R.F.A. No. 2914 of 2005 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 2914 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.1.2011 State of Haryana and others .. Appellants v. Gurcharan Singh .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Kuldeep Chaudhary, Advocate for the land owner. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 2914 to 2916, 2968 to 2975 of 2005, 154 to 163 of 2006, as common questions of law and facts are involved. 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 State, the prayer is for reduction thereof. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 2914 of 2005. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 20.9.2001, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana sought to acquire 6.12 acres of land in village Kona Hadbast No. 93, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula for construction of link road from Pinjore-Nalagarh road to village Khol Mola in Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 1,60,992/- per acre for Bangar Awal Bangal Deom, Gair Mumkin Abadi, R.F.A. No. 2914 of 2005 [2] Nayani, Gair Mumkin Jakhira Dakhtan and ` 1,18,992/- per acre for Gair Mumkin Kol, Gair Mumkin Pahar, Gair Mumkin Nadi and Gair Mumkin choe kind of land. Dissatisfied with the award 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 @ ` 3,00,000/- per acre, irrespective of the kind of land. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the land in question is located quite close to the border of Himachal Pradesh near Baddi, which is an industrial township, where substantial incentives were being offered by the State as well as the Central Government to encourage industrialisation. It was acquired for the purpose of laying of road from Pinjore-Nalagarh road to village Khol Mola. It was surrounded by various residential as well as commercial establishments. Some of the people had even constructed their farm houses. Sale deeds pertaining to land of village Kona, to which the acquired land pertained to, have not been given due weightage. Two of the three sale deeds of the aforesaid village were registered in 1998 and 1999. Notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 20.9.2001. For the time gap, no increase was awarded. Similar was the case with regard to the sale deeds produced by the State. The learned court below merely averaged the sale consideration paid in the two sale deeds produced by the land owners and one produced by the State and awarded the compensation, which was not the fair method for awarding compensation to the land owners. The sale deed produced by the State, which was below the award of the Collector deserved to be rejected. He further submitted that though acquisition in the present case was for the purpose of construction of a road, but still the land owners have not been granted any damages on account of severance. With the construction of road, the land of the land owners is always divided into two parts, which make it difficult for them to use two divided portions of land to its optimum. In some of the cases, the house of the land owners has been left on one side and the court yard has been divided. Further submission was that possession of the land in the present case was taken by the State way back in the year 1990, but the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 20.9.2001. The learned court below has merely awarded interest for the period from taking R.F.A. No. 2914 of 2005 [3] over of possession till issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. In fact, the land owners deserve to be compensated appropriately on account of the loss suffered by them during the interregnum period. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the award of the Collector in the present case was just and fair. The sale deeds produced by the land owners could not be considered at all for the reason that those had not been pointed out on any site plan produced on record. The sale deeds produced by the State clearly established that value of the acquired land as has been assessed by the Collector was just and fair and it did not call for any interference whatsoever. He could not dispute the fact that with the acquisition of land for the purpose of construction of road, the land of some of the land owners is certainly divided into two parts. As regards award of interest for the period from taking over of possession of the land till the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the submission was that no interest could be awarded, there being no provision under the Act for taking care of such a situation. However, reference was made to a recent judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Karigowda and others, (2010) 5 SCC 708, where this issue had been dealt with. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. Site plan (Ex. PH) produced on record by the land owners shows the location of the acquired land. It is emanating from Pinjore- Nalagarh road and leading to village Khol Mola. The fact that the border area in Himachal Pradesh, namely, Nalagarh and Baddi was developing at a fast pace on account of various incentives being offered by the State as well as the Central Government there, could not be disputed. The acquired area fell in the boundaries of the State of Haryana, though close to the border. There was pressure for urbanisation in this area as well, though may not be for the purpose of industrialisation. The land owners produced on record three sale deeds, two of which pertained to village Kona, the land pertaining to which was acquired. Sale deed (Ex. PC) was registered on 10.2.1998, whereas sale deed (Ex. PD) was registered on 15.3.1999. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 20.9.2001. There is another sale deed produced by the State (Ex. R2), which also pertained to village Kona and R.F.A. No. 2914 of 2005 [4] was registered on 31.8.2000. The learned court below assessed the compensation for the acquired land while averaging the sale consideration paid in the aforesaid three sale deeds. In my view, as far as relevance of the sale deeds is concerned, the same cannot be disputed. All the sale deeds pertained to land of village Kona, to which even the acquired land belonged. The area dealt with therein is also not very small. The method of averaging adopted by the learned court below also cannot be faulted with considering the fact that if the land pertaining to the sale deeds produced by the land owners had some additional advantage, the State had produced on record a sale deed, which must be showing the minimum value. The learned court below had averaged the sale consideration paid therein. In my view, considering the potentiality of the land and the area nearby, increase @ 12% per annum deserved to be added on the consideration paid in all the three aforesaid sale deeds to bring their value on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Adding that amount, the sale consideration paid in the sale deeds as on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act would come out to ` 6,67,000/- in sale deed (Ex. PC); ` 4,37,000/- in sale deed (Ex. PD) and ` 1,26,000/- in sale deed (Ex. R2). The average sale consideration paid in the aforesaid sale deeds comes out to ` 4,10,000/- per acre. As the exact location of the land pertaining to the aforesaid sale deeds has not been shown either by the land owners or by the State on any of the site plan produced on record, a thumb rule will have to be applied. It is for the reason that value as such shown in the sale deeds could very well be considered for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land if it is shown to be located in a similarly situated place, but once the sale deeds produced by the land owners and the State showing variation in the value, are being considered after averaging the sale consideration paid therein, in my opinion, as against the average sale consideration paid in the aforesaid sale deeds being ` 4,10,000/- per acre, the land owners should be awarded at least ` 3,50,000/- per acre as compensation for the acquired land. Another submission made by learned counsel for the land owners regarding payment of damages on account of severance also deserves consideration. With the construction of the road, the land is R.F.A. No. 2914 of 2005 [5] divided into two parts, which makes it difficult to use the land to its optimum. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, severance @ 20% would be a reasonable amount which the land owners deserve to be paid. Admittedly, in the present case, possession of land was taken in 1990, whereas the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 20.9.2001. The court below awarded compensation @ 12% per annum for the intervening period, whereas there is no specific provision to that effect in the Act. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Karigowda's case (supra) held that the land owners are entitled for damages from the date of dispossession till the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The relevant part of the said judgment is extracted below: “We are bound by the decision of the larger Bench, in R. L. Jain case, which had considered Satinder Singh, on which the reliance has even been placed by the claimants in the present appeal. The larger Bench after detailed discussion on the subject rejected the claim for payment of interest claimed by the respondents in those cases prior to the date of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. As is evident from the above dictum of the Court, despite dispossession, the title continues to vest in the landowners and it is open for the land owners to take action in accordance with law. Once notification under Section 4(1) of the Act has been issued and the acquisition proceedings culminated into an award in terms of Section 11, then alone the land vests in the State free of any encumbrance or restriction in terms of provisions of Section 16 of the Act. The court, in situations where possessions have been taken prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, can direct the Collector to examine the extent of rent or damage that the owners of land would be entitled to, the provisions of Section 48 of the Act would come to aid and the court would also be justified in issuing appropriate direction. This was the unequivocal view expressed by the Court in R. L. Jain case as well. This legal question is no more open to controversy and stands settled by this court. We would follow the view taken R.F.A. No. 2914 of 2005 [6] and accept the contention of the appellant-State that the reference court as well as the High Court could not have granted any interest under the provisions of the Act, for a date anterior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, following the dictum of the Bench in R. L. Jain case, we direct the Collector to examine the question of payment of rent/damages to the claimants, from the period when their respective lands were submerged under the back water of the river, till the date of issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, from which date, they would be entitled to the statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation.” In view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Karigowda's case (supra), the land owners are entitled for compensation from the date of their dispossession till the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The land owners shall file application before the Collector concerned to claim damages for their dispossession from the land for the aforesaid period. These applications may be filed upto 31.3.2011 and if such applications are filed then the Collector shall consider the same and shall award such amount to the appellants as may be payable in accordance with law. The applications shall be disposed of finally before 30.6.2011, after affording personal hearing to the parties. As discussed above, the appeals filed by the land owners are partly allowed. The award of the learned court below is modified to the extent that the land owners shall be entitled to compensation @ ` 3,50,000/- per acre for the acquired land. The land owners shall also be entitled for compensation on account of severance of their acquired land @ 20% on the market value of their acquired land. The land owners shall also be entitled to the statutory benefits provided for under the Act. Further, the land owners shall be entitled for compensation on account of their dispossession prior to publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act, in view of judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Karigowda's case (supra), for which they will file application before the Collector concerned as per directions given above. R.F.A. No. 2914 of 2005 [7] Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6515 of 2009 – Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation v. Pran Sukh and others, decided on 17.8.2010, to ensure that the landowners are not fleeced by the middleman in the process of disbursement of enhanced compensation, issued certain directions. I deem it appropriate to issue same directions in the present set of appeals as well. The same are as under: “With a view to ensure that the land owners are not fleeced by the middleman, we deem it appropriate to issue following further directions: (i) The Land Acquisition Collector shall depute officers subordinate to him not below the rank of Naib Tehsildar, who shall get in touch with all the land owners and/or their legal representatives and inform them about their entitlement and right to receive enhanced compensation. (ii) The concerned officers shall also instruct the land owners and/or their legal representatives to open savings bank account in case they already do not have such account. (iii) The bank account numbers of the land owners should be given to the Land Acquisition Collector within three months. (iv) The Land Acquisition Collector shall deposit the cheques of compensation in the bank accounts of the land owners.” The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 14.1.2011 mk