State of Punjab vs Gian Singh

Swatanter Kumar, J.—This State of Punjab issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, on 13.3.1991, intending to acquire 145 Acres 3 Kanals 19 Marlas from the revenue estate of village Kumbra, Tehsil Kharas, District Ropar. In furtherance to this, notification under Section 6 was issued and possession of the land taken in accordance with law.

This land was acquired by the government for construction of National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research, SAS Nagar, Mohali. This public purpose was sought to be achieved by constructing this institute right in the middle of the developed area. The Land Acquisition Collector upon inviting objection awarded compensation to the claimants vide his award dated 9.3.1992 at the rate of Rs. 2,60,000/ at a uniform rate.

The claimants being dissatisfied by the extent of compensation awarded to them for acquisition of their lands preferred references under Section 18 of the Act. The learned Additional District Judge vide 8 different awards answered 86 references. The awards are dated 17.12.1996, 13.2.1997, 15.2.1997, 24.5.1997, 9.1.1998, 12.2.1998, 14.2.1998 and 2.3.1998. The learned Additional District Judge while awarded Rs. 3,50,000/ uniform rate of compensation vide awarded dated 17.12.1996, it awarded compensation at the uniform rate of Rs. 3,00,000/ vide his award dated 13.2.1997 and vide all other awards aforereferred the learned Additional District Judge awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,50,000/ per acre. In this manner for acquisition of the land acre. In this manner for acquisition of the land from the same village vide same notification three different rates have been given by the learned Courts from 17.12.1996 to 2.3.1998. The claimants felt that they were entitled still to award of higher compensation and, therefore, 63 claimants have preferred appeals for enhancement of the awarded compensation, while the State felt aggrieved from the same award and have preferred 67 appeals before this Court. In other words, in 19 cases the State has not preferred appeals against the same award. The award has become final inter se the parties. The State is mainly concerned in regard to the amount of compensation awarded vide awards dated 12.2.1998 for Rs. 5,50,000/ and 13.2.1997 for Rs. 3,00,000/. Effect of the same, I would shortly proceed to discuss.

The claimants in order to prove their case for enhancement had relied upon the evidence proved on record. They examined seven witnesses to prove their case i.e. AW1 to AW7. Amresh proved reports Ex. A.1 to Ex.A.15 in relation to the valuation of the land and AW2 proved Ex. A.6 to Ex.A.22 in relation to the value of the trees. The claimants produced on record four sale instances i.e. Ex.P.16/A, P.17, P.18A and P.19/A and Ex.P.21/A were also produced on record.

The respondents to rebut this evidence examined only two witnesses, produced report Ex.R.1 in relation to trees and tendered in evidence the report of D.F.O. Ex.R.2. No sale instants were produced or proved by the respondents on record.

As already noticed, no sale instance was produced or proved on record in any of the cases by the respondents while the claimants had produced the aforesaid sale deeds but only Ex.P.16/A was proved in accordance with law. AW5 in his statement had duly proved this document where he had sold 5 kanals 8 marlas of land vide registered sale deed 14.2.1991 for a sum of Rs. 6,75,000/ which will give the rate of Rs. 10,00,000/ per acre. Other sale deeds produced by the claimants are not admissible in evidence for the reasons stated by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. P. Venkaiah, A.I.R. 1997 Supreme Court 2600 and Special Deputy Collector and another v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao, A.I.R. 1997 Supreme Court 2625.

Ex. P.16/A is the sale deed vide which reasonable size of the land was sold on 14.2.1991. But this valuation of the land has also to be viewed keeping in mind the fact that the present acquisition of the entire land in the revenue estate of village Kumbra is dated 13.3.1991. Thus, this sale instance is just more than a month earlier to the date of acquisition and the possibility of reflecting an exaggerated value of the land cannot be excluded more particularly when one of the claimants is himself a party to the sale instance. However, this sale instance can be kept in mind for finally determining the fair market value of the land with high element of deduction applied to this sale instance. This is for the reason that the sale instance cannot be termed to be sham as it is a registered document proved on record. The genuinity and consideration of the same has also been established on record in consonance with the directive of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India.

The attractive location and potential of the land can hardly be doubted in the present case. The learned Additional District Judge while determining such issue held as under :

"The learned Counsel for the claimants vehemently argued that this judgment of Shri Baldev Singh, deserves reliance for the purpose of determination of compensation in the present case, as even Kuldip Singh Patwari (RW3) admitted in his crossexamination that village Kambali adjoins the boundary of village Kumbra. According to him phase XI of Mohali has been carved out from the land of village Kambali. On the other hand parts of the phases X and XI have been carved out of the land of village Kumbra. He goes on to say that the lands of villages Kumbra and Kambali are of the same quality and have also got the same potentiality. Placing implicit reliance on the statement of this witness of the respondents, Shri J.K. Kaushal, learned Counsel for the claimants strenuously argued that the claimants are entitled to enhancement on the pattern of the land of village Kambali as awarded by Shri Baldev Singh, vide his judgment (Ex.A2), particularly in view of the fact that the notification in respect of the land of village Kambali was published more than two years earlier to that of the land of village Kumbra. In support of his argument that earlier awards can be relied upon for determining the market value, Shri Kaushal referred to a judgment of our own High Court in Satish Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1995(2) RRR 419 (P&H)."

Ex. P.27 is the site plan showing the sectors of Chandigarh City and Urban Estate of S.A.S. Nagar Mohali. The acquired land for construction of the institute has been shown in blue colour. On the rest of the acquired land developed Sector 62 has been shown while on the north Urban Estate and abadi of village Kumbra has been shown, while on the west some part of the development has been reflected and then the boundary of other adjacent villages have been shown. On the south developed portion as well abadi of other villages have been shown, while towards the eastsouth of the acquired land at a very short distance is village Kambali. Villages Kumbra and Kambali have a common revenue boundary and the entire area had been acquired for development of PhaseX of the development programme to develop the city of the aforesated places. Even at the bar this fact was not seriously disputed on behalf of the State that the area is surrounded by developed sectors and is abutting the boundaries of other village on other side the acquired land.

Before I compute the market value of the land on the date of acquisition, what is inevitable for me is to refer to the gist of discussion of the learned Judges in the aforenoted cases, where they have given different compensation for the same land and notification varying from Rs. 3,00,000/ to Rs. 5,50,000/. Either the learned Judges have not taken note of the previous judgments in relation to the same notification or after taking the notice have found that same not applicable. This kind of parity could hardly be appreciated more particularly when the land located in the same revenue estate is acquired for the same purpose vide same notification having identical location and potential.

Bachan Singh''s case was decided on 13.2.1997 by the learned District Judge, Ropar. The learned Judge discussed some evidence on record and while relying upon Ex. P.5 the judgment of a single Judge of this Court, where land was acquired in villages Kambali, Kambala, Mataur and Sohana vide notification dated 4.2.1981 held as under :

"The learned Counsel argued that Ex. P5 is the copy of the judgment of Hon''ble Mr. Justice G.C. Mittal, in L.P.A. No. 679 of 1989, decided on 10.9.1990, vide which land in villages Kambala, Kambali, Mataur and Sohana was valued at Rs. 1,75,000/ per acre and land in that case was acquired vide notification dated 4.2.1981, while the land in this case was acquired vide notification dated 13.3.1991.

Sh. Baldev Singh, the then learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar vide his judgment in Land Reference No. 366 of 3.4.1992, decided in 1.9.1993 Amarjit Kaur etc. v. State of Punjab, valued the land of village Kambali at the rate of Rs. 5,96,000/ per acre and land in that case was acquired on 27.12.1988 and the claimants are also entitled to increase of the market price of the land to be assessed vide Ex. P5 and P6 by 12% per year and the market value as per sale deeds Ex. R1 to R3 is not relevant in this case as the portions sold are very small."

"The value of the land given by the Hon''ble Mr. Justice G.C. Mittal in Ex. P5 is Rs. 1,75,000/ per acre and land in that case was acquired vide notification dated 4.2.1981. So the valuation must increase per year. But it is also apparent that land of village Kambala will not increase in agriculture manner as it was well known that the acquired land adjoins Mohali and will acquire one day. So, the increase must be taken at bank rate i.e. about 8% per annum and applying this increase, the increase works out to be Rs. 1,40,000/ and the total value works to be Rs. 3,15,000/ per acre. But it is only a mathematical calculation by applying the increase at the rate of 8%. So, it must be rounded to Rs. 3 lacs per acre.

In view of the discussion made above, it is held that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector is inadequate and the claimants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 3 lacs per acre. Both these issues stand adjudicated accordingly."

In the case of Joginder Singh the learned Judge again discussed some evidence but relying upon the judgment of the Letters Patent Bench in L.P.A. No. 679 of 989 decided on 10.9.1990, concluded as under :

"The Hon''ble High Court in L.P.A. No. 679 of 1989, decided on 10.9.1990 has awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,75,000/ per acre of the land of villages Kambali, Kambala, Mataur and Sohana and acquisition in that case was of 4.2.1981 and acquisition now in this case is dated 13.3.1991 i.e. after lapse of 10 years. So, in view of Section 23 of the Act, the value of the acquired land may be doubled. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the compensation of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 3,50,000/ per acre. This issue stands adjudicated accordingly."

In the case of Ishar Singh, the learned Additional District Judge while awarding compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 5,50,000/ held as under :

"Taking note of all this my learned predecessor Shri Baldev Singh had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,96,000/ per acre in respect of the acquired land of village Kambali which is a neighbouring village of Kumbra with common boundaries (Ex. P.20/A).

The judgment Ex.P.21/A of this court pertains to 17 land references arising out of the same very award as is the subjectmatter of the present reference. After making a comprehensive analysis of the entire gamut of facts and circumstances relevant for determining the compensation in respect of the acquired land in village Kumbra, this Court had enhanced compensation to Rs. 5,50,000/ per acre, and in that judgment it was noticed that as village Kumbra is a little further removed from Mohali township than village Kambali, the land of village Kambali commanded higher market value than the village Kumbra and, accordingly, the market value determined in the judgment of the court of Shri Baldev Singh (Ex.P.20/A) which was also relied upon in that case was scaled down from Rs. 5,96,000/ to Rs. 5,50,000/ despite the fact that in that case pertaining to the land of village Kambali the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published two years earlier to the notification in the case of land of village Kumbra.

In view of my above discussion and in the backdrop of the conspectus of facts and circumstances of this case in their totality, I do not find any hesitation in forming the opinion that the market value of the acquired land on the date of notification i.e. 13.3.1991, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act can be determined as Rs. 5,50,000/ per acre."

Thus, it is evident that for the land acquired from the same revenue estate vide same notification considerably variable compensation has been awarded to the claimants. While awarding sum of Rs. 3,00,000/ per acre, the learned Judge has mainly relied upon Ex. P.5 in that which is the judgment of the High Court dated 10.9.1990 in regard to acquisition of the land in villages Mataur, Sohana, Kambali and Kumbra vide notification dated 4.2.1981 and awarded Rs. 1,75,000/ per acre. The learned Judge gave increase of 8% on this amount from 1981 to 1991 and awarded Rs. 3,00,000/. This very judgment was made the basis by the learned Court while awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,50,000/ to the claimants claiming double of the compensation awarded by the Division Bench for gap of 10 years. Thereafter the learned Court awarded Rs. 5,50,000/ relying upon Ex. P.20/A in the case of Ishar Singh. Further it felt that the lands of village Kumbra were inferior in location and potential than village Kambali, thus, setting off this element against the time of two years between the notification under Section 4 in relation to acquisition of land in village Kambali and Kumbra respectively. The learned Judge, thus, maintained the same value and gave Rs. 5,50,000/ to the claimants.

I have already discussed that the location of Kumbra cannot be described as so inferior to village Kambali, which would justify a heavy deduction on that account. One factor which the learned Court ought to have taken into consideration is that substantial development has taken by the year 1991 when the land in village Kumbra had been acquired. The lands in village Kambali were acquired in the year 1988. The admitted developments in the area would contribute to the increase of the cost in land. It is a matter of common knowledge that when huge colonies are developed, small distance between the revenue restates of two villages would lose much of its significance. Nearly 10 phases had been developed and as per Ex.P.27 even Sector 64 had developed. It is also common knowledge that value of the land increases rapidly once development activity is going around the acquired land.

It is a settled principle of law that in huge acquisition and mass developments normally common compensation should be payable irrespective of some distance in the location of the land, unless the location of the land is having a total definite distance benefit and potential like being adjacent to the National Highway etc. In these circumstances, it does not appear to the quite just and fair that the value of the land in relation to even Kambali should have been reduced to the extent. Applying some amount of guess work and following the above settled principles of law, I am of the considered view that it would be just and fair to award compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 5,58,621/.

At this stage I must also notice that in none of the above cases any evidence has been produced on record which would show that the land of the various claimants in village Kumbra were different in terms of location, potential and nature. In other words, all claimants from village Kumbra had led the same evidence in support of their claims. Thus, it would be totally unfair and unjust to award to some claimants compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,00,000/, while to the others at the rate of Rs. 5,50,000/ especially when the location, potential and nature of the land is identical and which had been acquired vide the same notification. Thus, I am of the considered view that all the claimants whose lands have been acquired in village Kumbra should be entitled to the same compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case.

However, the lands in village Kumbra are further away from Mohali, the central focal town in that area. The impugned judgments while relying upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge or the judgment of the Letters Patent Bench in L.P.A. No. 679 of 1989 have awarded aforesaid compensations. The judgment of the Division Bench which relates to the notification of the year 1981 can provide a safe guide and basis for determine the market value of the land, subjectmatter of the present appeals, as on the date of notification. Value for the gap of 10 years between the two notifications can be fairly supplied by giving lessor increase for the first few years i.e. at the rate of 12% per year and for the later years when the area around the acquired land had fully developed and a rapid development was taking place all around the acquired land and even on the part of the acquired land. Thus, I do not find that the compensation awarded in the subsequent awards of Rs. 5,50,0000/ can be stated to be unreasonable or unfair. It has come in evidence that the Government itself was selling the acquired land or around the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 500/ per square yard, which would come to nearly Rs. 22,00,000/ per acre.

Another angle to examine the validity of the awarded compensation can be that all Courts have relied upon or referred to Ex. A.20/A which is a judgment in relation to acquisition of land in village Kambali. That notification under Section 4 of the Act was of 1988 and the compensation awarded was Rs. 5,96,000/ per acre. The appeals against that judgment have been decided vide judgment of the even date. Even if 12% increase is granted for two years, the total compensation would come to Rs. 7,39,940/ per acre. Treating the Kambali lands to be located and having a better potential, it will be must and fair to award Rs. 5,58,621/ per acre to the claimants.

Reverting back to Ex. P.16/A, the only sale deed proved on record, the value of the land comes to Rs. 9,31,034/ per acre. Applying the principle of reduction at the rate of 40% per acre, the amount would come to Rs. 5,58,621/ (Rs. 9,31,034/ Rs. 3,72,413/). Viewed on the basis of judicial pronouncements or the sale instances, the claimants would be entitled to somewhat similar compensation. Awarding of such compensation is just and fair in the facts and circumstances of this case and the evidence produced on record.

The result of the above discussion is that the appeals filed by the claimants are partly accepted with proportionate costs. They shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,58,621/ per acre with all statutory benefits provided under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. However, the appeals filed by the State are dismissed with no order as to costs.