Subash Chand vs State of Haryana

A.N.Jindal, J.

1 These fifteen appeals bearing RFA No. 2970 of 1994 and RFA Nos. 2259 to 2272 of 1994 and the Cross Objections No. 40CI to 42CI of 1995,47CI of 1995 and 104CI of 2009 in respective appeals, having been arisen out of the references against the common award dated 1.4.1994 passed by Additional District Judge, Ambala, are being decided by way of one common judgment. By filing RFA No. 2970 of 1994, the claimant landowner Subhash Chand and CrossObjectors in respective appeals have sought enhancement in the compensation in lieu of acquisition of their land, while through the other fourteen appeals, the State of Haryana has challenged the compensation granted by the Additional District Judge.

2 Factual background of the case is that vide notification No. SE/PWD/ B&R/CHD/534R dated 29.6.1986, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein or short ''the Act''), the State of Haryana proposed to acquire 3.49 acres of land in village Naraingarh, Hadbast No. 88, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala. Ultimately, on measurement, the land was found to be 3.21 acres. Thereafter, the State of Haryana vide notification No. SE/PWD/B&R/CHD/627 dated 11.2.1987 Factual background of the is that vide notification issued under Section 6 of the Act and published n Govt. Gazette on 16.2.1987. declared the aforesaid area of 3.21 acres as acquired. After seeking the objections, ultimately, the Collector vide his award dated 29.4.1987, assessed the market value of the land as under : (compensation per acrein Rs.)

"1. Chahi, Gair Mumkin Makan and plot 1,00,320/

Barani, Banjar land inferior to Chahi 66,880/Land

Barani Land 33,440/

Banjar Land and Gair Mumkin Land 16,800/

3 Feeling dissatisfied with the above compensation, the land owners claimants (herein referred as ''the claimants'') preferred references before the Collector, which were referred to the District Judge for disposal. By way of their claim references, the claimants submitted that the acquired land has high potential value, having worth more than Rs. 2000/ per marla and they were entitled to get compensation as per the actual market value of the land. It was further pleaded that some valuable trees were also standing,for which they were not paid any compensation.

4 While appearing in the references before the Additional District Judge, Ambala, the State submitted the reply, pleading that the Collector had assessed the market value of the land as per fact situation at the spot, which was quite fair, reasonable and adequate, and the market value could not be assessed more than what was assessed by the Collector.

5 From the pleadings of the parties, the Additional District Judge framed the following issues :

"1 What was the market value of the acquired land at the time of publication of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ? 0PP

Whether there were trees on the acquired land at the time of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, if so, what was the market value of those trees? OPP

Relief."

6 Both the parties led evidence. However, after appreciation of the same, the Additional District Judge awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 2000/ per Marla for the acquired land, without specifying any classification (along with other statutory benefits). However, no compensation was awarded qua the trees and the construction. Still, dissatisfied, the claimant Subhash Chand has filed the instant appeal i.e. RFA No. 2970 of 1994, while the other connected fourteen appeals have been preferred by the State of Haryana, challenging the award of Rs. 2000/ per Marla.

7 The crucial question involved in all the fifteen appeals is as under :

"What was the market value of the acquired land at the time of the notification under Section 4 of the Act i.e, on 29.6.1986 ?"

8 The claimants in order to establish the market value of the land examined Jagan Nath (PW1), Sat Pal (PW2) and Amar Nath (PW3), besides tendering into evidence the saledeeds Ex.P1 to Ex.P5.

9 Per contra, the respondent State examined Kali Ram, Kanungo (RW1) and tendered into evidence three saledeeds Ex.RI to Ex. R3.

10 Now, coming to the evidence of the claimants, it is noticed that Jagan Nath (PW1) proved two saledeeds (Ex.Pl and P2), in order to establish that the value of the acquired land was not less than Rs. 2000/ to 10,000/ per marlas. Sat Pal (PW2), one of the claimants stated that the price of the acquired land at the relevant time was not less than Rs. 2000 7500 per marls. During crossexamination, he admitted that he did not enter into any sale transaction at this rate. The third witness, namely Amar Nath (PW3) has also made a weak statement.

11 Now, coming to the documentary evidence i.e, five saledeeds. Though, the Trial Court discarded those saledeeds for the reason that the same were not proved according to the law, as neither any of the vendors, nor vendees of the saledeeds or any of the attesting witnesses, has been examined. Therefore, the same cannot be taken into consideration. However, in view of Section 51A. of the Act, the saledeeds were per se admissible to prove the market value of the land and no formal proof by way of witnesses was required.

12 Now, 1 advert to assess the market value as per saledeeds :

Sr.No. Dt.of sale Area Rate per Maria (in involved Rs.)

(Ex.Pl) 13.12.1982 16 Marlas 70000/16 = 4375/

(Ex.P2) 8.6.1985 1 Kanal 38000/20 = 1900/

(Ex.P3) 8.6.1985 12 M 4 30000/ Sarsahi

(Ex.P4) 21.7.1986 1 K 1 70000/21 =3333/Marla

(Ex.P5) 5.8.1986 5 Marias 45000/5 =9000/

13 From the perusal of the aforesaid sale deeds, it transpires that the market value of the land situated nearby the acquired land on 8.6.1985 was about Rs. 2000/ perMarla,. whereas, the land in question was acquired on 29.6.1986. Thus, it was argued that 12% increase per annum was required to be made by the Reference Court, while assessing the market value of the land,

14 To the contrary, Mr. H.S. Hooda, Advocate General appearing for the ate of Haryana has urged that since the saledeeds in question pertain to small portions of land, therefore, the same cannot be treated as relevant instances for determining the market value of the land.

15 Having heard the rival contentions, it may be observed that there is no dispute with regard to the legal proposition as set up by the Advocate General, but at the same time, it will have to be observed that the same does not apply in this case as vide the notification in question, no large area was acquired, but only 3.21 acres of land was acquired, belonging to 18 persons. In other words, small pieces of land were acquired from different persons of the village. Therefore, the argument of the State has no merit that big chunk of land was acquired. Accordingly, it would not be unsafe to hold that the documents (Ex.Pl to P5) may be of small pieces of land, but could be comparable instances and guide for the Court to determine as accurately as possible the market value of the acquired land.

16 As regards the potentiality of the acquired land, it may be observed that Jagan Nath (PW1) has stated that the land adjoins the bus stand of Naraingarh and is near to SDM office, Civil Hospital and the State Bank. Sat Pal (PW2) has also corroborated the version given by Jagan Nath (PW 1). He has further added that one gate of the busstand opens towards the acquired \\and. Even Kali Ram, Office Kanungo (RW1) while stating that the compensation awarded by the Collector was accurate, did not deny about the potentiality of the acquired land. During crossexamination, he admitted that there is bus stand, offices of the SDM, DSP and agriculture, a Bank, Higher Secondary School and a hospital near the acquired land. The saledeeds (Ex.R1 to R3) as relied upon by the State are not proved to be of the area located nearby the acquired land, as such, the same cannot be taken into consideration.

17 Now. on appreciation of complete evidence on record, A including the oral evidence of Jagan Nath (PWI), Sat Pal (PW2) and Amar Nath (PW3), as also the saledeeds (Ex.Pl to P5), it comes out that the land had a high commercial and residentialpotentiality and the market value of the land situated nearby the acquired land on the date of the notification i.e., 29.6.1986 was Rs. 2000/ per Maria. Thus while adding increase at the rate of 12% per annum in market value of the land and also keeping in view the high potentiality of the land, the market value of the land of the claimant on the relevant date comes to 2300/ per Marla.

18 Since no evidence has been led regarding the existence and the value of the alleged trees over the acquired land by the claimant, therefore, the Trial Court appears to have rightly declined to grant any compensation in this regard.

19 For the aforesaid reasons, the RFA No. 2970 of 1994 and Cross Objections No. 40CI to 42CI of 1995,47CI 1995 and 104CI of 2009 in respective appeals are partly accepted and the impugned award is modified to the extent that the market value of the acquired land of the claimant appellant and the Crossobjectors is assessed at Rs. 2300/ per Maria. Needless to state that the claimant appellant and Cross objectors shall also be entitled to the statutory benefits under Section 23A of the Act.

20 In view of the above discussion, RFA Nos. 2259, 2260, 2261, 2262, 22 3. 2264, 2265, 2266, 2267, 2268, 2269, 2270, 2271 and 2272 of 1994, preferred by the State of Haryana are dismissed, being devoid of any merit.

21 However, the parties to bear their own costs.