R.F.A. No. 99 of 2006 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: August 2 ,2010 (1) R.F.A. No. 99 of 2006 (O&M) Jarnail Singh .. Appellant v. District Revenue Officer and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Hardip Singh and Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocates for the land owners. Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate for Union of India. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 99, 1071, 1599 to 1605, 1948, 1949, 2389, 2390, 2558, 3195 to 3197 of 2006, 742, 1778 of 2007, 3612, 3613, 5565, 5566 of 2008 and 4911 of 2009, as common questions of law and facts are involved. 2. In the appeals filed by the land owners, they are seeking further enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned court below for the acquired land, whereas in appeals filed by Union of India, the prayer is for reduction in the amount of compensation awarded to the land owners. 3. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 1599 of 2006. 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 26.10.1990, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Punjab acquired 262 kanals and 3 marlas of land in village Sohana Had Bast No. 35 and 728 kanals and 6 marlas of land in village Lakhnaur for Border Security Force Complex. The same was followed by notification dated R.F.A. No. 99 of 2006 [ 2] 6.11.1991, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') awarded compensation @ ` 1,75,000/- per acre. 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 @ ` 4,00,000/- per acre. In four other land references, the learned court below assessed the amount of compensation for the land acquired vide same notification @ ` 6,96,000/- per acre. 5. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the acquired land is situated on National Highway, i.e., Chandigarh-Sohana road. To justify their claim for enhancement of compensation, they submitted that this Court in Harchal Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1991 PLJ 20, where the acquisition of land was for villages Mataur and Sohana vide notification dated 4.2.1981, had awarded compensation @ ` 1,25,000/- per acre. The notification in the present case under Section 4 of the Act having been issued on 26.10.1990, the land owners should be granted increase thereon at least @ 12% per annum. As far as the sale deeds or other evidence produced on record by the land owners is concerned, it was conceded that none of them was relevant for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land for the reason that these were either rent agreements, mortgage deeds or the sale deeds, which were either registered much prior to the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case or subsequent thereto. Further reliance was placed upon another award (Ex. P12), passed by the learned court below, where the land of the same village acquired vide notification dated 25.7.1991, was valued at ` 5,96,000/- per acre. The submission was that valuation in the aforesaid case clearly shows that the area in question was developing at a fast pace and it is for the reason that it was adjoining to Mohali and the city was expanding on that side. Further reference was also made to award of the learned court below pertaining to acquisition of land vide notification dated 11.11.1993, where the value thereof was assessed @ ` 6,96,000/- per acre. 6. On a specific query by the court as to whether the land pertaining to the awards relied upon by the land owners has been pointed out on any of the site plan produced on record by them, the answer was in negative. 7. In RFA No. 3197 of 2006, additional submissions were made regarding valuation of super structure and compensation on account of loss of business. It was submitted that the appellant therein had claimed a sum of ` 3,38,000/- on account of valuation of super structure, however, the learned court below awarded merely ` 1,67,048/-. In terms of various judgments of this court, R.F.A. No. 99 of 2006 [ 3] the land owners in the present case should be granted increase at least @ 25% on the value so assessed by the Collector. As regards claim for damages on account of loss of business is concerned, it was submitted that admitted position on record is that the land owner in this case had installed looms in the premises, which had to be uprooted on account of which he suffered loss. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for Union of India while defending the appeals filed by the land owners and also prosecuting the appeals filed by it, praying for reduction in the amount of compensation already assessed by the learned court below, submitted that while deciding land references pertaining to R.F.A. Nos. 1599 to 1605, 2389 and 2390 of 2006, the learned court below relying upon an earlier award (Ex. P13) pertaining to the same land had assessed the value of the acquired land @ ` 4,00,000/- per acre. However, subsequently four other land references were decided, which are subject-matter of R.F.A. Nos. 1778 of 2007, 5565 and 5566 of 2008 and 4911 of 2009, where the learned court below assessed the amount of compensation for the land in question acquired vide same notification @ ` 6,96,000/- per acre. While arriving at the conclusion, reliance was placed upon award (Ex. P7) therein, which was pertaining to the acquisition of land carried out in the area vide notification dated 11.11.1993, i.e., more than 3 years after the acquisition under consideration. It was further submitted that even in the award relied upon in first set of cases, where the compensation was assessed @ ` 4,00,000/- per acre, the court had referred to the same very award also but reduced the amount of compensation considering the fact that in the two notifications, there was gap of three years. In these cases, the land owners are also in cross-appeals seeking further enhancement of compensation. 9. The important facts, which were brought to the notice of this court by learned counsel for Union of India are that the total land acquired in the present case was 990 kanals and 9 marlas, out of which it was only 49 acres, 4 kanals and 18 marlas of land, which was transferred to Union of India for the purpose of use by Border Security Force. Rest of the land was retained by the State. 10. It was not disputed by the counsel for the parties that the first award of the learned court below determining the value of the acquired land @ ` 4,00,00/-, i.e., Ex. P13 was neither challenged by the land owners nor the State any further and the same attained finality. Meaning thereby that for the land acquired vide same notification, challenge to the award either seeking further enhancement or reduction in the amount of compensation is in few of the cases and not the entire bunch of cases. 11. As far as claim made by the land owners seeking further R.F.A. No. 99 of 2006 [ 4] enhancement of compensation on account of super structure existing on the acquired land is concerned, it was submitted that the same is without any basis. The award of the Collector was quite reasonable. Similar is the argument with regard to claim of damages on account of loss of business. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. 13. What is not in dispute in the first set of appeals is that the learned court below while assessing the amount of compensation therein had relied upon its earlier award (Ex. P13) pertaining to the same acquisition. It was not disputed at the time of arguments that neither the State nor the land owners challenged the aforesaid award (Ex. P13) before this Court disputing the amount of compensation assessed. Once the earlier award pertaining to acquisition of the same land was not challenged by the State, it would not be reasonable and justifiable to interfere in the appeals filed by the State/Union of India challenging the subsequent award, which is based on the earlier award, which attained finality. That would result in payment of different amount of compensation to the land owners, whose land was acquired vide same notification, though similarly situated. 14. Even otherwise, if the material on record is considered, in my opinion, the compensation of acquired land, as has been assessed @ ` 4,00,000/- per acre, is found to be just and fair. The claim made by the land owners that they should be granted increase @ 12% per annum on the value as assessed for the land acquired vide notification dated 4.2.1981 is totally unjustified, as it could not be categorically stated that there was no sale transaction in the area during this period of nine years. However, still the fact is that for the land acquired in the same village vide notification dated 25.7.1991, i.e., almost 9 months after the acquisition in the present case, the value was assessed at 5,96,000/- per acre. The value of land acquired in the same village vide notification dated 11.11.1993 was assessed @ ` 6,96,000/- per acre. Both these awards pertaining to acquisition of land vide notification dated 25.7.1991 or 11.11.1993 have been passed by the learned court below. Learned counsel for the parties did not point out at the time of hearing as to what was the status thereof subsequently, i.e., as to whether any appeal was filed against that and if filed, the status thereof. 15. The learned court below while assessing the compensation for the acquired land had referred to the award pertaining to acquisition of land vide notification dated 11.11.1993 and applied a cut @ 12% per annum therein and assessed the compensation. Though this court may not put a stamp as such on the principles so applied strictly, however, still many times while assessing the R.F.A. No. 99 of 2006 [ 5] compensation for the acquired land, thumb rule is also applied. In my opinion, in the present case also, the same principle can very well be applied and on a consideration of the fact that value of the land in the village was assessed at ` 1,75,000/- per acre for the acquisition carried out on 4.2.1981, which increased to ` 6,96,000/- per acre in November, 1993 and also the fact that chunk of land acquired is abutting the main Chandigarh-Sohna road. The value @ ` 4,00,000/- per acre, as assessed by the learned court below, cannot be said to be either on lower or higher side. 16. As far as assessment of compensation in the second set of cases, i.e., R.F.A. Nos. 1778 of 2007, 5565 and 5566 of 2008 and 4911 of 2009, is concerned, in my opinion, the manner in which the learned court below had proceeded with is totally perverse. It is apparent that either the principles of law for assessment of compensation were not known to the officer concerned or the same were ignored and swept under the carpet for the reasons best known to him, which certainly needs to be inquired into. There is error apparent on the face of it. The acquisition in the present case was carried out vide notification dated 26.11.1990. The learned court below had already placed reliance on its earlier award (Ex. P13) and assessed the compensation for the acquired land @ ` 4,00,000/- per acre. However, still the learned court below in the second set of cases while ignoring the award pertaining to same acquisition sought to rely upon the award pertaining to the acquisition of land carried out vide notification dated 11.11.1993 and assessed the compensation at the same rate as was granted therein, i.e., ` 6,96,000/- per acre. In the process, the fact that the award, which was sought to be relied upon was pertaining to the land, which was acquired 3 years thereafter, was totally ignored resulting in grave injustice. Accordingly, the same deserves to be set aside and even in those cases, the amount of compensation payable to the land owners is assessed @ ` 4,00,000/- per acre, as has been determined in other cases. 17. However, this court would not like to leave the same as such. The conduct of the officer, who passed this award with his eyes closed for the reasons, which have to be read between the lines, needs to be enquired into to find the truth behind. Let the same be enquired into by the Registrar (Vigilance), Haryana. 18. So far as claim made in RFA No. 3197 of 2006 regarding compensation on account of loss of business is concerned, the appellant therein failed to prove his income from the business. No material was produced on record from which it could be opined that the appellant had suffered loss of business. However, the appellant shall also be entitled to ` 10,000/- on account of expenses incurred for shifting of his looms along with statutory benefits. R.F.A. No. 99 of 2006 [ 6] 19. As regards valuation of super structure is concerned, the learned court below after considering the evidence produced by the parties on record, assessed the compensation at ` 1,67,048/-. A perusal of the record shows that the landowner examined PW3-Amar Singh, who assessed the value of super structure on the property at ` 3,38,000/-, whereas the State examined RW3-Dinesh Kumar, Assistant Engineer, PWD, B&R Mohali, who assessed its value at ` 1,46,360/-. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the report submitted by the State is quite exhaustive and it has taken into consideration the dimensions with regard to super structure in detail. This court is not an expert. It is an estimate produced by the appellant versus an estimate produced by the State. It is a matter of common knowledge that the estimates produced by the land owners are always on the higher side, whereas the estimates produced by the State are conservative. Considering such circumstances, this Court had earlier been applying a set principle of addition of 25% in the value of super structure, as assessed by the Collector, as a thumb rule. Reference can be made to R.F.A. No. 579 of 2006— Smt. Akko Devi and others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and another, decided on 1.10.2008 and R.F.A. No. 1526 of 1987—Harchal Singh v. The State of Punjab, decided on 19.2.2010. The same principle is applied herein and the appellant is awarded 25% more on the value of the super structure, as has been assessed by the Collector. The appellant shall also be entitled to the statutory benefits available to him under the Act. 20. No other point was argued. 21. In view of my above discussion, the appeals filed by the land owners seeking further enhancement of compensation (except R.F.A. No. 3197 of 2006, where 25% more has been awarded on the value of super structure and ` 10,000/- on account of shifting charges), are dismissed. 22. R.F.A. Nos. 1599 to 1605, 2389 and 2390 of 2006 filed by Union of India seeking reduction in the amount of compensation are also dismissed. 23. R.F.A. Nos. 1778 of 2007, 5565 and 5566 of 2008 and 4911 of 2009 filed by Union of India are allowed and the land owners therein are held entitled to compensation @ ` 4,00,000/- per acre. 24. A copy of the judgment be sent to Registrar (Vigilance), Haryana for compliance of the directions contained in para 17 of this judgment immediately. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge August 2, 2010 mk (Refer to Reporter) R.F.A. No. 99 of 2006 [ 7]