State of Haryana vs Tej Ram

Swatanter Kumar, J.—Learned District Judge, Kurukshetra, vide his judgment and award dated 2.1.1993 answered 27 references

preferred by the complaints in relation to the acquisition of 265 kanals 19 marlas of land situated in the revenue estate of village Ismailabad, District

Kurukshetra.

All these references were answered by a common judgment in the case of Tej Ram v. State of Haryana and another, LAC No. 6 of 1989. Vide

this judgment, the learned District Judge had enhanced the compensation to nearly double than the compensation awarded by the learned Land

Acquisition Collector. Learned District Judge awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,28,000/ per acre for the acquired land except

compensation at the rate of Rs. 80,000/ per acre for the pond relating to khasra No. 1731 out of the acquired land. The State preferred 27

appeals before this Court contending that the compensation awarded by the learned District Judge was excessive and was based on no cogent

evident and prayed for restoration of the award of the learned Land Acquisition Collector.

The claimants were dissatisfied from the extent of the compensation awarded by the District Judge to them in relation to the acquisition of their

land. According to the claimants, they were entitled to get compensation a the rate of more than Rs. 10,00,000/ per acre on the basis of the

evidence adduced before the learned District Judge, 24 appeals have been preferred by the complaints.

All these 51 regular first appeals, therefore, arise from the common notification, award and judgment of the court. They raise common question

of facts, and law based on common evidence led in the case of Tej Ram v. State of Haryana and another. Thus, it would be appropriate to dispose

of all these 51 regular first appeals by a common judgment.

The Government of Haryana, vide Notification dated 12.6.1986 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as

the Act), intended to acquire 265 kanals 19 marlas of land in the revenue estate of village Ismailabad. This land was sought to be acquired for a

public purpose, namely; establishment of a new grain market. This notification was followed by Notification dated 9.6.1987 under Section 6 of the

Act. After serving notices upon the complaints, the learned Land Acquisition Collector awarded following compensation to the claimants :

(a) For Chahi, Gair Mumkin, @ Rs. 65,000/ per acre.

(b) For Gair Mumkin Talab, @ Rs. 40,000/ per acre.

As already noticed, the claimants as well as the State had felt dissatisfied and preferred references under Section 18 of the Act before the learned

District Judge. The learned District Judge had enhanced the compensation, as aforenoticed to Rs. 1,28,000/ per acre and Rs. 80,000/ per acre,

respectively. Discontentment on both sides still persisted, which resulted in filing the present appeals before this Court.

In order to appreciate the respective contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties, reference to the evidence adduced by either

party would be relevant.

The claimants had proved on record Ex. P.2 to Ex.P.8, sale instances and Ex. P1, site plan reflecting the acquired land and its location. In

addition to this, the claimants had examined as many as 8 witnesses to justify their claims for enhancement of compensation. The evidence

produced by the claimants was rebutted by the respondents by tendering in evidence Ex. R2 to Ex. R8, sale instances relating to the sale of the

land in the same village, and Ex. R1, Aksh Sajra, and chose to examine only two witnesses, RW1 and RW2.

Learned trial Court, upon appreciating this evidence, has come to the above conclusion vide its judgment and award dated 2.1.1993. The

controversy in the present appeals falls in a very narrow compass. At the very outset, in needs to be mentioned that the sale instances produced by

the respondents are not admissible in evidence primarily for the reason that the vendee or vendor or any other competent person from the office of

the Revenue Department had not been examined to prove the genuineness and authenticity of these sale instances. As per the principles enunciated

by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as A.P. State Road Transport Corporation Hyderabad v. P. Venkaiah and others, AIR

1997 S.C. 2600 and Special Deputy Collector and another v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others, AIR 1997 SC 2625, these sale instances were

inadmissible and, therefore, would fall outside the zone of consideration for determination of the amount of compensation payable to the claimants.

This was rejected by the learned trial Court and I have no hesitation to uphold the same in view of the law settled by the Hon''ble Supreme Court

of India.

As far as the sale instances produced by the claimants are concerned, they had examined the witnesses, namely PW1 to PW8 to support their

claim. However, only Ex. P2, Ex. P4 and Ex. P6 could be proved in accordance with law. Ex. P3 though was referred in the statement of PW2

but the same was not proved in accordance with law and thus cannot form the basis for computation of compensation payable to the claimants.

Out of three exhibited sale instances, which are otherwise admissible in evidence, the court can only rely upon Ex. P2 and Ex. P6. As far as Ex. P4

is concerned, it is dated 8.4.1987, which is nearly one year later to the date of the acquisition of the land.

It is a settled principle of law that the sale instances or documents subsequent to the date of the acquisition cannot be taken into consideration

for determining the fair market value of the land at the time of acquisition. Their relevancy would be to the limited extent by showing the increasing

trend in the price of the land. Other exhibits i.e. Ex. P3, Ex. P5, Ex. P7 and Ex. P8 were not proved in accordance with law and thus are held to

be inadmissible in the present case.

Ex. P2 and Ex. P6 were concededly exhibited in accordance with law. Still the learned trial Court ignored these documents only on the plea

that they related to the sale of small pieces of land and, therefore, did not consider. I am unable to see any reasoning for this view because a

Division Bench of this Court in the case titled as Dayal Singh v. State of Haryana, 1998(2) LACC 241, while following the principle enunciated by

the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and another, 1988

LACC 491 : 1988(2) RRR 136 (SC), had enunciated the principle that small pieces of land can be taken into consideration if no other sale

instance of larger plot of land was available and such instance was otherwise comparable instance. It is settled principle of law that transaction of

sale and purchase of huge land is not easily available. In the normal course of business sale instances relate to comparatively small pieces of land

than the huge chunk of land, which are normally acquired by the government for carrying out different projects for public purposes. Application of

principle of deduction could be higher when the plots are small but ignoring them per se on the ground that the sale instances being of small plots

would be fair. Ex. P2 is the sale deed dated 20.12.1984, where land measuring 2 marlas (nearly 60 sq. yards) was sold for Rs. 15,000/, while Ex.

P6, which is sale deed dated 30.1.1986, where land measuring 4 marlas (nearly 120 sq. yards) was sold for a sum of Rs. 24,000/.

As far as Ex. P2 is concerned, its location visavis the land in dispute and its nature has not been proved by oral and documentary evidence.

Thus, it would be very safe for the court not to reply upon this document for determination of fair market value at the relevant time, though Ex. P6

can be relied upon for the purposes of determining the fair market value of the acquired land at the time of acquisition. This sale instance is

otherwise a comparable instance from the location point of view, keeping in view that it is nearly five months prior to the date of notification and the

size of the land sold is not so unreasonable as to be ignored at the very outset.

As far as the location and potential of the land is concerned, the claimants relied upon the statement of RW2 and PW8 read in conjunction with

the statement of RW2. Ex. P1 site plan, shows the location of the acquired land as well as other constructed parts around the acquired land. Ex.

R1, Aksh Sajra, also depicts the location of the acquired land.

The acquired land and major part thereof abuts the abadi of the village as per Ex. R1. PW2 had specifically mentioned in examinationinchief

that the acquired land is adjacent to the land shown in the sale instances proved by her on record. Similar statement was made by PW4. In their

cross examination not even a suggestion was put to them that they have not correctly described the location of the acquired land and that the

location of the acquired land was different. As already noticed the purpose, for which the land was acquired, was for development of the new grain

market i.e. to set up a commercial market for the farmers to sell their agricultural products. From this documentary and oral evidence, it is clear

that the land in question had potential and was reasonably well located.

I would, therefore, proceed to determine the compensation payable to the claimants on the basis of Ex. P6. As per Ex. P6, the land measuring

about 148 sq. yards was sold for a sum of Rs. 24,000/ on 30.1.1986. The claimants would not be entitled to any element of increase in the costs

of the land because the land was acquired just after five months from this sale instance. The value reflected in Ex. P6 could be taken as the basic

value for determining the fair market value and then the amount of compensation payable to the claimants in regard to the acquisition of their

respective land. It is a settled principle of law that wherever there is acquisition of huge chunk of land by the State or its instrumentality in

accordance with law, a reasonable element of deduction has to be applied to determine the amount of acquisition payable to the claimants. Such

deduction is applicable for the huge investment to be made by the State for the development activities carried out by it on the acquired land for the

public purpose.

Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in different cases has held that principle of deduction should vary from 30% to 83% depending on the facts

and circumstances of the case. In this regard, reference can be made to the judgments of Hon''ble Supreme Court of India. (K.S. Shivadevamma

and others v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer and another, 1996(2) Supreme Court Cases 62, Ram Piari v. Land

Acquisition, Collector, Solan and others, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1652 : 1996(2) RRR 608 (SC), Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land

Acquisition Officer, Poona and another, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1652, Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector Varansi, AIR 1988

Supreme Court 943 : 1988(1) RRR 480 (SC) and Hasanali Walimchand (dead) by LRs v. State of Maharashtra, 1998(1) All India Land

Acquisition and Compensation Cases 120 : 1998(1) RCR(Civil) 591 (SC)).

In addition to application of this principle, the court must take into consideration that Ex. P6 in comparison to the land acquired vide

notification dated 12.6.1986 is a small piece of land. Thus, element of deduction would have to be still higher. The land is an agricultural land,

though touching the abadi of the village. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of this case, I would consider it just, fair and equitable to

apply the deduction at the rate of 70%. In other words, as Ex. P6, the land was sold at the rate of Rs. 9,60,000/ per acre and by applying

deduction of 70% for all the aforestated reasons, the compensation payable to the claimants would be at Rs. 2,88,000/ per acre. All claimants

would be entitled to uniform compensation, as the land has been acquired for a common purpose.

For the reasons, aforestated, the appeals preferred by the State have been dismissed without any order as to costs. However, the appeals

preferred by the claimants have been partly accepted. The claimants would be entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,88,000/ per

acre in addition to statutory benefits under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act.

Appeals dismissed.