Union of India vs Harchal Singh

Swatanter Kumar, J.—The Union of India, through the Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh issued two notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, on 29.7.1988 and 4.7.1989 respectively. Land measuring about 283.22 acres was sought to be acquired but as conceded by the learned counsel for the parties except an area of 10.13 acres, rest of the area of the acquired land was denotified as such the award of the Collector and all proceedings subsequent thereto related to 10.13 acres of land in the revenue estate of village Nizampur Kumbra. This land was acquired for the purposes of development of third phase of Chandigarh City. The Land Acquisition Collector after following the due process of law vide his award dated 11.10.1990 awarded compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 74,000/ per acre.

The claimants being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded to them by the learned Collector preferred references under Section 18 of the Act. The learned Additional District Judge permitted the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective claims and finally vide his award/judgment dated 3.10.1997 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 3,87,200/ per acre. Still being dissatisfied the claimants preferred regular first appeals praying for restoration of the award of the Collector.

In the case of Harchal Singh only one reference was answered by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, vide his judgment dated 3.10.1997 which has given rise to two regular first appeals one by the State and other by Harchal Singh, while vide judgment and award dated 21.2.1998 passed in LAC No. 324/9697 titled as Chhajja Singh v. Union of India six references were answered by the same court. This judgment has given rise to six appeals by the Union of India, four appeals by the claimants and one crossobjection by the claimants in response to the appeal preferred by the Union of India. Both these judgments relate to a common notification, the land from the same revenue estate and the judgment of Harchal Singh was the total basis for granting compensation to the claimants in Chhajja Singh''s case. Thus, it would be appropriate to dispose of all these 13 appeals and crossobjection by a common judgment.

Harchal Singh''s case :

In this case the claimants examined four witnesses AW 1 to AW 4 which included Clerk from the Estate Office, AW 2 Patwari and Rattan Singh retired Tehsildar and the claimant. AW 1 proved Ex.A.1, a letter of allotment of plot to the claimant. AW 2 proved site plan Ex.A2, while Ex.A.3 and Ex.A.4, the site plans showing location of the acquired land were also proved by AW 3. The claimants in addition to this evidence produced on record Ex.A.5 to Ex.A.7, Ex.A.11 and A.12 awards and judgments of the Court and Ex.A.8 to A.10 the saledeeds. The respondents only produced on record the saledeed Ex.R.1. The learned Additional District Judge, after detailed discussion only relied upon judgment Ex.A.12 and granted to the claimants aforestated compensation.

The reasoning given by the learned Additional District Judge apparently appears to be correct. As far as sale deeds produced by both the parties i.e. Ex.A.8 to A.10 and Ex.R.1 are concerned they are inadmissible in evidence as the parties did not examine vendor or vendee to prove the authenticity and genuineness of the transactions as per the law enunciated by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the cases 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. Resultantly, I also hold that these saledeeds have rightly not been relied upon by the learned Court.

Ex.A.5 relates to the notification dated 4.2.1981 which is nearly 7 years prior to the date of acquisition in the present case and as such was rightly rejected by the reference Court. Ex.A.7 relates to the land in another State though adjoining, but cannot be said to be a comparable judicial instance. The learned Additional District Judge held as under :

"Counsel has also referred to the site plan Ex.A3 which shows that village Nizampur Kumbra is situated adjacent to the village Burail and village Kajheri. This fact is also not disputed by the Government Pleader. Thus, the award Ex.A.12 rendered by me on 2.9.1997 can be made the basis of fixing the market value. However, I do not agree with the counsel for the petitioner that since the present land was sought to be acquired after 20 days even higher amount of the market value is to be fixed."

As is clear from the aforementioned findings, the learned Additional District Judge had relied upon an award dated 2.9.1997 passed in relation to the acquisition of the land from the revenue estate to the acquisition of the land from the revenue estate of village Kajheri which is adjacent as per Annexure A.3 (site plan). Applying certain guess work the learned Judge granted the aforenoted compensation to the claimants. Ex.A.12 has been subject matter of an appeal before this Court in the case of Bhajan Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, RFA No. 2511 of 1997, decided on 29.7.1999. The High Court enhanced the compensation from Rs, 3,87,200/ to Rs. 4,35,600/ per acre. The land was acquired in that case vide notification under Section 4 of the Act on 8.7.1988 from the revenue estate of village Kajheri. In addition to other documentary and oral evidence produced by the claimants, they had relied upon the letters Ex.A.4 and Ex.A.5 of the Government itself vide which undeveloped land was given to the Societies at the rate of Rs. 500/ to Rs. 750/ per square yard. The Court after considering the sale instances and other awards which had been produced on record as admissible evidence had awarded the said compensation to the claimants in that case.

Ex.A.3 is the map, details of which have already been discussed above but it needs to be reiterated that the present land was acquired for development of Sector51 and has a common boundary with the revenue estate of village Kajheri and is abutting the national highway. The claimants have in their oral evidence also stated that surrounding areas are developed. Award Ex.A.6 itself points out lacuna in the award given by the Collector in the present case. Vide Award Ex.A.6 the lands in village Nizampur Kumbra itself were acquired on 8.7.1988 and the Land Acquisition Collector had awarded compensation of land Rs. 90,000/ while in the present case the lands were acquired just few days later i.e. 29.7.1988, but the Land Acquisition Collector has awarded Rs. 74,000/ per acre to the claimants. This by no standards can be considered to be a reasonable and fair compensation payable to the claimants.

For the reasons aforeindicated, sale deeds and some of the awards like, Ex.A.5, Ex.A.6 and Ex.A.7 cannot be considered as admissible evidence to determine the fair and just market value of the land in question. In view of the detailed evidence referred in Ex.A.12 which is the land from the adjacent village. I do not see any error of jurisdiction in the judgment of the learned trial Court in relying upon that judgment. As compensation of Ex.A.12 itself has been enhanced by the High Court, it is but necessary that the compensation payable to the claimants also needs to be enhanced. On the basis of Ex.A.4 it has to be stated that the land of village Kajheri is more towards the developed part of Chandigarh, while the land of village Nizampur Kumbra is little away though has a common revenue boundary.

The learned counsel for the claimants heavily relied upon a judgment of Letters Patent Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 1207 of 1981, titled Jaswant Singh v. Union of India, decided on 22.9.1982. In this case the lands were acquired in different villages like Maloya, Dadu Majra and Nizampur Burail etc. All these lands are adjacent and are in close promimity to each other and uniform rate of compensation for all these lands was held to be a proper course by the Letters Patent Bench. The Court held as under :

"Since the land covered by separate acquisitions lies in close proximately to each other, therefore, we do not consider that different rates of compensation can be awarded i.e. Rs. 40,000/ per acre for some land, Rs. 51,000/ per acre for some other and Rs. 62,000/ per acre for the rest. The leanred counsel for Chandigarh Administration has wholly failed to convince us that such varied rates of compensation can be awarded in these appeals. That is why we have awarded uniform rate of compensation to all the claimants in these appeals."

Despite the above the land of village Kajheri is better located than the land of village Nizampur Kumbra. It is to be noticed that lands in the present case have been acquired in the year 1988 by which time the Chandigarh City had considerably developed. The claimants would be entitled to the compensation keeping in view the increasing trend of the land prices and primarily for the reasons that they have placed on record evidence showing definite increase in the price of the land and the amount of compensation paid to various land owners during this long period. The Court has to consider and decide each case on its own merits. The evidence prodcued on record has to be considered on its own merits and the mere fact that there has been an earlier award where no evidence was produced or no evidence of that kind was produced would not divest the claimants from receiving higher amount of compensation. AW2, the witness of the claimants himself, stated that the entire acquired land was not falling on any particular highway. He also stated that the acquired land fails in front of Sectors 44 and 45.

Another fact which the Court has to keep into consideration is that Harchal Singh claimant had also been given a plot of 5 marlas at concessional rates by the Government under the schemes of the Government that the persons whose land was acquired beyond a particular limit would be entitled to a plot as well. As such the increase to which Harchal Singh would be entitled, would still further be affected by this fact.

Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances and the fact that this Court would have to apply a reasonable and permissible guess work, I am of the considered view that the claimants should be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,90,000/ per acre. Accordingly, the claimants would be entiteld to enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,800/ (Rs. 2,90,000/ ?) per acre with all statutory benefits available to them under the provisions of Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. To that extent the appeal of Harchal Singh shall be partly allowed and that of Union of India, shall stand dismissed without any orders as to costs.

Chhajja Singh''s case :

Coming to the case of Chhajja Singh and 10 other appeals and cross objections the basic facts are identical to that of Harchal Singh''s case. In this case the claimants had examined only one witness Mohinder Singh and had produced on record awards/judgments Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4. The respondents also produced no evidence. The learned Additional District Judge while relyihg upon Ex.A.3 (Harchal Singh v. Union of India), above referred case, granted the same compensation to the claimants as given in the case of Harchal Singh.

The sole evidence being Ex.A.3 which has already been dealt with by this Court above, the claimants in the present appeal would also be entitled to enhancement similar or even still more compensation than that awarded in Harchal Singh''s case. However, all these claimants were not granted any plots and the Union of India has led no evidence to prove this fact. In fact the learned counsel for the claimants even stated before the Court while arguing the above appeals that no plots were given to the claimants. Looking into the merits of the claim petitions from this angle the claimants in the present case should be entitled to little higher compensation than the one awarded to the claimant Harchal Singh.

Resultantly, all the four appeals filed by the claimants and one cross objection are partly allowed. Claimants would get Rs. 3,95,000/ per acre and will also be entitled to the statutory benefits available to them under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act, but without any order as to costs. However, six appeals filed by the Union of India (Union Territory, Chandigarh) shall stand dismissed.

Appeals partly allowed.