R.F.A. No. 743 of 2007 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: January 29, 2010 1. R.F.A. No. 743 of 2007 Jeet Ram ......Appellant vs. State of Haryana & otherss ......Respondents 2. R.F.A. No. 744 of 2007 Kehar Singh and another ......Appellants vs. State of Haryana & another .......Respondents 3. R.F.A. No. 745 of 2007 Sultan Singh and others ......Appellants vs. State of Haryana & others .......Respondents 4. R.F.A. No. 746 of 2007 Rambir and others ......Appellants vs. State of Haryana & others .......Respondents 5. R.F.A. No. 1062 of 2007 Dariyao Singh and another ......Appellants vs. State of Haryana & others .......Respondents 6. R.F.A. No. 1063 of 2007 Rajesh Kumar and another ......Appellants vs. State of Haryana & others .......Respondents 7. R.F.A. No. 1126 of 2007 Dalbir Singh and others ......Appellants vs. State of Haryana & others .......Respondents 8. R.F.A. No. 1127 of 2007 Sukhbir Singh and others ......Appellants vs. State of Haryana & others .......Respondents R.F.A. No. 743 of 2007 [ 2] 9. R.F.A. No. 1128 of 2007 Ajit Singh and others ......Appellants vs. State of Haryana & others .......Respondents 10. R.F.A. No. 1129 of 2007 Rajinder and others ......Appellants vs. State of Haryana & others .......Respondents 11. R.F.A. No. 1130 of 2007 Kangan Singh ......Appellants vs. State of Haryana & others .......Respondents 12. R.F.A. No. 1178 of 2007 Jai Bhagwan and others ......Appellants vs. State of Haryana & others .......Respondents 13. R.F.A. No. 1179 of 2007 Jogi Ram and others ......Appellants vs. State of Haryana & others .......Respondents 14. R.F.A. No. 1180 of 2007 Bijender Singh and others ......Appellants vs. State of Haryana & others .......Respondents 15. R.F.A. No. 1310 of 2007 State of Haryana & others ......Appellants vs. Dariyao Singh and another .......Respondents 16. R.F.A. No. 1312 of 2007 State of Haryana & others ......Appellants vs. Amar Singh and others .......Respondents 17. R.F.A. No. 1313 of 2007 State of Haryana & others ......Appellants vs. Om Parkash and others .......Respondents R.F.A. No. 743 of 2007 [ 3] 18. R.F.A. No. 1314 of 2007 State of Haryana & others ......Appellants vs. Hukam Chand & others .......Respondents 19. R.F.A. No. 1315 of 2007 State of Haryana & others ......Appellants vs. Sheela Devi and others .......Respondents 20. R.F.A. No. 1316 of 2007 State of Haryana & others ......Appellants vs. Sumer Singh @ Shamsher Singh & ors .......Respondents 21. R.F.A. No. 1317 of 2007 State of Haryana and others ......Appellants vs. Rajesh Kumar and another .......Respondents 22. R.F.A. No. 1318 of 2007 State of Haryana & others ......Appellants vs. Raghubir Singh and others .......Respondents 23. R.F.A. No. 1319 of 2007 State of Haryana & others ......Appellants vs. Nahar Singh and others .......Respondents 24. R.F.A. No. 1320 of 2007 State of Haryana & others ......Appellants vs. Ram Dia and others .......Respondents 25. R.F.A. No. 1321 of 2007 State of Haryana & others ......Appellants vs. Dalip Singh and others .......Respondents 26. R.F.A. No. 1322 of 2007 State of Haryana & others ......Appellants vs. Smt. Murti and others .......Respondents R.F.A. No. 743 of 2007 [ 4] 27. R.F.A. No. 1323 of 2007 State of Haryana & others ......Appellants vs. Chandgi and others .......Respondents 28. R.F.A. No. 1324 of 2007 State of Haryana & others ......Appellants vs. Ram Kishan and others .......Respondents 29. R.F.A. No. 1325 of 2007 State of Haryana & others ......Appellants vs. Smt. Giano and others .......Respondents 30. R.F.A. No. 1326 of 2007 State of Haryana & others ......Appellants vs. Smt. Dhanpati and others .......Respondents 31. R.F.A. No. 1327 of 2007 State of Haryana & others ......Appellants vs. Dhare and others .......Respondents 32. R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2007 Sanjiv Kumar and another ......Appellants vs. State of Haryana & another .......Respondents 33. R.F.A. No. 2121 of 2007 Chandgi and others ......Appellants vs. State of Haryana & others .......Respondents 34. R.F.A. No. 2122 of 2007 Murti Devi and others ......Appellants vs. State of Haryana & others .......Respondents 35. R.F.A. No. 2123 of 2007 Smt. Dhanpati and others ......Appellants vs. State of Haryana & others .......Respondents R.F.A. No. 743 of 2007 [ 5] 36. R.F.A. No. 2124 of 2007 Ram Dia and others ......Appellants vs. State of Haryana & others .......Respondents 37. R.F.A. No. 2125 of 2007 Hukam Chand and others ......Appellants vs. State of Haryana & others .......Respondents 38. R.F.A. No. 2126 of 2007 Sumer Singh @ Shamsher Singh and others ......Appellants vs. State of Haryana & others .......Respondents 39. R.F.A. No. 2127 of 2007 Dalip Singh and others ......Appellants vs. State of Haryana & others .......Respondents 40. R.F.A. No. 2128 of 2007 Amar Singh and others ......Appellants vs. State of Haryana & others .......Respondents 41 R.F.A. No. 2253 of 2007 Hem Chander and others ......Appellants vs. State of Haryana & others .......Respondents 42. R.F.A. No. 2254 of 2007 Raj Singh and others ......Appellants vs. State of Haryana & others .......Respondents 43. R.F.A. No. 2364 of 2007 Om Prakash and others ......Appellants vs. State of Haryana & others .......Respondents 44. R.F.A. No. 3609 of 2007 Nahar Singh and others ......Appellants vs. State of Haryana & others .......Respondents R.F.A. No. 743 of 2007 [ 6] 45. R.F.A. No. 3610 of 2007 Ram Kishan and others ......Appellants vs. State of Haryana & others .......Respondents 46. R.F.A. No. 3611 of 2007 Dhare and others ......Appellants vs. State of Haryana & others .......Respondents 47. R.F.A. No. 792 of 2009 Mewa Devi and others ......Appellants vs. State of Haryana & others .......Respondents 48. R.F.A. No. 3612 of 2007 Sheela Devi and others ......Appellants vs. State of Haryana & others .......Respondents 49. R.F.A. No. 1561 of 2009 Manbir ......Appellants vs. State of Haryana & others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Bijender Dhankar, Mr. S. S. Duhan and Mr. Surender Saini, Advocates for the land owners. Mr. H. S. Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of the above mentioned appeals, as common questions of law and facts are involved. The land owners have filed appeals seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. The State has also filed appeals praying for reduction of the amount of compensation awarded to the land owners by the learned court below. As the acquired land pertained to different villages, the individual R.F.A. No. 743 of 2007 [ 7] facts thereof are noticed below: Regarding acquisition of land of village Bindroli Land measuring 10.23 acres, situated in village Bindroli, Hadbast No. 213, Tehsil and District Sonepat was acquired by the Government of Haryana vide notification dated 29.7.2002, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for the purpose of construction of Career Lined Channel. The same was followed vide notification dated 8.10.2002, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre. The land owners feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Collector, filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below upheld the award of the Collector. Regarding acquisition of land of village Rohat Land measuring 26.07 acres, situated in village Rohat, Hadbast No. 215, Tehsil and District Sonepat was acquired by the Government of Haryana vide notification dated 29.7.2002, issued under Section 4 of the Act for the same purpose. The same was followed vide notification dated 8.10.2002, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value @ Rs.2,70,000/- per acre. Regarding acquisition of land of village Nahra Land measuring 25.58 acres, situated in village Nahra, Hadbast No. 227, Tehsil and District Sonepat was acquired by the Government of Haryana vide notification dated 29.7.2002, issued under Section 4 of the Act for the same purpose. The same was followed vide notification dated 8.10.2002, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value @ Rs. 3,30,000/- per acre. Regarding acquisition of land of village Mandora Land measuring 10.45 acres, situated in village Mandora, Hadbast No. 225, Tehsil, Kharkhoda, District Sonepat was acquired by the Government of Haryana vide notification dated 29.7.2002, issued under Section 4 of the Act for the same purpose. The same was followed vide notification dated 8.10.2002, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below upheld the award of the Collector. R.F.A. No. 743 of 2007 [ 8] Discussions Regarding acquisition of land in village Bindroli Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the evidence produced by them on record has not been considered. Letter dated 28.4.2005 (Ex. P1), issued by Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Revenue Department, vide which for the land falling in National Capital Region, minimum floor rate was fixed at Rs. 12,50,000/- per acre was not taken into consideration. Placing reliance thereupon, it was submitted that the land owners in the present case are entitled to compensation in terms thereof. However, some amount can be reduced on account of the fact that acquisition in the present case was prior in time. Besides that, there is no evidence on record to support the claim for enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that letter (Ex. P1) does not have retrospective effect and factually it is a case of no evidence. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find that on the basis of the material produced on record by the land owners, any case for enhancement of compensation can possibly be made out. The land owners in the present case have not produced any sale deed on record to show the value of the land in the vicinity. As regards reliance on the instructions issued by the State Government vide letter (Ex. P1) is concerned, the same is totally misconceived, considering the fact that those were issued on 28.4.2005, i.e., much after the acquisition of land in the present case vide notification dated 29.7.2002. It has no where been mentioned in those instructions that for the acquisition carried out prior thereto, the same principle has to be considered with application of some cut. Accordingly, the impugned award of the learned court below is upheld. Regarding acquisition of land in village Rohat Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the court below has failed to appreciate the evidence produced by the land owners on record in the form of sale deeds (Ex. A1 and Ex. A2), vide which the land in the close vicinity of the acquired land was sold. If the same is considered, the amount of compensation, as has been assessed by the learned court below, deserves to be enhanced further. However, he could not dispute the fact that sale deed (Ex.A1) was registered in April, 2003, whereas the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 29.7.2002. Sale deed (Ex. A2) though was registered in December, 2001, but the same pertained to merely 7 Marlas of land and there is no site plan R.F.A. No. 743 of 2007 [ 9] on record to show the exact location of the land pertaining to the aforesaid two sale deeds vis-a-vis the acquired land. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the land owners in the present case have already been awarded compensation much more than what they deserved. There is no scope for interference. In fact, the same deserves to be reduced and the award of the Collector deserves to be upheld. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the land owners. On the basis of evidence on record, no case for further enhancement of amount of compensation can possibly be made out. Firstly, the basic requirement to justify valuation of the acquired land to claim enhancement in compensation is the evidence showing the value of the land in the vicinity. Mere production of sale deeds is not enough. It has to be corroborated with a site plan showing the location of the acquired land as well as the land pertaining to the sale deeds. Further, the sale deeds have to be in close proximity in time to the acquisition of land. In the present case, one of the sale deeds (Ex. A2) was though registered in December, 2001, but was pertaining to merely 7 Marlas of land and location thereof is not known. However, the fact remains that transaction being only for 7 Marlas of land, the location thereof would certainly be in some commercial area or on road. The same has also been observed by the learned court below that transaction was for use of land for non-agricultural purposes. Still, the learned court below was quite generous in assessing the amount of compensation, as by taking two sale deeds (Ex. A1 and Ex. A2), registered in April, 2003 and December, 2001 respectively, on estimation, it granted increase of Rs. 20,000/- per acre to the land owners which, in my opinion, does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the impugned award of the learned court below assessing the amount of compensation for the land pertaining to village Rohat is upheld. Regarding acquisition of land in village Nahra Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the evidence in the form of sale deeds (Ex. P10, Ex. P13 and Ex.P14), have not been considered by the learned court below. Vide sale deed dated 13.1.2003 (Ex. P10), land measuring three marlas of land was sold for Rs. 20,000/- at an average price of Rs. 10,66,666/- per acre. Vide sale deed dated 25.9.2002 (Ex. P13), plot measuring 201 square yards was sold for Rs. 40,500/- at an average price of Rs. 9,75,223/- per acre and similarly vide sale deed dated 27.5.2004 (Ex. P14), a plot measuring 100 square yards was sold for Rs. 22,500/- at an average price of Rs. 10,89,000/- R.F.A. No. 743 of 2007 [ 10] per acre. The land had great potential for being urbanised; Delhi Border is only at a distance of two kilometers from the land in question and various factories, telephone exchange, banks, cinemal hall etc. are located near it. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the sale deeds, relied upon by the land owners, were registered after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and were in respect of very small pieces of land. Sale deed (Ex. R1), relied upon by the State, was registered on 12.9.2001, vide which five kanals of land was sold for Rs. 1,87,500/- at an average price of Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre, i.e., just prior to the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The State has also filed appeals seeking reduction of the amount of compensation granted to the land owners pertaining to the land of village Nahra. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, the appeals filed by the land owners as well as the State are mis-conceived. As far as the land owners are concerned, they produced three sale deeds (Ex. P10, Ex. P13 and Ex. P14) on record pertaining to small plots and that too, which were registered after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, which as such could not be relied upon for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land as the location thereof cannot be compared with the land in question. As against that, the learned court below was fair enough in relying upon the sale deeds produced by the State pertaining to five kanals of land of village Nahra, which was registered on 12.9.2001. Relying upon the same, the learned court below granted increase thereon @ 12% per annum for the period of 10 months difference in the registration of sale deed and issuance of notification under Section 4 and determined the amount of compensation at Rs. 3,30,000/- per acre as against Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre awarded by the Collector. The learned court below has not committed any illegality in granting increase @ 12% per annum considering the fact that the land forms part of National Capital Region. The location thereof also cannot be disputed at least by the State vis-a-vis the acquired land, as the sale deed was produced by the State itself. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in both the sets of appeals and the same are dismissed. Regarding acquisition of land in village Mandora A perusal of the impugned award shows that the land owners had relied upon the following sale deeds: R.F.A. No. 743 of 2007 [ 11] “Sr. No. Date of sale deed Area Sale price Sale price Location/village K. M (in Rs.) per acre ............................................................................................................................................... 1. Ex.P3 1439 dated 1.6.98 200 sq. yards 25,000/- 6,05,000/- Within Lal Dora of village Abaspur 2. Ex.P4 3314 dated 19.9.03 0-3 64,000/- 34,13,333/- Within abadi of village Abaspur 3. Ex.P5 5225 dated 3.12.03 0-8 1,44,000/- 28,80,000/- -do- 4. Ex.P6 6888 dated 20.2.04 0-8 1,44,000/- 28,80,000/- -do- 5. Ex.P7 238 dated 6.6.2000 0-7 50,000/- 11,42,857/- Mandora 6. Ex.P8 577 dated 9.6.2004 0-8 72,000/- 14,40,000/- Mandora 7. Ex..P9 926 dated 16.7.2004 0-7 63,000/- 1,40,000/- Mandora 8. Ex.P10 1281 dated 9.9.2004 6-1 4,84,000/- 6,40,000/- Mandora 9. Ex.P11 117 dated 28.4.2005 0-5 42,000/- 13,60,000/- Mandora .................................................................................................................................... Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the boundary of village Garhi Abaspur was just abutting the acquired land falling in village Mandora. It was clearly established from sale deeds (Ex.P4 to Ex. P6) that rates in the area were rising. It was submitted that even in village Mandora, rates are quite high, as is evident from sale deeds (Ex. P7 to Ex. P11). On the other hand learned counsel for the State submitted that the land owners have been awarded adequate compensation keeping in view the relevant factors and the learned court below did not commit any illegality in upholding the award of the Collector. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, no case for enhancement of compensation for the acquired land has been made out. A perusal of the impugned award shows that all the sale deeds produced by the land owners in the present case pertained to small plots of land or forming part of Lal Dora of village Abaspur. As per site plan (Ex. P2) on record, the land forming part of sale deeds pertaining to village Garhi Abaspur are located in the abadi area, whereas the sale deeds pertaining to village Mandora are located close to the abadi thereof and abutting the main road. The acquired land in the present case is located far off from the abadi of village Mandora and in the form of a strip adjoining the existing drain. There cannot possibly be any comparison between these two. A perusal of the sale deeds produced by the land owners shows that except sale deeds (Ex.P3 and Ex. P7), all other sale deeds were registered much after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Accordingly, the same have no relevance as such. As against this, the State had produced on record sale deed (Ex. R1), registered on 6.6.2002 for 8 kanals 2 marlas of land at an average price of Rs. R.F.A. No. 743 of 2007 [ 12] 2,76,543/- per acre. The location thereof in comparison to the acquired land cannot be disputed at least by the State. The award of the Collector in the present case is already Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre which, on the basis of the material on record, cannot possibly be faulted with. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge January 29, 2010 mk