasons given by the learned Court are wholly erroneous. It is well settled by now that while working out market value of the land under acquisition, the crucial date is the date of issuance of notification u/s 4 of the Act and such notification in the present case was issued in the year 1971 and the sale instances of the year 1971 or immediately preceding the same could be taken into consideration. There was absolutely no question for taking into consideration a sale instance that was pressed into service by the claimants and which pertained to the year 1984. It is true that while relying upon a later instance, the learned Court relied upon a Judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Major Jitendra Kumar and Others, , but the facts of the said case reveal that whereas notification u/s 4 was issued on January 6, 1948, sale instance of July 11, 1951 by which the Cooperative Society had purchased the land in the neighbour hood, was relied upon. It may be permissible in some cases, again depending upon facts and circumstances, that sale instance later than the date of issuance of notification u/s 4 may be relied upon, but if such later instances are of ten or twelve years or so, this Court is of the confirmed view that the same have to be totally taken out of consideration. The facts of this Case, .reveal that the learned court did not reply upon sale instances, Ex.P1 to P4 and so much so even the counsel representing the claimants chose not to depend upon such sale instances. If that be true with regard to sale instances, Ex.P1 to P-4, how could then sale instance, Ex.P5 become relevant, is wholly un-understandable. It is true that award in this case was passed on March, 27, 1985 but it is also made out that it is from that date that the Sub Divisional Engineer had stated that possession of the land would be taken. Therefore, if a period of 14 years had gone by from the date of notification u/s 4 till such time when award, was given, the land owners had not suffered anything as they were in possession of the land, on this count i.e. that the land acquisition proceedings continued for 14 years, the finding of the learned Court that 10% increase per year should be given to the land owners, is also not correct and on that count as well, the Court could not possibly increase the market value of the land considered from any angle, the reasons given by the learned trial Court in enhancing the compensation from the one already settled by the Land Acquisition Collector does not appear to be justified. Consequently, there is no option with this Court but for to allow these appeals filed by the State and set aside the impugned award. So ordered. as a result the claim applications filed by the claimants u/s 18 of the Act shall stand dismissed. No orders as to costs.