RFA 941 of 1989 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RFA 941 of 1989 DATE OF DECISION : APRIL 11 , 2008 HARI SINGH ....... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Paramjeet Batta, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Narender Sura, AAG, Haryana, for the respondent. AJAI LAMBA, J. This bunch of four Regular First Appeals viz. 941 of 1989 (Hari Singh v. State of Haryana), 630 (Chattar Singh etc. v. State of Haryana), 631 (Ami Lal etc. v. State of Haryana) and 632 (Chhotu v. State of Haryana), of 1991, requires this Court to assess the market value of land acquired in the Revenue Estate of Village Singhpura, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind. RFA 941 of 1989 2 Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') was issued on 31.7.1985. The land has been acquired for construction of staff quarters, hostel and playground, etc., for Government College, Safidon. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 27.2.1986. The Land Acquisition Collector gave the award on 23.6.1986 whereby the market value of the land has been assessed at Rs.70,000/- per acre for Chahi land and Rs.1,15,000/- for Gair Mumkin land. The claimants were not satisfied with the compensation and, therefore, filed references under Section 18 of the Act. The references were consolidated and have been disposed of vide award dated 5.11.1988 by the Additional District Judge (II), Jind, and the market value of the land as assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector, has been upheld. The claimants have filed these first appeals for increase of compensation for the acquired land. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn my attention towards the site plan, Exhibit PA, to contend that the acquired land has urban potential and, therefore, could not be graded as of agricultural nature. It has further been pointed out that, admittedly, the land has been acquired supplementing Government College, Safidon, in regard to staff quarters, hostel, playground, etc. The Government College itself is an integral part of Safidon township. It has further been pointed out that the acquired land is just about 3 acres from the Jind-Safidon road and is connected with a minor road. The other argument raised by the learned counsel for the RFA 941 of 1989 3 appellants is that the value of the land should be assessed at the same rate as Exhibit PB i.e. sale deed dated 5.10.1984, by the Gram Panchayat, Singhpura, in favour of the Agriculture department. Vide the sale deed, Exhibit PB, 7 kanals 2 marlas of land was sold to the Agriculture department for a sum of Rs.2,14,750/-, which comes to approximately Rs.50/- per square yard or Rs.2,41,972/- per acre. The permission to sell the land was given to the Gram Panchayat by the Secretary, Panchayats, on 24.9.1984. The two dates i.e. 5.10.1984, the date of sale deed, Exhibit PB, and 24.9.1984, the permission granted by the Secretary, Panchayats, are in close proximity to the date when the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published i.e. 31.7.1985. Therefore, the land should be assessed at the same rate. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the contrary, has contended that the acquired land was virtually useless. The negative factors attached to the land have been mentioned in para-19 of the impugned award, which are to the effect that the location of the land is close to the canal, access to the land is only through a link road, there is a cremation ground near the acquired land. Further, planned colony, water supply, sewerage, roads, etc. are not existing on the acquired land, whereas the land that was sold vide Exhibit PB is in the township of Safidon. I have heard the leaned counsel and have gone through the record with their help. The entire argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the appellant-claimants are entitled to the same compensation as given in Exhibit PB. RFA 941 of 1989 4 In view of the fact that learned counsel for the parties have not referred to any other piece of evidence and have not relied on any other sale instance, I am required to consider as to whether the sale deed, exhibit PB, would be a good piece of evidence to assess the market value of the acquired land. During the arguments, Exhibit PX was produced for the limited purpose of showing the location of land. From Exhibits PX and PA, it is evident that Jind-Safidon road is a major road. Along with the said road, there is residential and commercial activity viz. petrol pump, rice shellers, houses, etc. A minor road goes towards its northern side from Jind-Safidon road towards the Government College land where the acquisition has taken place. Just adjoining the main road is the cremation ground. The acquired land itself abuts the minor road, as noticed above. The acquired land is about 3-1/2 acres away from the main road and does not have any boundary with the cremation ground. It is, rather, 2 acres away. While Adarsh Colony and the land that has been sold vide Exhibit PB are located on the southern side of Jind-Safidon road, residential colony is also located on the northern side of Jind-Safidon road. The Colony is about 2 acres from the acquired land. Judicial notice can also be taken of the fact that the Government College is in Safidon and, hence, named Government College, Safidon, and, therefore, is part and parcel of the township. Now, so as to compare the value of the acquired land with the land sold by the Gram Panchayat, Singhpura, to the Agriculture department, it is seen from site plans, Exhibits PA and PX, that the Agriculture department and the land that is subject matter of Exhibit PB are located on RFA 941 of 1989 5 the southern side of Jind-Safidon road behind Adarsh Colony at a distance of about 4 acres from the main Jind-Safidon road. The acquired land is on northern side of the same road, at a distance of about 3 acres, as per Exhibit PA, adjoining a connecting road. The date of sale of the land by the Gram Panchayat to the Agriculture department itself is 5.10.1984 i.e. about 10 months prior to the acquisition of land that forms subject matter of the present appeals. Although, the permission given by the Secretary, Panchayats, to the Gram Panchayat to sell the land is not a part of the record, however, it was referred to during arguments and is dated 24.9.1984. The factum of the Secretary, Panchayats, giving the permission to the Gram Panchayat to sell the land on 24.9.1984 has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent. It can, therefore, be safely deduced that the assessment of market value of the land by the Government for sale to the Agriculture department is about 10 months prior to the acquisition of the land. In these circumstances, therefore, all that is required to be considered is whether the land that was sold vide Exhibit PB would carry the same market value as the acquired land, or not. The location of the land has been noticed above. The residential colony is extended on both sides of the Jind-Safidon road. The potential of the acquired land to be developed for residential and commercial purposes cannot be denied in view of its immediate proximity to Government College, it being connected by road to major Jind-Safidon road and being in the immediate vicinity of a residential colony as shown in Exhibits PA and PX. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the reference court has erred in RFA 941 of 1989 6 facts in evaluating the land as having potential only for agricultural purposes and assessing it as Chahi and Gair Mumkin. A reference may also be made to the statements of P.K. Gupta, Acting Principal, Government College, Safidon (RW-1) and Partap Singh, Patwari Halqa, Singhpura (RW-2). P.K. Gupta, RW-1, admitted the fact that there was an unauthorized colony 30 feet away from the acquired land. Although he had also stated that the cremation ground was about 200-250 feet away from the acquired land and the canal was just 30 feet away from the acquired land, he made the following statement in the cross-examination (relevant portion) :- “....... There are many houses again said 20-25 houses in adjoining colony near this land. I call that colony un- authorized because there is no sanction of site plans from Municipal Committee. There is no water supply in that colony. However, electric connections are there. It is incorrect that there is water supply also. I do not know the exact location of agricultural office. Rice Sheller is one or 1-1/2 killas from the acquired land. Cremation ground is in between. That sheller is towards Jind side. I do not know whether there is a factory for manufacturing ceiling fans. I do not know whether the acquired land was being sold in the shape of plots. However, some lands near that un-authorized colony is being sold in plots. Again said I do not know. I cannot tell at what rate the neighbouring land is being sold. ...............” Partap Singh, RW-2, who prepared the site plan, Exhibit R-1, in his cross-examination, has stated that the “Agricultural office is 4 killa away from that land (road) and acquired land is 2-1/2 killas away”. The suggestion put to both the witnesses with regard to the rate of land was that it was Rs.100/- per square yard. The potential of the land stands established not only by way of the respective site plans placed on the record from both the sides but also from the ocular testimonies of 25 witnesses produced on behalf of the RFA 941 of 1989 7 claimants. The witnesses had deposed that the acquired land was better than the land sold in favour of the Agriculture department because residential colonies were located near the acquired land whereas there was no such residential colonies near the office of the Agriculture department. The witnesses have also deposed to the effect that the land was situated within the abadi of Safidon Mandi. PW-4 Chatter Singh, in cross-examination had deposed that the acquired land was situated within the Municipal limits of Safidon. The witnesses - PWs 2, 5, 7, 14, 15, 18, 19, 24 and 25, have deposed to the effect that they have raised construction in immediate vicinity of the acquired land or on the acquired land itself. The negative features of the land as noticed in para-19 of the impugned award, in my perception, do not reduce the value of the land. A perusal of the site plans available on the record indicates that the land has no common boundary with the cremation ground. Rather, the cremation ground is more than 2 killas away from the acquired land. The existence of houses in the immediate vicinity of the acquired land shows that the existence of canal has not hampered the development towards the acquired land. The land has been acquired for staff quarters for Government College, Safidon, also. Had the canal been an impediment to development and construction activity on the acquired land, obviously, the land would not have been acquired for construction of staff quarters. Thus, the grounds on which the award of the Land Acquisition Collector has been upheld by the Reference Court, are not made out from the material available on the record. Judicial notice of the fact can also be taken that Safidon, at the time when the acquisition took place, was a small township. Most of the RFA 941 of 1989 8 colonies were unauthorized. Taking the totality of facts and circumstances into account, I find that the sale deed, Exhibit PB, would be relevant to consider the market value of the acquired land. The area sold vide sale deed, Exhibit PB, itself is substantial i.e. 7 kanals 2 marlas. Obviously, the market value for the land would have been paid to the Gram Panchayat as the sale itself was in favour of the Agriculture department. The value of land under Exhibit PB comes to Rs.2,41,972/- per acre i.e. Rs. 50/- per square yard. In view of the above and having held that the land that has been sold in favour of the Agriculture department, vide Exhibit PB, is comparable, I find no reason to deny the claimants the same market value as has been given to the Gram Panchayat, Singhpura, by the Agriculture department. The market value of the land is, accordingly, assessed at Rs.50/- per square yard. The claimants will also be entitled to all statutory benefits. The appeals are allowed in the above terms. April 11 , 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE