Suraj Bhan vs State of Haryana

Swatanter Kumar, J.

On 22.3.1990 Haryana Government Urban Estate Department on behalf of the State issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for intending to acquire land measuring about 688.93 acres in the revenue estate of three different villages in District Gurgaon. This land was acquired for a public purpose namely, development and utilisation of land for residential, commercial, institutional and maintenance of open space area in District Gurgaon in the new township proposed to be made by the said authority. Section 6 notification under this Act in furtherance thereto was issued on 19.3.1991. Vide these notifications the area intended to be acquired and the area for which Section 6 notification was issued is as under :

Notification under Section 4

Notification under Section 6

Dated 22.3.1990

Dated 19.3.1991

Village

Area (in acres)

Area (in acres)

Salokhra

39.75

15.81

Islampur

197.22

172.44

Jharsa

634.40

500.68

688.93

Out of the area of 688.93 acres in fact only an area of 580.73 acres was made subjectmatter of acquisition and the Land Acquisition Collector passed his award only in relation to that land. Area measuring about 108.20 acres thus, did not remain part of the requisition proceedings before the Collector. Vide Award No. 7 of 199293 dated 16.3.1993 the learned Land Acquisition Collector awarded the following amount of compensation to the claimants for acquisition of their respective lands :

Sr. No. Kind of Land Rate per acres

Villages Jharsa and Silokhra

Chahi

Rs. 4,00,000/

Magda

Rs. 3,50,000/

Abi

Rs. 3,50,000/

Bajar

Rs. 2,50,000/

Ghair Mumkin

Rs. 2,50,000/

Village Islampur

Chahi

Rs. 2,50,000/

Magda

Rs. 2,50,000/

Banjar

Rs. 1,50,000/

Gair Mumkin

Rs. 1,50,000/

It must be noticed at this stage only that the learned Land Acquisition Collector in relation to the land measuring 4 Kanals 18 Marlas from where 6 feet earth had been removed in village Jharsa awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,50,000/ per acre, thus granting the same compensation which was granted to the Banjar or Gair Mumkin land of the same village.

Being dissatisfied by the extent of compensation awarded to the owners, the claimants preferred references under Section 18 of the Act. In all 161 references were forwarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, for determination to the learned District Judge/Additional District, Judge, Gurgaon. All these references were disposed of by the learned Judges vide 32 different judgments but awarding a uniform rate of compensation at the rate of Rs. 12,82,600/ per acre of Rs. 265/ per square yard. These judgments passed by the learned District Judge/Additional District, Judge led to filing of the present 281 regular first appeals. State of Haryana challenged the impugned judgments on the ground that excessive compensation had been awarded to the claimants and the award of the Land Acquisition Collector was liable to be restored while claimants prayed in their appeals for further enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded to them by the learned Judge.

As all these 281 regular first appeals arise from a common notification, common award being Award No. 7 of 199293 and compensation has been awarded on more or less similar basis, furthermore, the earlier judgments have been relied upon by the learned Judges in the subsequent judgments, it will be appropriate to deal with and decide all these appeals together by a common judgment.

It is contended on behalf of the complaints that the land sought to be acquired was not less than Rs. 8,000/ per square yard as various fully developed private colonies and sectors carved out by the HUDA surrounds the acquired land. According to the learned Counsel appearing for various claimants, the learned Judge has erred in appreciating the documentary and oral evidence on record and they are entitled to enhancement of the compensation awarded.

On the other hand, the learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Haryana contends that there was no admissible evidence on record which would justify awarding of such high compensation to the complaints. He contended that the compensation awarded to the claimants is unreasonably excessive and prayed for reduction in the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants (amount awarded) by the Collector.

In order to discuss the merits of these contentions it will be appropriate to refer to the basic evidence in the above three regular first appeals which are the leading cases and cover the entire controversy. The complaints covered under regular first appeal No. 944 of 1998 had only produced and tendered in evidence Ex.P.1 and Ex.P2 which are the certified copies of the judgments in relation to the same charges passed by the same Court. The details of Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 areas under :

Date of Notification

Village

Parties name

Date of Judgment

Rate Awarded

P.1

22.3.90

Jharsa Silokhra Islampur

Jot Ram etc. v. State of Hr., 5.6.1997

Rs. 11,98,000/

P.2

20.4.90

Jharsa Kanahai Bindapur

Dilbagh etc. v. Hr. State

3.12.1997

265/ per square yard

The petitioners led no other evidence oral or documentary. The respondents in response thereto had examined one RW 1 namely, Satbir Singh and produced certified copies of sale deeds Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4, the details of which are as under :

Ex. No.

Date of Sale

Village

Area Sold

Sale consideration on

Rate per sq. yard.

K M

R.1

18.1.88

Jharsa

10 7

3,00,000/

47.90

R.2

5.2.88

do

0 7

12,000/

56.67

R.3

23.3.88

do

0 9

10,000/

36.73

R.4

12.7.89

do

2 18

40,000/

22.79

In R.F.A. No. 2749 of 1998 the complaints had examined four witnesses namely PW.1 to PW.4 and had proved site plan Ex.P.1. Verification report is Ex.P.2. and Ex.P.3 is the site plan in relation to the acquired land proved by PW.3. The petitioners also tendered in evidence Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6 which are respectively the judgments of the Court in relation to the lands located in same or adjacent villages.

The respondents to rebut the evidence of the petitioners had examined same Satbir Singh Patwari as RW1 and tendered in evidence Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4 the sale instances referred supra. No site plan was produced by the respondents before the Court.

At the very outset it will be appropriate to discuss the location and potentiality of this land, Ex.P.1 is final development plan for controlled area I to IV. This depicts the entire proposed development for which the present land was acquired. According to Ex.P.1 the lands of village Islampur, Jharsa and Silokhra are adjacent to each and are closer to National Highway i.e. DelhiJaipur Road. Ex.P.3 only relates to property of one Mr. Ravinder Kumar. Ex.P.2 is the evaluation report prepared by one Mr. Nand Kumar Nagpal. According to him, the value would come to Rs. 13,06,486.00. The compensation had been awarded vide judgment dated 23.3.1990 (Ex.P.1) at the rate of Rs. 11,98,000/ per acre while vide judgment Ex.P.2, compensation of Rs. 265/ per square yard was allowed in villages Jharsa, Silokhra, Islampur, Bindapur and Kanahai. Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6 are the judgments in relation to the acquisition of the land vide notification dated 20.4.1998 in village Jharsa, Bindapur and Shamaspur where the compensation at the rate of Rs. 265/ per square yard was awarded by the learned District Judge.

The learned District Judge rejected the sale instances produced by the respondents in different cases mainly for two reasons. Firstly, the vendors and vendees had not been examined and as such the sale instances are not admissible in evidence, and secondly, that the price indicated in the sale instances sought to be proved was below the amount awarded by the Collector in the present cases and as such was hit by the provisions of Section 25 of the Act. Keeping in view the above evidence, the learned Judge uniformly awarded a sum of Rs. 265/ per square yard to all the complaints in all the judgments.

As far as rejection of sale instances produced by the respondents is concerned, this Court has no option but to accept the view taken by the learned District Judge in view of the Judgement of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. P. Venkaiah, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2600 and Special Deputy Collector v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2625. The learned Judge was also right in really not placing much reliance upon the value indicated in these sale instances as even if accepted the said amount could not have been granted as compensation to the complaints by the Court being less than the amount awarded by the Collector in village Jharsa.

The statement of PW.2 in indicates that residential plots were sold in Sector 15 PartII or auctioned by HUDA on 28.9.1989 at the rate of Rs. 2294/ per square meter and the plots were measuring about 2 Kanals. Firstly no evidence was produced by the claimants to prove these auctions or instances. No documents in that regard have been placed on record or exhibited in accordance with law. The developed plots and more particularly commercial plots cannot from the basis for determination of fair market value of the huge acquisitions and more particularly when such lands were being used for agricultural purposes at the time of acquisition. Resultantly, no value can be attached to the oral statements of the claimants. This, however, is obviously in addition to the fact that these are small plots of land and cannot indicate a valid index to the market value of the acquired land at the relevant time.

The learned Judge in the impugned judgment mainly placed his reliance upon Ex.P5 and Ex.P.6 to grant compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 265/ per square yard in relation to the acquired land. The judgment was primarily based on the same reasoning which had been given in Ex.P5 and identical amount of compensation had been awarded to the complaints. Ex.P5 is a judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon in the case of Shanti v. State of Haryana, L.A.C. No. 586 of 1995/97 decided on 24.12.1997. I consider it appropriate to refer to the relevant portion of Ex.P.5 to bring to surface the reasoning of the present judgment. The relevant portion granting Rs. 265/ per square yard compensation to the complaints is as under :

"In the judgment Ex.P.11, the court of Sh. M.S. Nagra, the then District Judge, Gurgaon assessed the marked value of Rs. 190/ per square yard, after refering to various previous judgments. This Court in judgment Ex. P.12 had referred to various judgments covering land acquired through notification dated 27.8.1987 and assessed the market value of Rs. 200/ per square yard. In the case of Khuba v. Haryana State, Ex. P.13 the judgment of Sh.. M.S. Nagra, the then District Judge, Gurgaon, had followed his previous judgment awarding Rs. 190/ per square yard for land covered by notification dated 27.8.1987 and had awarded an increase of 31.75% for the land covered by the said judgment Ex.P.13 pertaining to notification dated 20.4.1990. Similarly, this Court is case of Dilbagh Singh v. Haryana State had awarded an increase of 31.75% on the market value of Rs. 200/ assessed by this Court in case of Jit Ram v. Haryana State, because of a time lag of 31 months and three weeks between the two notifications. Accordingly, the market value was assessed at Rs. 265/ per square yard in the said case.

There is no reasons to differ with the said previous judgments of this Court given in case of Dilbagh Singh v. State. There is no better evidence on the file for assessing the market value. As already stated above judgments Ex.P.9 and P.10 cannot be followed because the land covered by those Judgements had some special location for which they were assessed at the said high rates of Rs. 272/ to Rs. 300/ per square yard."

"In the present case the market value of the acquired land is assessed at Rs. 265 per square yard. The petitioners shall accordingly be entitled to enhanced compensation. This is answered accordingly."

It is unambiguously clear from the above reasoning that the learned Judge while pronouncing Ex.P.5 had mainly relied upon the judgment of M/s. Standard Rubbers v. State of Haryana and Smt. Ganga Devi v. State of Haryana, the judgments of the same Court wherein in relation to the lands situated in village Jharsa, compensation of Rs. 300/ per square yard and Rs. 272/ per square yard was granted by the Court concerned. Reliance was also placed on another judgment in relation to village Jharsa where compensation at the rate of Rs. 200/ and Rs. 190/ per square yard was granted in relation to the notification dated 27.8.1987. It is necessary for me to notice at this stage that all these cases in relation to village Jharsa have been considered by this Court vide separate judgments of the same date and the compensation awarded in the case of M/s. Standard Rubbers as well as Ganga Devi has been reduced by this Court and while adopting the belting system in relation to the lands located in Jharsa the compensation of Rs. 213/, Rs. 160/ and Rs. 106/ was awarded following the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Mangtu Ram etc., AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2704 : 1997(3) RCR(Civil) 342 (SC). These judgments were pronounced in RFA No. 674 of 1994, RFA No. 1767 of 1994 and reasoning given in RFA No. 556 of 1994 titled as Kabul Singh v. State of Haryana was adopted by the Court.

As there is no evidence in the present case which would justify application of the belting system because the lands are not stated to be abutting any national highway or main State highway and as such the same principle cannot be truly made applicable to the facts of the present case. Furthermore, the land has been acquired for the common purpose and uniform compensation has been awarded to the complaints by the Court below in various judgments. I see no reason to differ with the view taken by the learned trial Court.

If one takes mean of the above three amounts awarded in relation to land in Jharsa, though the location and potentiality of that land is much better than the land located in the present acquisition, the amount would come to nearly Rs. 160/ per square yard i.e. average of the three amounts aforesated. But this relates to an acquisition of the year 1987 while the present acquisition relates to the year 1990. Thus, the complaints would certainly be entitled to some increase.

One argument has to be taken note of in the present case that the learned trial Court has not applied the principle of deduction to the amount of compensation awarded. As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K.S. Shivadevamma and others v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer and another, 1996(2) SCC 62, element of deduction has to be applied for awarding the compensation where such huge acquisitions are involved. The lands have been acquired for a public purpose and a common purpose. The lands are to be developed by the State and then to be put to use. The judgments which are based upon previous judgments relate to the same and small pieces of land. The location and potential of the land certainly cannot be equated to the location and potential of the land which is situated abutting the national highway i.e. DelhiJaipur Road and the GurgaonJharsa road but it is also true that the surrounding areas have been acquired for development of various sectors though there is no direct evidence oral or documentary to show that the areas have already developed. In fact, the proposed development plan still shows roads to be provided.

Following the dictum of Hon''ble Supreme Court of India and keeping in view the factors, location and potential of the land and the fact that it is compulsory acquisition, I would think that a minimum cut/deduction should be applied to the present case. Resultantly, in the compensation awarded by the learned trial Court I would prefer to apply at least 20% deduction on account of various well accepted norms and dictum of the Supreme Court.

The cumulative effect of the above discussion would be that the claimants would be entitled to receive a compensation of Rs. 212/ per square yard (Rs. 10,26,080/ per acre) as that is the reasonable amount which can be arrived at on the reasonable basis founded on the application of the judgment of the Supreme Court.

Even by the other reasoning, in the case of lands located in Village Jharsa, as the compensation has already been reduced by this Court, the reduction in the present amount is apparently called for. Consequently the appeals preferred by the State are partly accepted while those filed by the complaints are dismissed. Now the claimants would be entitled to compensation of Rs. 212/ per square yard (Rs. 10,26,080/ per acre) along with statutory benefits provided under Sections 23 (1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs.