CWP No. 2719 of 1989 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 2719 of 1989 Date of decision: 03.2.2009 Sham Lal ...Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Palika Monga, AAG, Haryana. -.- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,J. (Oral) 1. This petition seeks quashing of award dated October 10, 1988 rendered by the Land Acquisition Tribunal under the provisions of Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (for short `the Act'). 2. Case as set out in the petition is that land of the petitioner was acquired in pursuance of notification dated 3.11.1971 under Section 36 of the Act. The Collector vide award dated 3.5.1972 determined market value of the land at Rs.3.10 paise per square yard. On reference, the Tribunal enhanced the same to Rs.20/- per square yard alongwith statutory benefits. The land owners relied upon four instances of sale Exhibit P1 to P4. The said instances have been duly discussed by the Tribunal. It was observed that Exhibit P3 was a transaction of small piece of land for commercial purposes, Exhibit P2 related to sale in an open auction, Exhibit P1 was also a very small piece of land while Exhibit P4 was after the resolution dated 27.7.1970 passed by the Improvement Trust for acquisition and thus all the CWP No. 2719 of 1989 2 four transactions could not be taken to be safe guide for determining the market value. However, it was observed that in view of compensation determined for Scheme No.5 for which acquisition was at the same time and the acquired land adjoined the land of Scheme No.5, compensation was awarded at the rate of 20/- per square yard. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the evidence led by the petitioner related to small piece of the land, the price indicated by the said instances should have been made the basis for determining the compensation. Rejection of the said evidence by the Tribunal was arbitrary. 5. We find that the Tribunal has discussed the entire evidence and instances relied upon by the petitioner have not been found to be a safe guide for determining the compensation. Apart from the said instances, there is no other acceptable evidence led on behalf of the petitioner. In writ jurisdiction, finding of the fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot to be set aside unless the same is shown to be perverse. 6. It will be appropriate to refer to the findings of the Tribunal extracted below:- “15. Besides oral evidence, the petitioner have also relied upon few instances based on the documentary evidence. They depict the following position:- Sr.No. Exhibit Area sold Date of sale Amount 1. P.1 36 -2/3 8.12.69 Rs.1500/- 2. P.2 40 sq. yards. 18.11.70 2000/- 3. P.3 22 sq. yards. 17.8.70 2000/- 4. P.4 250 sq. yards 6.10.70 10000/- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- The aforesaid chart will show that in all the four cases the area CWP No. 2719 of 1989 3 sold is quite small as compared to the acquired land measuring 18 acres and, therefore, these instances by themselves cannot form basis for computing the market value in this case. Apart from that, the small area purchased by itself suggests that it was for a specific purpose. It is admitted by Prabhu PW.2 that he purchased the plot in the name of his wife for commercial purposes vide sale deed Ex.P.3. Again the transaction in Ex.P.2 was by way of open auction. The sale covered by sale deed Ex.P.1 is also of a very small piece of land. 16. On behalf of the petitioners much emphasise was laid on the sale deed Ex.P.2 vide which part of the land of khasra no. 175/32 which was also acquired was sold and it was stated that it is the most important instance to be relied upon by the court in assessing the market value in this case. According to this connection, the value of the land comes to Rs. 40/- per sq. yard. 17. I am not inclined to accept this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners for one thing that it a sale of very small piece of land and secondly to acquire the land in question vide resolution dated 27.7.70. Though the relevant resolution is not on the file but I have been shown a gazetted notification which was issued relating to the acquired land and the reference of the said resolution finds mention in it. It cannot be disputed that the court can take judicial notice of the notifications. After the resolution by the Improvement Trust, it became known to the public that the land was being acquired and, therefore, the sale after the said resolution cannot be taken as a safe criteria for fixing the market value. 18. Apart from the aforesaid instances, the petition have also relied upon for judgment arising out of the acquisition proceedings. The first judgments are Ex.P.14 and P.16 vide which the market value of the acquired land was fixed at Rs.100/- per sq.yard. It is a case relating to the acquisition of 3 kanals of land and the relevant notification was dated 9.6.76. The second judgment is Ex.P.17 vide which land measuring 200 sq. yards was acquired for scheme no. 19 and the market CWP No. 2719 of 1989 4 value was fixed at Rs.40/- per sq. yard. Again in this case the relevant notification was dated 7.9.76. As pointed out earlier the notification under the Act in this case is dated 3.11.71. This would mean that the land acquired vide aforesaid instances is almost five years later. It cannot be denied that after the year 1975 there has been lot of development around the acquired land and, therefore, the land in the vicinity gained more value. Therefore, the value so gained by the land which is the subject matter of the aforesaid judgments can by no process of reasoning be made the basis of determining the market value of the acquired land. So these judgments also cannot help the petitioners in any manner. 19. It has come in evidence that the land covered by scheme no. 5 and the acquired land which is for scheme no. 6 are adjoining to each other and are situated in between Jind- Safidon road and Jind Gohana road. The land for scheme no.5 was also acquired for residential purposes which also happened to be agricultural land at that time notification under section 36 of the Act. It was conceded on behalf of both the sides (though there is no judgment of the land relating to scheme no.5) that the compensation of the land acquired for scheme no.5 was assessed at Rs.20/- per sq. yard. The nature and situation of the acquired land being identical to the land acquired for scheme no.5, I see no reason why the compensation of Rs.20/- per sq. yard should not be allowed for the acquired land. So far as the evidence oral and documentary relied upon on behalf of the Improvement Trust is almost meaningless for the present controversy because document Ex.R.1 representing the average of five years' sale covering all kinds of land, therefore, is hardly a document to be of any help. Thus, I assess the market value of the acquired land at Rs.20/- per square yard. 7. In our view, the finding recorded by the Tribunal cannot held to be perverse and thus, calls for no interference by this Court in exercise of CWP No. 2719 of 1989 5 the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. We find that the Tribunal has awarded additional compensation at the rate of 12% per annum under Section 23(1-A) of the Act, 1894 as amended in the year 1984 which is not permissible in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S.Paripooranan v. State of Kerala, AIR 1995 SC 1012 which the petitioner is not entitled to. However, if the same has already been paid, we direct that no proceedings for recovery be taken having regard to the fact that the Trust is not shown to have challenged this part of the award and long period has lapsed since the award was made. 8. The petition is accordingly dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE 3.2.2009 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE