R.F.A. No. 2474 of 2000 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 2474 of 2000 (O&M) Date of decision: April 08,2011 Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. .. Appellant v. Jagjit Singh and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Argued by: Mr. M. L. Sarin & Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocates with Ms. Alka Sarin, Mr. Hemant Sarin, Mr. Amit Jain, Mr. Binderjit Singh, Mr. Deepak Sibal, Mr. Padam Kumar Jain, Mr. Ashok Jindal, Mr. R. S. Bains, Ms. J. J. Kaur, Mr. Buta Singh Bairagi, Mr. D. D. Bansal and Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocates for the land owners. Mr. Navdeep Singh, Mr. Govind Goel, Mr. R. N. Raina, Mr. Ankit Goel, Mr. Indresh Goel, Advocates for PSIEC. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Advocate for the applicant in CM No. 12386-CI of 2010 in RFA No. 2334 of 2004. Rajesh Bindal J. 1. This order shall dispose of R.F.A. No. 2474 of 2000, R.F.A. Nos. 4481, 5057 to 5059, 5418 to 5430, 5443 to 5458, 5464 to 5469, 5471 to 5473, 5477, 5482, 5558 and 5559 of 2001, 174 to 190, 204, 353 to 355, 712 to 724, 726, 727, 733, 735 to 744, 746 to 749, 759, 760, 837, 847 to 851, 1208 to 1211, 2541, 2563 to 2568, 2856 to 2861, 3284, 3285 of 2002; R.F.A. No. 2474 of 2000 [2] R.F.A. Nos. 1121 to 1126, 1475, 1476, 1629 to 1651, 1674, 1770 to 1779, 1968, 2191, 2192, 2350, 2557, 2751, 2752, 2795 to 2801, 2897, 3015, 3106 and 3204 of 2003 and R.F.A. Nos. 1956 and 2334 of 2004, as common questions of law and facts are involved. 2. In the appeals filed by the land owners, they are seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land, whereas in the appeals filed by the Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation (for short, `the Corporation'), the prayer is for reduction thereof. FACTS 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 6.4.1992, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act’), the State of Punjab sought to acquire the land situated in villages Jassi Pau Wali, Haji Rattan, Patti Mehna and Patti Jhuti, District Bhatinda for setting up of Growth Centre at Bhatinda. The same was followed by notification dated 8.4.1992, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector’), vide award dated 3.6.1994, assessed the market value of the acquired land pertaining to village Jassi Pau Wali as under: Nehri ` 2,04,000/- per acre Chahi ` 51,000/- per acre Barani ` 80,000/- per acre Gair Mumkin ` 1,80,000/- per acre Dissatisfied with the awards of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 4,50,000/- per acre for the land falling upto the depth of 250 meters on Bhantinda- Mansa road and ` 3,30,000/- per acre for rest of the land. 4. For the land pertaining to village Pati Haji Rattan, the Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land as under: Nehri ` 3,00,000/- per acre Chahi ` 3,00,000/- per acre Barani ` 1,00,000/- per acre R.F.A. No. 2474 of 2000 [3] Gair Mumkin ` 4,50,000/- per acre 5. For the land pertaining to village Patti Mehna, the Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land pertaining to village Patti Mehna as under: Chahi ` 59,000/- per acre Nehri ` 3,00,000/- per acre Barani ` 1,00,000/- per acre Gair Mumkin ` 4,50,000/- per acre Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector of villages Patti Haji Rattan and Pati Mehna, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 4,90,000/- per acre. 6. In R.F.A. No. 3204 of 2003 (LAC No. 8 of 1997) pertaining to village Jassi Pau Wali, khasra numbers of the land owners were not included in the notification and therefore, notice under Section 9 of the Act was not issued to them. The Corporation issued a corrigendum on 15.12.1993 for including the land of the land owners. They filed C.W.P. No. 4030 of 1994 challenging the said corrigendum, which was decided on 18.4.1995. In the said writ petition, this court with the consent of the parties ordered that for the petitioners therein, 18.4.1995 shall be taken as the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. In view of that order, the learned court below assessed the value of the land in that case @ ` 7,38,729/- per acre. 7. In R.F.A. No. 2334 of 2004-- Ramesh Dutt v. State of Punjab and others, the learned court below awarded ` 1,37,38,685/- to the appellant on account of loss of income for each block of 2-1/2 years with increase @ 20% for every subsequent block; ` 32,68,000/- for construction plus 5% for electricity fittings and ` 33,500/- regarding trees standing on the acquired land. Arguments of the land owners 8. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the court below has failed to appreciate that the land was strategically located. The R.F.A. No. 2474 of 2000 [4] area pertaining to the revenue estates of villages Haji Rattan, Patti Mehna and Patti Jhutti was forming part of the municipal limits of Bhatinda. Later on, area pertaining to revenue estate of village Jassi Pauwali was also added in the municipal limits in the year 1994. The land was abutting Bhatinda-Mansa road. Even as per site plan produced on record by the State, there were number of industrial units already located close to the acquired land and some of them had not been acquired. A poultry farm was also existing in the area which was acquired. 9. Site plan (Ex. A2) has been produced on record by the land owners in LAC No. 62 of 1997 which clearly shows as to how the area had been developed where the people had set up their small scale units or commercial establishments. In fact, the entire land had the potential for being used for industrial and commercial purposes. It is for this reason only that the State also thought of acquiring this land for industrial purposes. Considering the aforesaid facts, the findings recorded by the learned court below awarding three different rates for the acquired land deserves to be set aside and the entire chunk, which is a single block, should be assessed at one rate. None of the sale deeds produced by the State was relevant considering the fact that either those were merely photo copies of the sale deeds or the location thereof had not been pointed out on any of the site plan produced on record by the State. 10. In addition to the aforesaid general contentions raised by learned counsel for the land owners, Mr. Arun Jain, senior counsel for the land owners submitted that sale deed (Ex.A1 in LAC No. 82 of 1997) produced on record by the land owners herein was forming part of acquired land. Vide this sale deed, land measuring 1 Bigha and 5 Biswas of revenue estate of village Patti Mehna was sold on 7.11.1990 for ` 1,20,000/-. The aforesaid sale deed has been totally ignored by the learned court below while assessing the amount of compensation for the acquired land. 11. Vide Ex. A3 dated 28.1.1994 (LAC No. 82 of 1997), a big chunk of land was allotted to the Punjab State Warehousing Corporation @ ` 7,26,000/- per acre. This portion of land is adjoining to the acquired R.F.A. No. 2474 of 2000 [5] land. There are allotment letters pertaining to plots in Housefed Colony ( Ex. A29 to Ex. A31), where the consideration paid was ` 230/- per square yard. The location of these plots had not been pointed out on any of the site plan on record. He further submitted that the land of this village is closer to the city as compared to the land of other villages. He further referred to the award of the Improvement Trust pertaining to land of Bhatinda city where ` 20,00,000/- per acre has been awarded as compensation. The valuation of the aforesaid acquisition of land by the Improvement Trust, had been upheld by this court in C.W.P. No. 3618 of 2003—Improvement Trust, Bhatinda v. Harjoginder Singh and others, decided on 3.3.2009. The location even of this land was not referred to on any of the site plan. Summing up his arguments, he submitted that in any case the land owners are entitled to compensation for the acquired land at the same rate as has been awarded by the learned court below to the land owners in RFA No. 2334 of 2004 as the entire land is one big block. 12. Mr. Padam Jain, learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the acquired land in the present case deserves to be assessed @ ` 420/- per square yard. This is the rate at which allotment was made by Housefed of the plots situated in the vicinity. However, he could not refer from any site plan on record the location of the area where the plots were allotted by the Housefed. 13. Mr. Binderjit Singh, learned counsel for the land owners submitted that value of the land of all the four villages which was acquired at the same time for the same purpose should be assessed at the same rate. Some part of the land which was pertaining to revenue estate of Bhatinda, the rates which were awarded for the land of revenue estate of village Jassi Pauwali were given, which is anomalous. 14. Mr. Deepak Sibal, learned counsel for the land owners submitted that when the land had great potential for industrial and commercial purposes, it should not be assessed as agricultural. Without applying any belting method, the amount of compensation for the entire chunk of land should be assessed at the same rate. He submitted that for khasra no. 1096/3, ` 5,15,000/- per acre were awarded as compensation. R.F.A. No. 2474 of 2000 [6] The same should be the value of the entire chunk of land as location of the land of this khasra number is far off from the main road. 15. Mr. R. S. Bains, learned counsel for the land owners in one of the appeal submitted that in addition to the acquisition of land, tubewell, rooms and other construction were existing, for which no compensation was awarded by the Collector. The land owners had produced in evidence the opinion of the expert stating therein that value thereof was ` 50,000/-. The same was not rebutted, still the learned court below merely awarded ` 25,000/- as compensation on that account, which deserves to be enhanced. 16. In RFA No. 3204 of 2003, Mr. D. D. Bansal, learned counsel for the land owners submitted that notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 6.4.1992. The acquisition was challenged by the appellants herein by filing CWP No. 4030 of 1994. The matter in dispute was compromised before this court. It was agreed that in the case of the appellant, the relevant date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and for determination of compensation shall be taken as 18.4.1995. He further submitted that the evidence in the form of sale deeds (Ex. A1 to Ex. A3) (LAC No. 8 of 1997) produced by the land owners on record has totally been ignored and the amount of compensation has been determined by the learned court below merely on the basis of letter of the Deputy Commissioner providing for Collector rates. In fact, the acquired land was forming part of the Municipal limits of Bhatinda as vide notification dated 28.11.1994, the municipal limits were extended. It is evident from document (Ex. A8). The land pertaining to sale deeds (Ex. A1 to Ex. A3) was in fact low lying. This is evident from Ex. A4 to Ex. A7. Considering the aforesaid facts, the land owners in the present case are entitled to be awarded compensation even more than that rate. Arguments of the Corporation 17. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the land on the date of acquisition was being put to agriculture use only. If the location thereof is considered from the site plan produced on record in court today, it is evident that it had access of merely 1,800 feet on Bhatinda-Mansa road. Rest of the land was located behind R.F.A. No. 2474 of 2000 [7] that. On one side was the Railway line. The land owners merely produced on record sale instances which either deserved to be ignored or a reasonable cut was required to be applied therein while assessing the value of the acquired land. There is no reason forthcoming in all the awards passed by the learned court below as to why the land has been assessed at three different rates, namely, ` 3,30,000/- per acre pertaining to the land of village Jassi Pauwali; for a portion of the land abutting the road, the same has been assessed at ` 4,50,000/- per acre; the land pertaining to village Patti Mehna has been assessed @ ` 4,90,000/- per acre, without there being any basis. In fact, there was a oil depot and ammunition dump quite close to the acquired land, on account of which the area could not be used for residential purposes. The aforesaid fact has been totally ignored by the learned court below. He further submitted that the sale deeds produced on record by the State have been totally ignored which clearly established that the award of the Collector was more than sufficient as far as valuation of the land is concerned and the same did not call for any interference whatsoever. However, no site plan was referred to at the time of hearing to show the location. 18. Further submission was that the rate at which the land was allotted to Punjab Warehousing Corporation on 21.8.1994 could not possibly be made the basis for assessment of compensation for the reason that this was done about two years after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. During the intervening period, the area had already been developed. It was further submitted that the learned court below merely reduced 30% solatium and the statutory interest therefrom. It lost sight of the fact that allotment being two years after the acquisition, even for this period the money of the State remained blocked. Even thereafter, the amount was paid by the Punjab Warehousing Corporation in instalments. This piece of land had infrastructural facilities. The land in question was in fact located in outer skirts of the city beyond the Railway Line where there was no development activity as such when notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued. R.F.A. No. 2474 of 2000 [8] 19. While replying to the contentions raised by Mr. D. D. Bansal, Advocate pertaining to RFA No.3204 of 2003 and also in the cross appeal bearing RFA No. 2897 of 2003, it was submitted that the rates for valuation of land as furnished by the Deputy Commissioner were not conclusive and should not have been relied upon by the learned court below for the purpose of assessment of compensation. Same is the position with regard to allotment of land to the Punjab Warehousing Corporation, as it was a developed piece of land sold two years after the acquisition. In the absence thereof, there is no material to justify the award of higher rate of compensation to the land owners in the aforesaid case. After the development, the plotable area is not more than 60%, as substantial area is required to be left out for providing infrastructural facilities and substantial amount is also required to be spent thereon. Discussion 20. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. 21. A perusal of the record shows that the land pertaining to four villages, namely, Jassi Pauwali, Haji Ratan, Patti Mehna and Patti Jhutti in a compact block, was acquired. The learned court below assessed the compensation for the land pertaining to revenue estate of village Jassi Pauwali @ ` 4,50,000/- per acre for the land within 250 meters from the main road and for rest of the land @ ` 3,30,000/- per acre. The first award of the learned court below dated 28.4.2000 pertaining to land of revenue estate of village Jassi Pauwalia is subject matter of appeal by the land owners in RFA No. 4481 of 2001 and the Corporation in RFA No. 2474 of 2000. This award, which was referred to and relied upon by the learned court below while assessing compensation in rest of the cases pertaining to the land of village Jassi Pauwali. As far as the land of revenue estate of Patti Mehna is concerned, the learned court below independently determined the same @ ` 4,90,000/- per acre. 22. In the case of Jassi Pauwali, the land owners relied upon sale deed dated 21.8.1991 (Ex. A1 in LAC No. 4 of 1997) pertaining to five kanals of land sold for a sum of ` 31,500/-. However, it was claimed that R.F.A. No. 2474 of 2000 [9] the aforesaid sale deed was impounded by the Collector on account of under valuation vide order dated 24.12.1992 (Ex. A2). Its value was assessed @ ` 3,00,000/- per acre and the deficiency in stamp duty was recovered from the vendee therein. In addition to that, reference was made to sale deed dated 11.2.1991 (Ex. A4) pertaining to land measuring 12 Marlas for ` 55,000/- sold at an average price of ` 7,00,000/- per acre and sale deed dated 18.4.1991 (Ex.A5) pertaining to 2 kanals and 10 marlas of land sold for ` 1,40,000/- at an average price of ` 5,00,000/- per acre. It has further been noticed that the land pertaining to the aforesaid sale deeds was far away from the acquired land beyond the city if we proceed from Bhatinda city towards the land, though it has not been shown on any site plan produced on record by the land owners. The evidence of AW11-Jagjit Singh Mann on that account remained unrebutted. 23. The learned court below in that case placed reliance upon the rates assessed by the Collector vide (Ex. A2) and adding 10% thereon for the time gap from the registration of sale deed till the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, assessed the compensation @ ` 3,30,000/- per acre. It was pertaining to the land which was not located on the road. However, while determining the compensation in other bunch of cases where the land pertaining to revenue estate of village Jassi Pauwalia, which was located on Bhatinda-Mansa road, upto a depth of 250 meters from the main road the value was assessed @ ` 4,50,000/- per acre. It was for the reason that the land abutting on the main road always has higher value than the value of the land located beyond that. 24. While assessing the compensation for the land pertaining to village Patti Mehna, the learned court below while referring to allotment letter (Ex. A3 in LAC No. 82 of 1997) dated 28.1.1994, vide which the land measuring 17.79 acres was allotted to Punjab Warehousing Corporation @ ` 150/- per square yard, i.e., ` 7,26,000/- per acre, assessed the compensation @ ` 4,90,000/- per acre by reducing therefrom the statutory benefits, such as solatium and interest. It may be for the reason that the aforesaid land of Punjab Warehousing Corporation was forming part of village Patti Mehna. R.F.A. No. 2474 of 2000 [10] 25. A perusal of the award of the Collector shows that the same was quite anomalous. For village Patti Haji Rattan, Nehri and Chahi kind of land was assessed @ ` 3,00,000/- per acre, whereas for village Patti Mehna, which was also forming part of municipal limits of Bhatinda along with land of Patti Haji Rattan and was adjoining thereto, Chahi kind of land was assessed @ ` 59,000/- per acre, whereas Nehri kind of land was assessed @ ` 3,00,000/- per acre and Barani kind of land was assessed even more than Chahi land, i.e., ` 1,00,000/- per acre. The award pertaining to land of village Jassi Pauwali was equally anomalous. It was located beyond the municipal limits, where Nehri kind of land was assessed @ ` 2,04,000/- per acre, whereas Chahi kind of land was assessed @ ` 51,000/- per acre, which was even less than the value of Barani kind of land which was assessed @ ` 80,000/- per acre. Gair Mumkin kind of land was assessed @ ` 1,80,000/- per acre. 26. The entire chunk of land is a single block. As is evident from the facts, the same is located at the municipal boundaries of Bhatinda as part of it was within the municipal limits and part beyond that. The learned court below assessed the value of land pertaining to villages Jassi Pauwali and Patti Haji Rattan @ ` 3,30,000/- per acre. For the land located on the main road upto a depth of 250 meters, the same was assessed @ ` 4,50,000/- per acre. The land of village Patti Mehna was assessed @ ` 4,90,000/- per acre. 27. Learned counsel for the land owners placed reliance upon sale deed (Ex. A1) produced in LAC No. 82 of 1997 claiming the same to be part of the acquired land and this fact was not even controverted by learned counsel appearing for the respondents at the time of arguments. The claim of the land owners was on the basis that the land forming part of the aforesaid sale deed was bearing Khasra No. 1174. However, a perusal of the sale deed shows that it pertains to the revenue estate of Bhatinda and not Patti Mehna, as is sought to be claimed. Its khasra No. is 3629 min/1-5 and khata No. is 1174. Accordingly, the aforesaid sale deed cannot be relied upon for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land. R.F.A. No. 2474 of 2000 [11] 28. As far as reliance on the award pertaining to acquisition of land by the Improvement Trust is concerned, in my opinion, the same cannot be said to be a comparable piece of land. There is no site plan on record to show the location of the land acquired by Improvement Trust vis- a-vis the acquired land. In the absence thereof, it will not be safe to place reliance thereupon. 29. The basis on which the learned court below has assessed the value of land of village Patti Mehna placing reliance upon the price at which the land was allotted about two years later to Punjab Warehousing Corporation, is totally erroneous. The learned court below had failed to take notice of the fact that allotment of land was two years after the acquisition and further there are administrative expenses as well when the land is acquired and ultimately allotted to the subsequent buyer. In addition to that, in the time gap of two years, there had been development activities in the area. Even for the land pertaining to village Patti Mehna, which is adjoining to the land of village Patti Haji Rattan, the valuation cannot be different as both are forming part of the Municipal limits. 30. The learned court below assessed the value of the acquired land @ ` 3,30,000/- per acre, which is marginally higher than the value as assessed by the Collector for Nehri and Chahi kind of land. In my opinion, even if the principle of application of thumb rule is considered, the same can be upheld, as the amount awarded is ` 3,30,000/- per acre, except for the land located upto 250 meters on Bhatinda-Mansa road, which has been