RFA No. 962 of 2010 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 962 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 23.3.2011 State of Haryana and others ...Appellants vs Kali Ram and others ...Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Bhag Singh, Mr. Ashish Yadav, Advocates, and Mr. Munish Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Anil Malik, Advocate, for the landowners. Rajesh Bindal, J. This order shall dispose of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 962, 977 to 981 and 3909 and Cross-objection No. 220/CI of 2010, as common questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals. The landowners are seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land by filing appeal and cross-objections whereas by filing appeals the State of Haryana is seeking reduction thereof. The bunch of appeals pertain to the valuation of land acquired for construction of BML Hansi Branch-Bhutana Branch Multipurpose Link Channel from RD 0-91000 off taking from RD 340300- L Bhakra Main Line for which notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') was issued by the State of Haryana on 18.8.2005. The land is situated within the revenue estate of village Sinh, Hadbast No. 8, Tehsil Ghula, District Kaithal. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 13.9.2005. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the Collector') vide award dated 28.2.2006 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 5,00,000/- per acre. The land owners being dissatisfied with the award of the Collector filed objections which were referred to the learned Court below. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Court below assessed the compensation of the acquired land @ ` 7,00,000/- per acre. Aggrieved against the award of the learned court below, both the parties are in appeal before this court. RFA No. 962 of 2010 (2) Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the court below has not awarded just and fair compensation for the acquired land while considering the location of the land. The sale-deeds, Ex. P-26 and Ex. P-27, produced by the landowners on record were not considered while determining market value of the acquired land. Vide sale-deed, Ex. P-26, land measuring 1 kanal was sold on 27.4.2005 at an average price of ` 8,64,000/- per acre and vide sale-deed, Ex. P- 27, 10 marlas of land was sold on 25.9.2007 at an average price of ` 19,20,000/- per acre. These sale-transactions are of village Harigarh Kingan, which is adjacent to village Sinh. Inspite of the fact that evidence in the form of sale- deeds, Ex. P-26 and Ex. P-27, was available, the learned court below while relying upon policy of the State Government fixing minimum rates in the State @ ` 8,00,000/- per acre assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 7,00,000/- per acre. It was submitted that village Harigarh Kingan is close to Cheeka Town. This village is developing like a town. The learned court below while determining the market value of the acquired land has totally ignored the location and potentality of the land. The submission was for determination of value keeping in view the location and the evidence led by the landowners on record. Another submission made by learned counsel for the landowners was that due to construction of channel the land of the landowners has been divided into two parts but only those landowners have been awarded ` 50,000/- per acre, who appeared as witnesses and rest of the landowners have not been awarded any amount on account of severance. It was submitted that the learned court below should have at least awarded compensation as per the revenue record to those landowners whose land has been bifurcated and not to those who had appeared as witnesses. In response to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the land owners, learned counsel for the State submitted that the court below had not given any reasoning whatsoever while determining the amount of compensation payable for the acquired land. It had merely applied a thumb rule. The evidence led by the land owners did not justify any increase whatsoever. There is no site plan produced on record by the land owners to show where the land pertaining to sale deeds relied upon by them is located. The State Government has issued policies fixing minimum floor rates in the State for acquired land. Vide policy dated 28.4.2005, the minimum floor rates in the area in question in the State was RFA No. 962 of 2010 (3) ` 5,00,000/- per acre which was further revised in the year vide policy dated 6.4.2007 to ` 8,00,000/- per acre which was made applicable only where the awards have been announced on or after 22.3.2007. But the learned court below without there being any reason assessed the compensation for the acquired land while relying upon policy issued by the State Government on 6.4.2007. This policy dated 6.4.2007 was not in operation in the year 2005 as the same was applicable only where the award was announced on or after 22.3.2007. As regards the sale-deeds produced by the landowners are concerned, it was submitted by learned State counsel that the learned court below has rightly not considered, as those were pertaining to land of other village. He further argued that the value of the land of each area is different keeping in view the location and other advantages. But in the present case, the learned court below without there being any site plan produced on record by the land owners assessed the compensation for the acquired land. It is due to the policy of the State Government that the value of the land was determined @ ` 5,00,000/- per acre by the Collector, otherwise the value of the land in the area was not as such which was awarded by the learned court below. The prayer was for restoration of award of the Collector. As regards severance, the submission was that the land owners have not led any evidence to show as to in what manner, they have suffered any loss on account of acquisition of land for channel. Accordingly, the learned court below had rightly negatived the claim to that extent. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. In support of their claim for enhancement of compensation for the acquired land, the landowners have produced on record sale instances in the form of sale-deeds, Ex. P26 and Ex. P-27. These sale instances were of village Harigarh Kingan. No site plan has been placed on the record to show the location of land pertaining to these sale-deeds viz-a-viz the acquired land. In the absence thereof, these sale-deeds cannot be relied upon as a good piece of evidence. Further sale-deed, Ex. P-27, vide which 10 marlas of land was sold for an average price of ` 19,20,000/- per acre was registered on 25.9.2007 i.e. after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The learned court below has rightly discarded the same. RFA No. 962 of 2010 (4) While assessing the market value of the acquired land in the present case, the learned court below had relied upon policy dated 6.4.2007 vide which the minimum rates as were fixed for acquisition of land in the State of Haryana. The relevant extract of policy, dated 6.4.2007, is as under:- "Sub: Fixation of floor rates for the acquisition of land for public purpose in the State of Haryana. Ref: This Department Memo No. 2025-R-5-2005/4299, dated 28.4.2005. Vide this Department Memo. under reference, minimum floor rates for acquiring land for public purposes for various Departments as well as other State Agencies were fixed by the Haryana Government as follows: i) Minimum floor rate for urbanisable area of Gurgaon. Rs. 15.00 lacs per acre ii) Minimum floor rate for rest of the Haryana Sub- Region of NCR inlcuding Panchkula and area of Chandigarh periphery in the Haryana State. Rs.12.50 lacs per acre. iii) Minimum floor rate for the rest of the Haryana State. Rs. 05.00 lacs per acre. (These floor rates did not include the solatium and interest payable under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894). 2. Now it has been observed that with the passage of time market rates of the land have increased substantially. Therefore, Haryana Government has re-considered this matter and has decided to re-fix these floor rates as follows: i) Minimum floor rate for urbanisable area of Gurgaon. Rs. 20.00 lacs per acre ii) Minimum floor rate for rest of the Haryana Sub-Region of NCR inlcuding Panchkula and area of Chandigarh periphery in the Haryana State. Rs.16.00 lacs per acre. iii) Minimum floor rate for the rest of the Haryana State. Rs. 08.00 lacs per acre. 3. These floor rates do not include the solatium and interest payable under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 4. These revised rates will be applicable on all those acquisitions where awards have been announced on or after 22.3.2007 irrespective of the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894." RFA No. 962 of 2010 (5) As per the aforesaid letter dated 6.4.2007 the minimum floor rate for the rest of the Haryana State was fixed @ ` 8,00,000/- per acre and the rates are applicable on all those acquisitions where awards have been announced on or after 22.3.2007 irrespective of date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. In the present case, the award was announced by the Collector on 28.2.2006 whereas the policy dated 6.4.2007 comes into force with effect on 22.3.2007. A perusal of aforesaid policies shows that from the year 2005 to 2007 the State of Haryana itself had incresed the value of the land @ 60% in the area in question i.e. From ` 5,00,000/- to ` 8,00,000/- per acre. These revised rates are applicable on the awards announced on or after 22.3.2007 irrespective of the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 18.8.2005 and the award by the Collector was announced on 28.2.2006. It has also been pointed out that the Government of Hayana vide Gazette Notification dated 9.11.2010 issued policy fixing minimum floor rates of land for determining the compensation in the State of Haryana. The relevant extract of the policy is as under:- Sr. No. Particulars Floor Rates per acre of land (pre-revision) Floor Rates per acre as revised w.e.f. 07.09.2010 1 Land situated within the notified limits of Gurgaon Municipal Corporation Rs. 20.00 Lakh Rs. 40.00 Lakh 2 Land situated within (i) the notified limits of Faridabad Municipal Corporation, (ii) the notified limits of Panchkula Municipal Corporation as on 07.09.2010, (iii) Development Plans of (a) Gurgaon- Manesar Urban Complex (excluding the areas falling within the limits of Municipal Corporation Gurgaon) (b) Sohna, and (c) Sonepat-Kundli Urban Complex Rs. 16.00 Lakh Rs. 30.00 Lakh 3 Areas situated within the Development Plans of Bahadurgarh, Rohtak, Rewari, Dharuhera, Bawal and Panipat towns Rs. 16.00 Lakh Rs. 25.00 Lakh 4 Rest of the National Capital Region, areas situated out side the limits of Panchkula Municipal Corporation (as on 07.09.2010) in Panchkula District, and the land situated within the Development Plans of all other district headquarters outside the NCR Rs.16.00 Lakh Rs. 8.00 Lakh Rs. 20.00 Lakh 5 Remaining Parts of the State Rs. 8.00 Lakh Rs. 12.00 Lakh RFA No. 962 of 2010 (6) As per policy dated 9.11.2010, in some parts there is 100% increase in the price of land from the year 2007 to 2010, whereas in some parts it is 50%. The value of the land in question, as per the policy of the Government dated 28.4.2005, was ` 5,00,000/- per acre. It increases from ` 5,00,000/- to ` 8,00,000/- per acre in the year 2007 and vide policy dated 9.11.2010, it has been increased to ` 12,00,000/- per acre. A perusal of the aforesaid policies shows that after a gap of nearly two years, the minimum compensation payable for acquisition of land was enhanced @ 30% per annum or the price as shown in 2005 is 37.5% less than the price shown in the year 2007. This is evident from rising prices of land on which there is lot of pressure in recent times because of demand for urbanization and other infrastructural facilities. The aforesaid policy letter, in my opinion, can be considered as a piece of evidence showing the value of the land and considering the fact that the award in the present case was announced about one year prior thereto, a reasonable cut can be applied which should be in the near by range as the increase in the prices. In my opinion, the aforesaid policy dated 6.4.2007, was rightly relied upon for the purpose of assessment of compensation for the acquired land for the reason that the process to frame or revise a policy starts in advance, finalisation thereof takes time. There is gap of about one year between the issuance of policy dated 6.4.2007 and the announcement of award by the Collector. For the difference, the learned court below has applied cut on the amount so fixed in the policy and awarded compensation @ ` 7,00,000/- per acre. Accordingly, by applying the increase as per the policies, the value of the acquired land determined @ ` 7,00,000/- per acre cannot be faulted with. Even if there is some small difference, this court would not like to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, the appeals and the cross-objections are dismissed. 23.3.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge