RFA No.3527 of 1993 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.3527 of 1993 Date of decision: 27.11.2009 Megh Raj & Ors. ...Appellants Versus State of Haryana & Anr. ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr.M.L.Sarin, Sr. Advocate, with Mr.Hemant Sarin & Mr.Nitin Sarin, Advocates, for the appellants. Mr.Rajiv Kawatra, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the respondents. --- 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? --- VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This appeal by the appellants/landowners is directed against RFA No.3527 of 1993 2 the award dated 23.7.1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar on a reference under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act,1894 (for short the Act). State of Haryana issued a notification dated 12.9.1986 which was published in the Govt. Gazette on 30.9.1986 under section 4 of the Act for acquiring 21 kanals 11 marlas of land belonging to the appellants for construction of PWD Rest House at Ratia. Learned Collector vide his award dated 16.8.1989 assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.1,76,000/- (Rupees one lac seventy six thousand only) per acre. The land owners were also held entitled to solatium and other statutory benefits thereon and compensation payable to the appellant was assessed at Rs.7,84,635/- (Rupees seven lacs eighty four thousand six hundred and thirty five only) per acre. The appellants being dissatisfied with the award sought reference under section 18 of the Act claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.800-900/- per square yard. In addition, severance allowance was claimed for the remaining land at the rate of Rs.600/- (Rupees six hundred only) per square yard. Enhancement was claimed on the ground that the land acquired was quite close to Ratia city and very costly. Adjoining land was sold as plots at the rate of Rs.800/- (Rupees eight hundred only) per square yard. It was also the case of the appellants that the land was actually kept for a factory which they will now have to instal at some other place. The compensation on account of displacement was also claimed. It was claimed that the acquired land is surrounded on all sides by abadi and has RFA No.3527 of 1993 3 turned into commercial property and was adjoining the road between Ratia and Fatehabad. Acquired land was also claimed to be suitable for a show room, shops and residential area as there were shops constructed even ahead of the acquired land. Reference was contested by asserting therein that the compensation granted by the Collector was adequate and represented true value of the acquired land. Stand was also taken that the acquired land was about 3 Kms away from abadi and the factory of HAFED was also at far away place. Claim of the appellant that his land was severed was also denied. On the pleadings of the parties learned reference court framed the following issues:- 1. What was the market price prevalent at the time of acquisition of the land in question? If so, to what effect? 2. To what enhancement the applicants/claimants are entitled to? 2-A. Whether due to the acquisition of land of the petitioner, his other land was severed, if so, whether the said other land has become unfit and useless and if so, whether the petitioner is entitled to get any compensation on this account? OPP 3. Relief. In support of the market price of the land the parties placed reliance on the following instances:- RFA No.3527 of 1993 4 Sr.No. Exhibit Date of Area Sale Price per acre sale deed K.M. Rs. Rs. 1. P.1 25.6.90 0 4 28,000 11,20,000/- 2. P.5 25.6.90 0 9 62,000 11,02,000/- 3. P.6 28.6.88 1 0 45,000 3,60,000/- 4. P.7 1.6.90 1 0 50,000 4,00,000/- 5. P.22 19.7.83 1 0 39,000 3,12,000/- 6. R.1 5.5.83 1 0 20,000 1,60,000/- 7. R.2 1.7.84 0 8 8,000 1,60,000/- 8. R.3 15.6.84 0 7 6,000 1,37,000/- approximately 9. R 4 26.12.85 1 0 7,000 56,000/- 10. R 5 15.1.86 1 10 12,000 64,000/- 11. R 6 9.5.89 0 10 8,500 1,36,000/- 12. R.7. 8.10.90 0 8 6,000 1,20,000/- Learned reference court found that no reliance could be placed on the sale instances Ex.P.1, P.5, P.6 and P.7 being later in time than the date of publication of notice under section 4 of the Act, whereas sale instance Ex.P.22 was ignored being far away from the acquired. It was held to be not providing comparable sale instance for determining the market value of the acquired land. Learned reference court thereafter by placing reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this court in the case of The State of Punjab Vs. Pohu and another (1986-1) P.L.R. 109 came to the conclusion that Ex.R.1 could be relied upon for determining the market value of the land in question. RFA No.3527 of 1993 5 Learned reference court placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prithvi Raj Taneja (dead) by LRs Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another AIR 1977 SC 1560 to hold that small plots of land can not provide a safe guide for determining compensation for a large area and came to the conclusion that sale instance Ex.R.1 was with respect to 1 K of land, whereas the acquired land was 21 kanals 11 marlas, therefore, cut was required to be imposed. Learned reference court also held that the sale deed Ex.R.1 was of the year 1983, whereas notification under section 4 of the Act was published on 30.9.1986, therefore, 12 per cent increase per annum was required to be added to the price fixed vide Ex.R.1. The market value of the land on the date of notification was held to be Rs.2,24,000/- (Rupees two lacs twenty four thousand only) per acre. Learned reference court imposed a cut of 1/3rd by taking it to be a sale of small piece of land and came to the conclusion, that the market value would be Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lac and fifty thousand only) per acre which would be less than the price granted by the learned Collector and held that the market value of the land was rightly assessed by the learned Collector at Rs.1,76,000/- (Rupees one lac and seventy six thousand only). Issue No.2-A was also decided against the appellants by the learned reference court by holding that there was no balance land left out with the appellants, therefore, they were not entitled to any compensation on account of severance. In view of the findings recorded above reference was ordered to RFA No.3527 of 1993 6 be dismissed. Mr.M.L.Sarin, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has challenged the impugned award primarily on the ground that the learned reference court has misread the settled proposition of law by imposing a cut on the price of land as depicted in Ex.R.1. Ex.R.1 was a sale instance on which reliance was placed by the State Government. Learned senior counsel referred to observations of the Hon'ble Full Bench judgment of this court in the case of The State of Punjab Vs. Pohu and another (supra), which read as under:- “11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and, in our view, we find absolutely no conflict between the decision of the Supreme Court in Ranee of Vuyyur's case and the other judgments of the Supreme Court to which reference has been made earlier. The relevant observations of Mudholkar, J. have been reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment and a close scrutiny of those observations would show that in that case what has been observed is that where the sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, that representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying different courses. Now, these observations, in my view, do not lay down a rule that in every case a sale deed representing the higher value should be preferred. The principle which has always been followed is that RFA No.3527 of 1993 7 average price of the sale transactions relied upon should be taken into account for determining the market value of the acquired land. But in Ranee of Vuyyur's case, the Bench made the aforesaid observations because the transaction on which the claimants had placed reliance had been placed by the opposite party i.e. the Government, and it is in that context the learned Judge observed that when the Government itself was relying on a document which represented the highest value, then unless there were strong circumstances justifying a different course, the same should be followed. These observations cannot be read to mean that in every case a sale deed representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest. The principles enunciated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in different judgments referred to above, have to be kept in mind while determining the market value. However, in a given case, as observed in Ranee of Vuyyur's case where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf or the Government, the representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless these are strong circumstances justifying a different course. To emphasize, these observations of the Supreme Court pertain only to the sale deeds which have been produced by the Government in defence and do not have any applicability in general. In this view of the matter, it is held that the market price of the acquired land has to be assessed RFA No.3527 of 1993 8 according to the average price of the relevant or comparable sale instance relied upon by the parties and not according to a sale instance which might be fetching the maximum price, except where sale instances have been reproduced by the Government and are relied upon, then a particular sale deed representing the higher value should be preferred unless there are other strong circumstances which may justify resorting to a different course. Consequently, decision in Mohinder Singh's case which was arrived at a result of the reliance placed on a sale which fetched the highest price, is overruled.” The contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellants was that the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Rani M.Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur Ranee of Vuyyur Vs. Collector of Madras 1969 (1) MLJ 45 was explained by the Hon'ble Full Bench. The contention further was that reading of the decision of Full Bench judgment would show that Hon'ble Full Bench had held that where the sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied upon on behalf of the Government, the sale representing highest value is to be preferred to the rest, unless there are strong circumstances justifying different course. The contention of the learned senior counsel, therefore, was that no cut was required to be imposed on the assessed market value of Rs.2,24,000/- (Rupees two lac twenty four thousand only) for the reason that there was no circumstances which could justify any deviation on the RFA No.3527 of 1993 9 said price. In case principle referred to by the Hon'ble Full Bench was to be followed and average price is to arrive, then sale deed Exs.P.22 and R.1 is to be taken in consideration and cut imposed, the market value in that case would be higher than the one depicted in Ex.R.1. Mr. Rajiv Kawatra, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, however, supports the impugned award on the contention that the learned reference court rightly ignored Ex.P.22 as it was 17 killas away from the acquired land, whereas land of Ex.R.1 is just adjoining the acquired land. He further contended that cut was rightly imposed as per settled law, that in case sale deeds of small instances a cut is required to be imposed for determining the market value for a large chunk of land. On consideration, I find force in the contentions raised by the learned senior counsel for the appellants. It may be noticed that the sale instance Ex.R.1 is qua the land which adjoins the acquired land. Both the acquired land, as well as land sold vide Ex.R.1 abut the road. The sale instance Ex.R.1, therefore, depicts the market value of the acquired land by adding 12 per cent increase per annum on the price keeping in view the date of sale, and date of notification under section 4 of the Act. Learned reference court was not justified in imposing a cut to determine the market value of the acquired land,as in the present case the acquisition was for construction of PWD Rest House and the acquisition was also not for a very big chunk of land, wherein it could be said that RFA No.3527 of 1993 10 there would be difference in price of acquired land, than the one given in Ex.R.1, which was also sold for residential purposes. Learned reference court should have accepted the market value of the land acquired as Rs.2,24,000/- (Rupees two lacs twenty four thousand only) per acre i.e. by taking the consideration amount of Ex.R.1 the sale deed of acquired land without imposing any cut thereon, with escalation at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, keeping in view the area and the object for which the land was acquired. The appellants also claimed severance compensation for the left out land, on the plea that unacquired land of the appellants had become waste. In support of this plea of the appellant the learned senior counsel contended that the learned reference court wrongly came to the conclusion that no land was left unacquired, whereas total land of the appellant was 39 kanals 8 marlas, out of which only 21 kanals 11 marlas was acquired leaving behind 17 kanals 17 marlas The claim of compensation on the ground of severance is totally misconceived. Site plan Ex.RA would show that the land of the appellants was not bifurcated into two and a big chunk of 17 kanals 17 marlas of land which was left unacquired cannot be said to be a waste, especially in view of the positive stand of the appellants that they wanted to construct a residential house in the area acquired and also raise other construction for commercial use of the land. The acquisition by the State for construction of PWD Rest House of the acquired land rather has increased the value of the left out land. The finding of the learned reference court, RFA No.3527 of 1993 11 therefore, on issue No.2-A deserves to be upheld though for the different reasons i.e. that there was no severance of land of the appellants which could enable them to claim compensation on account of severance of land. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is allowed Compensation of acquired land is enhanced to Rs.2,24,000 per acre (Rupees two lac and twenty four thousand only). The appellants shall also be entitled to other statutory benefits like solatium and interest etc on the enhanced compensation. No costs. (Vinod K. Sharma) 27.11. 2009 Judge rp