R.F.A. No. 1841 of 2000 [1] In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 16.12.2008 1. R. F. A. No. 1841 of 2000 (O&M) The State of Haryana ..... Appellant vs Ujjagar Singh (deceased) through LRs. .... Respondent 2. R. F. A. No. 1842 of 2000 (O&M) The State of Haryana ..... Appellant vs Jagdish Singh and others .... Respondents 3. R. F. A. No. 1843 of 2000 (O&M) The State of Haryana ..... Appellant vs Smt. Kishan Kaur and another .... Respondents 4. R. F. A. No. 1844 of 2000 (O&M) State of Haryana ..... Appellant vs Kashmiri Lal and others .... Respondents 5. R. F. A. No. 1845 of 2000 (O&M) State of Haryana ..... Appellant vs Gurcharan Singh .... Respondent 6. R. F. A. No. 1846 of 2000 (O&M) State of Haryana ..... Appellant vs Sher Singh .... Respondent 7. R. F. A. No. 1847 of 2000 (O&M) State of Haryana ..... Appellant vs Gurmeet Kaur .... Respondent 8. R. F. A. No. 1848 of 2000 (O&M) State of Haryana ..... Appellant vs Abdul Gaffor .... Respondent R.F.A. No. 1841 of 2000 [2] 9. R. F. A. No. 1849 of 2000 (O&M) State of Haryana ..... Appellant vs Surjit Singh .... Respondent 10. R. F. A. No. 1850 of 2000 (O&M) State of Haryana ..... Appellant vs Inder Sain and others .... Respondents 11. R. F. A. No. 1851 of 2000 (O&M) State of Haryana ..... Appellant vs Hazara Singh (deceased) through LRs. .... Respondent 12 R. F. A. No. 2311 of 2000 (O&M) State of Haryana and another ..... Appellants vs Lal Singh and another .... Respondents 13. R. F. A. No. 4477 of 2000 (O&M) Jagdish Singh ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the State. Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate, for the landowners in R. F. A. No. 2311 of 2000. Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, for the landowners in R. F. A. Nos. 1841, 1843, 1844, 1846, 1848, 1850, 1851 of 2000. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of Regular First Appeal Nos. 1841 to 1851, and 2311 of 2000 filed by the State for reduction in the compensation granted to the landowners for the acquisition of land and R. F. A. No. 4477 of 2000 filed by the landowner for enhancement of compensation, arising out of common common award. However, the facts have been extracted from R. F. A. No. 1841 of 2000. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) dated 28.2.1986 and published on in the Government Gazettee on 3.3.1986, the Government of R.F.A. No. 1841 of 2000 [3] Haryana, acquired land measuring 36 kanals 8 marlas situated in Village Barara, Tehsil and District Ambala, for construction of Bus-stand, Barara. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the Collector”) vide his award dated 19.9.1986 assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 36,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners/claimants filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 31.7.2000, determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 3,200/- per marla. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the learned court below had gone wrong in placing reliance on the award Ex. PW7/A wherein the acquisition was for the construction of Sub-Tehsil vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 3.2.1981. The location of the land forming part of award Ex. PW7/A was at far off distance as compared to the land pertaining to the present acquisition, which is for the construction of Bus-stand at Barara. The sale- deeds produced on record by the State were not considered as such only for the reason that vendor and vendee had not been produced which in fact are not required to be produced. If those sale-deeds are considered, there was no possibility of enhancement in compensation payable to the landowners. He further submitted that other evidence led by the landowners cannot be relied upon for the simple reason that the sale-deeds produced are pertaining to very small pieces of land which cannot possibly be made basis for determination of compensation for big chunk of land. In fact, the area dealt with in sale-deeds Ex. PW4/1 to PW4/3 which are stated to be part of the acquired land is very small which must have been for commercial purpose. On the other hand, learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the the reliance on the award Ex. PW7/A was quite appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case as the land pertaining thereto is located just at a distance of 200 yards from the land in question as claimed by the landowners. Even in the evidence led by the State, the same was stated at a distance of about 600 yards. The bus-stand is located on the main bye-pass road which is strategically located. Even the Sub-Tehsil was also constructed though on the other road but it is quite close to the acquired land as was claimed by them. He further submitted that the best piece of evidence produced by the landowners on record in the present case in the form of sale-deeds Ex. PW4/1 to PW4/3, have not been considered at all, even though forming part of the acquired land. It was only for the reason that vendee and vendor had not been produced which is not required. If sale-deeds Ex. PW4/1 to PW4/3 are taken into consideration, the value shown R.F.A. No. 1841 of 2000 [4] therein is Rs. 4,500/- per marla for the transactions entered into on 18.7.1983 and Rs. 8,000/- per marla for the transactions entered into on 10.6.1985. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 28.2.1986. There is a gap of about 2½ years if considered from the sale-deed Ex. PW4/1 and Ex. PW4/2 whereas the sale-deed Ex. PW4/3 was registered around 8 months back. The sale- deeds clearly established the value and potential of the area where the land even 2-3 years back was being sold in marlas at an exhorbitant price and further appreciation in the value during this period is also evident. He further submitted that even if the award Ex. PW7/A is ignored and value is calculated considering the aforesaid sale-deeds which formed part of the acquired land and the genuineness of which can possibly be not disputed, the compensation payable for the acquired land would be required to be increased further. It is further submitted that even reliance on Ex. PW4/1 and PW4/3 shall be appropriate for the reason that the acquired land is merely for 36 kanals and 8 marlas and not a very big chunk of land and no cut is required to be applied. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the land owners in the present set of appeals had produced three sale deeds on record, namely, Ex. PW4/1 to Ex. PW4/3. The learned court below did not consider the same on the ground that the vendors and the vendees therein had not been produced. The same is not in conformity with law as a certified copy of the sale deed is admissible as such without even producing the vendor and vendee to the same in Court. Another fact which is not in dispute forming part of the aforesaid three sale deeds is part of the acquired land. The details of the area dealt with in the sale deeds and the date of registration thereof including the amount paid is tabulated as under: Sr. No. Exhibit Date of Area of land Sale consideration Average transaction price per marla ............................................................................................................................... 1. PW4/1 18.7.83 3 Marlas 13,500/- 4,500/- 2. PW4/2 18.7.83 2 Marlas 9,000/- 4,500/- 3. PW4/3 10.6.85 1 Marla 8,000/- 8,000/- The learned court below, rejecting these sale deeds, had relied upon an earlier award pertaining to the acquisition of land for construction of Sub Tehsil vide notification dated 3.2.1981 and granted increase thereon @ 12% per annum. The same is sought to be disputed by learned counsel for the State on the ground that location thereof is at a far off place, though in the evidence led by the land R.F.A. No. 1841 of 2000 [5] owners, it was stated that the distance is merely 200 yards. Even in the evidence led by the State, it has come that it is at a distance of about 600 yards. The acquisition in the present case for construction of bus stand was made on the bye- pass. The value at which small plots of land were purchased by the vendees in sale deeds Ex. PW4/1 to Ex. PW4/3 clearly established that the land had great value and potential as three marlas of land was dealt with on 18.7.1983 nearly 2-1/2 years before acquisition @ Rs. 4,500/- per marla, whereas the rate per marla in sale deed dated 10.6.1985 registered nearly 8 months prior to the acquisition was Rs. 8,000/- per marla. In my considered opinion, the value, as determined by the learned court below does not call for any interference even if the same is calculated on the basis of sale deeds produced on record by the land owners which was discarded by the learned court below, the same being the best piece of evidence being part of the acquired land. Sale deeds Ex. PW4/1 and Ex. PW4/2 were registered on 18.7.1983. If increase @ 10% per annum is granted thereon for a period of 2-1/2 years, to bring the value close to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case, the same comes to Rs. 5,625/- per marla. Similarly, granting increase for the time gap for sale deed Ex. PW4/3, the same comes out to Rs. 8,480/- per marla. The average of three sale deeds comes out to Rs. 6,550/- per marla. Now the question is as to how much cut is to be imposed for arriving at fair value of the acquired land. The fact is that acquisition in the present case is for land measuring 36 kanals 8 marlas. Out of three sale deeds, which are being relied upon by the land owners, two are for three marlas of land, whereas third is for one marla of land. As compared to the acquisition, the same cannot be said to be very small portions. In my opinion, even if a cut of 50% is applied thereon, the value of the acquired land would come out to Rs. 3,275/- per marla. The learned court below has determined the value at Rs. 3,200/- per marla which is quite close to it. Accordingly, the same does not call for any interference. As far as genuineness of sale deeds (Ex. PW4/1 to Ex. PW4/3) is concerned, the same is not disputed by the State. It is also evident on record that the land owners therein had paid more value as compared to the value determined by this Court for acquisition of the land. They cannot be put to loss as payment of less value than what they had spent on the purchase of the property would amount to depriving them from their property without adequate compensation. Accordingly, I deem it appropriate to grant them compensation to the tune of amount spent by them granting increase @ 10% per annum thereon. Accordingly, the compensation payable to the land owners of land forming part of sale deeds R.F.A. No. 1841 of 2000 [6] (Ex. PW4/1 and Ex. PW4/2) shall be Rs. 5,625/- per marla, whereas for the land owner in sale deed (Ex. PW4/3), the same shall be Rs. 8,480/- per marla. Similar view was expressed by this Court in Gurmukh Singh v. Punjab State, 1987 Recent Revenue Reports 143 and R.F.A. No. 122 of 2000—Smt. Neelam v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 22.9.2008. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge December 16,2008 mk