Union Territory vs Prabhjot Singh

Rajesh Bindal, J.—This order will dispose of a bunch of 261 appeals, as common questions of law and facts are involved.

R.F.A. Nos. 1525, 1526, 1627, 1639, 1702 to 1712, 1721, 1737 to 1739, 1793 to 1814, 2005, 2037, 2038, 2073, 2116, 2208, 2212, 2214 to 2218, 2251 to 2261, 2286, 2287, 2471 to 2473, 2510, 2511, 2796 of 2005, 2272 to 2275, 2298 to 2402, 2415, 2632, 3241, 4355, 4447, 4465 of 2006, 2294 to 2307, 2405, 2406, 3909, 4534, 4535 of 2007, 312 to 355, 404, 709, 710, 2009 of 2008 have been filed by the land owners seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land.

R.F.A. Nos. 2632 to 2693 of 2005, 4058 to 4068, 4704 to 4706 of 2006, 1058, 1523 to 1526, 2001 to 2014, 2247 to 2249, 2265, 2266, 2555 to 2557, 2821, 2839, 3187 of 2007 and 3556 of 2008 have been filed by Union Territory, Chandigarh seeking reduction of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned court below.

In R.F.A. No. 2684 of 2005 the land owners have filed cross objections seeking further enhancement of compensation.

The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 2632 of 2005.

Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 14.61 acres, situated in village Lahore, U.T., Chandigarh was acquired vide notification dated 23.12.1999 issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ''the Act'') for setting up Chandigarh Botanical Garden. The same was followed by notification dated 14.3.2000, issued u/s 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, ''the Collector'') gave award of Rs. 5,43,636/- per acre. Aggrieved against the same, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 15,50,000/- per acre.

Vide another notification dated 1.1.2001, issued u/s 4 of the Act, land measuring 184.88 acres, situated in village Sarangpur, U.T., Chandigarh was acquired for development of complex for important projects in village Sarangpur, U.T., Chandigarh. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, ''the Collector'') gave award of Rs. 9,70,890/- per acre for all kinds of land except Gair Mumkin Nadi, Nala, River Bed, Choe and Khadaan etc. Aggrieved against the same, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 17,20,500/- per acre.

The learned Reference Court firstly assessed the compensation for the land aquired vide notification dated 1.1.2001 and on the basis thereof, for the acquisition, which was carried out vide notification dated 23.12.1999, a cut of 12% was made, considering the time gap in the notifications for the reason that both the chunks of land were located close to each other in the same area.

Considering the aforesaid facts, learned Counsel for the land owners also addressed arguments in the appeals relating to acquisition vide notification dated 1.1.2001. Site plan on record was referred to show the location of the land, which is located on the road leading from PGI/University towards Mullanpur. The land was acquired for the purpose of development of complex for important projects in village Sarangpur, U.T., Chandigarh. Reference was made to two sale deeds (Ex.P23 and Ex. P24) to submit that assessment of the value of the land by the learned court below is not in consonance thereof. The learned court below should have relied upon the sale deeds pertaining to the land in the area in preference to the award relied upon. If the value of the land shown in the sale deeds is considered, the value, as assessed by the learned court below, certainly deserves enhancement for the reason that the area dealt with therein was not small as it was 3 kanals in sale deed (Ex.P23) and 4 kanals and 7 marlas in sale deed (Ex. P24). Both the chunks of land were not located on the road. It was further submitted that the land being part of an area, which is regulated with regard to construction activity under law, no cut was required to be applied on the value shown in the sale deeds. Reliance was placed upon Khushi Ram and Anr. v. The State of Haryana through Secretary to Govt. Haryana, Industries Department and Anr. 1988 L.A.C.C. 653; Aruna Trust, Madhuban, Karnal through Smt. Shiela Kapur v. State of Haryana through Collector Karnal and Anr. (1989)96 P.L.R. 353 and Harbans Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab through the Land Acquisition Collector, Patiala 2006(3) All ILLR 274.

Without prejudice to the submissions made above, it was submitted that even if the value of the land, as assessed by the learned court below on the basis of the earlier award, as has been relied upon is found to be correct, the land owners are entitled to further enhancement for the reason that this Court against the award, which has been relied upon, had further enhanced the compensation from Rs. 13,44,000/- per acre to Rs. 17,32,000/- per acre vide judgment dated 10.2.2009 in R.F.A. No. 3921 of 2007 Arunash Chander Kaushik and Ors. v. Union Territory, Chandigarh It was further submitted that in the aforesaid judgment, the land was acquired in 1998. Considering the fact that acquisition in the present case was later in time, the land owners should be granted increase for the time gap.

It was further submitted that almost the entire land in Chandigarh had already been developed after acquisition and this was the only area which was left out. The acquisition for the purpose of development in this area started with the issuance of notification dated 23.12.1999 and thereafter, number of notifications were issued acquiring the land for various important projects, such as film city, education city etc. The land had great potential, considering the strategic location of the city and the kind of infrastructure being created. Even for the purpose of tourism also, the same is on world map.

In fact, the Administration is not dealing with the land owners fairly. The land is acquired after paying very small amount of compensation which is transferred to other authorities/persons at exhorbitant prices without even development. The object of the Land Acquisition Act or any authority acquiring land therein in a welfare State is not to make profit out of acquisition of land. In the periphery of Chandigarh, because of restriction imposed in view of the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952, no construction activity is permissible, which has the result of pegging down the prices, as the land owners do not get the price, as it would have fetched if the construction activity is permitted thereon, as merely for agricultural land, the price, which a land having urban potential can fetch, is never paid. It was further submitted that the value of the land in the area, which falls in Punjab, adjoining Union Territory, Chandigarh, where there is no such restriction of construction, the value was much more than what has been assessed by the learned court below, though it is at more distance from Chandigarh as compared to the acquired land.

Additional argument was raised in the cases pertaining to the acquisition vide notification dated 23.12.1999 to submit that the learned court below had failed to consider sale deed (Ex.P12), which was registered after the judgment and decree of the court enforcing an agreement to sell entered into between the parties much prior to the date of acquisition. It was for a plot of 1-1/2 marlas of land situated in village Lahora sold for a consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The average value thereof comes out to Rs. 2,13,00,000/- per acre. The acquired land was merely one furlong from there. Even if a cut of 30% is applied, the value of the acquired land would come out much more than what has been assessed Reliance was also placed on agreement to sell dated 19.3.1999 (Ex.P25), whereby 1-1/2 marlas of land was agreed to be sold for a total consideration of Rs. 3,50,000/- and earnest money of Rs. 1,25,000/- was paid. Still further, it was submitted that even if the award pertaining to acquisition of land vide notification dated 1.1.2001 is relied upon for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the land acquired vide notification dated 23.12.1999, the cut should not be more than 10% as against 12% applied by the learned court below.

In addition to this, learned Counsel also claimed damages on account of severance stating that with the acquisition of front portion of land along with the passage connecting the land with the road, the rear portion which was left out of acquisition had become totally useless and unapproachable on account of which the land owners suffered damages for which they deserve to be compensated. The claim of damages to the extent of 50% of the value of the land was made for the land which remained unacquired and became useless. Reliance was placed upon Punjab State through Acquisition Collector v. Gurcharan Singh 1989 L.A.C.C. 243 and Smt. Bindu Garg v. State of Haryana 1999(1) L.A.C.C. 487.

In response to the contentions raised by learned Counsel for the land owners, learned Counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh submitted that the land pertaining to the sale deeds, which are sought to be relied upon by the land owners, have not been located on any site plan produced on record. The aks shijra, which has been produced at the time of arguments to show location of the land pertaining to the sale deeds, keeping in view the khasra numbers dealt with therein, should not be relied upon as sale deed (Ex.P24) was registered after the acquisition of land in the year 1999, while sale deed (Ex.P23) was registered just few days prior thereto. The same was registered just with a view to jack up the prices to claim higher compensation. The learned court below had not committed any illegality in not placing reliance upon the aforesaid sale deeds.

Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, it was submitted that even if those sale deeds are relied upon, considering the fact that the acquisition was for large chunk of land, a reasonable cut was required to be applied as the area was totally undeveloped and was being put to agriculture use only at the time of acquisition. Reliance was placed upon The Land Acquisition Officer, Kammarapally Village, Nizamabad District, Andhra Pradesh Vs. Nookala Rajamallu and Others, . It was further submitted that reliance on the award pertaining to the acquisition of land for third phase of Chandigarh was also totally misplaced for the reason of non-comparability of both the chunks of land with regard to their location. The submission is that as the Collector was quite generous in awarding compensation to the land owners in the present case, in the absence of any evidence which could enable the court to hold that the same was not fair, the same deserved to be upheld. It was further submitted that for the area which was forming part of Khadan, the Collector had given separate award, but the learned court below had assessed the entire land at the same rate without there being any evidence on record to show that the finding recorded by the Collector to that effect was not correct.

Regarding damages on account of severance, it was submitted that positive evidence was required to be led by the land owners to claim that left out portion of the land had become totally useless, inaccessible and uncultivable, only then any damages on account of severance could be granted. In fact, the balance portion of the acquired land was also acquired vide subsequent notification issued in the year 2004 and accordingly, the land owners have not suffered as such.

No contention was raised with regard to the super structure and trees existing on the acquired land by either of the parties.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

A perusal of site plan (Ex.P5) on record shows the total area of Chandigarh Urban Complex. It shows the already urbanised area and the area which has not yet been developed. A perusal of the site plan shows that there is no scope for expansion beyond Sector 1, where capital complex is situated. Towards Mohali, the entire area has already been acquired and developed as third phase of Chandigarh. Towards Panchkula also, the entire area stands already acquired and developed into residential and commercial. Some small area is available on the road leading from Chandigarh to Ambala, though not located on the main road as such as on die main road, there are Airport, Air Force and Paramilitary Forces establishments. It is only the area towards the side where the present land has been acquired that large chunk of land is still available for development. Keeping an eye thereon, the acquisition started in this area for the purpose of commercial exploitation with the issuance of notification dated 23.12.1999, which is first in the series and followed by various subsequent notifications. Prior to that, there were some small acquisitions for use of paramilitary forces in villages Dadu Majra and Dhanas in the year 1992 and in village Sarangpur in the year 1989.

The fact that no construction activity can be carried out in Chandigarh urban controlled area on account of restrictions imposed under the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952 is not disputed. Meaning thereby that any body who buys land in the periphery has to use the same only for the purpose of agriculture, though it may have commercial potential, but that can be exploited by the Administration after the acquisition of land and the same is being done. This is the beginning of acquisition of land in this area. The value which will be determined for the land acquired in the present set of cases will certainly be a guiding factor for any future acquisition in the area.

What has been found on a perusal of the evidence on record, as has been referred to at the time of arguments is that only two sale deeds were produced. The same were not located on any of the site plans produced on record. Reliance was sought to be placed upon another sale deed for a land measuring 1-1/2 marlas which, according to the learned Counsel for the land owners, was executed in terms of a decree passed in favour of the vendee therein on the basis of an agreement to sell, which was executed much prior to the acquisition of land, but judgment and decree was not produced on record. Further, though at the time of arguments it was stated that value of the land in the neighbouring area forming part of the State of Punjab was fetching much more value at that time, as compared to the value as assessed by the learned court below considering the fact that there was no restriction of construction activity, but no evidence was produced on record to substantiate the plea.

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, it is a fit case to set aside the impugned award passed by the learned court below and refer the matter back for fresh consideration by granting opportunity to both the parties to produce further evidence, if they so desire so that none of the parties suffer on account of any lapse committed earlier by not producing the evidence on record which though is stated to be relevant at the time of arguments. It, is also for the reason that the land owners are being deprived of their land holdings and source of livelihood, for which they deserve to be compensated adequately keeping in view shooting land prices. Ordered accordingly.

Parties through their counsels are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Chandigarh on 16.5.2009 for further proceedings. The learned District Judge may either keep the references with him or entrust the same to any other Additional District Judge. It is further directed that the amount of compensation already paid to the land owners in terms of the impugned award shall not be recovered back from them. However, the same shall abide by any final order passed by the learned Reference Court afresh.

The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above.