R.F.A. No. 555 of 2000 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 555 of 2000 (O&M) Date of decision: 6.9.2010 Ram Singh .. Appellant v. The State of Haryana and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The land owner is in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 28.3.1995, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana acquired 0.38 acres of land in village Bhulwana, Tehsil Hodel, District Faridabad for construction of Delhi-Mathura Road (National Highway -2). The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') awarded compensation @ ` 66,737/- per acre for all kinds of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owner filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 2,75,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that while assessing the compensation for small portion of 0.38 acres of land, acquired for the purpose of expansion of National Highway No. 1, the learned court below has failed to consider the evidence produced on record by the land owners. He referred to sale deed (Ex. P1) dated 9.12.1985, vide which 5 kanals and 10 marlas of land owned by the appellant and adjoining to the acquired land was sold for a sum of ` 80,000/-, i.e., approximately ` 1,20,000/- per acre. The submission is that in case increase @ 12% per annum cumulative is awarded thereon, considering the same to be the best piece of evidence, the value of the acquired land would come out to R.F.A. No. 555 of 2000 [ 2] ` 3,42,752/- per acre. Another sale deed, relied upon by learned counsel for the land owners, is Ex. P2, vide which 21 kanals and 5 marlas of land was sold for a sum of ` 10,62,500/-, i.e., at an average price of ` 4,00,000/- per acre. The aforesaid sale deed was registered on 31.8.1995. The vendee therein was a limited company. Out of the sale consideration, ` 10,000/- was paid in cash and the remaining amount was paid by way of bank draft. The submission was that even if the aforesaid sale deed was registered about 5 months after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the genuineness of the aforesaid sale deed cannot be doubted. At the most, a reasonable cut can be applied and the compensation assessed. If for a period of 5 months, 5% cut is applied, the amount of compensation would come out to ` 3,80,000/- per acre. As regards location of the land, it was submitted that it is not disputed that the same is located on National Highway No. 1. It is merely one kilometer from Dubchik Tourist Complex and had great future potential, as commercial, residential or industrial growth starts from the land located on the road. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that there is no question of placing reliance on the sale deed, which was registered about 10 years prior to the acquisition. There is no set principle for grant of increase @ 12% per annum cumulative. Even if the aforesaid sale deed (Ex. P1) is considered and increase @ 12% per annum simple is granted, the compensation would come out to ` 2,56,000/- per acre. The sale deed (Ex. P2) cannot be relied upon for the reason that the same was registered after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and further the location of the land is not pointed out on any of the site plan produced on record. He further submitted that three sale deeds produced on record by the State (Ex. R1 to Ex. R3) were not considered at all by the learned court below, which justified the award of the Collector. However, in any case, no enhancement can be granted to the land owner at this stage. The prayer was for dismissal of the appeal. In response to the contentions of learned counsel for the State, the submission of learned counsel for the land owner was that sale deeds (Ex. R1 to Ex. R3) cannot be considered at all for the reason that the same were merely attested photo copies of the sale deeds and what is admissible in evidence is certified copies of the sale deeds and not attested photo copies thereof. He further submitted that in sale deed (Ex. P2), relied upon by the land owner, it is specifically mentioned that the Collector rate in the area was ` 1,25,000/- per acre, however, still the sale deed was got registered at the actual price paid, which was prevailing in the area. R.F.A. No. 555 of 2000 [ 3] Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. As far as location of the land is concerned, it is not in dispute that the same is located on National Highway No. 1, forming part of revenue estate of village Bhulwana. It was a small portion of land which was acquired, i.e., 0.38 acres. It was admitted by R.W.1- C.L. Gupta, in his cross-examination, that Dubchik Tourist Complex is located merely one kilometer from the land in question. It was further stated by PW2-Nathi, in his examination-in-chief, that the land sold by him vide sale deed (Ex. P2), which is also forming part of the revenue estate of village Bhulwana, is located quite close to the acquired land. It is further evident from the sale deed that the same is located on the National Highway. In the aforesaid sale deed, the Collector's rate has been mentioned as ` 1,25,000/- per acre, though the consideration paid therein is recorded as ` 4,00,000/- per acre. This sale deed was registered 5 months after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The area dealt with therein is 21 kanals and 5 marlas. Out of the total sale consideration, ` 10,000/- were paid in cash and the remaining amount was paid by way of bank draft. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the genuineness of the aforesaid sale deed cannot be doubted. As against this, it would not be safe to rely upon sale deed (Ex. P1) registered on 9.12.1985, though for the land, which is adjoining to the acquired land. A perusal of the award of the Collector shows that Collector, Faridabad had intimated him that the value of the land in the area was ` 60,670/- per acre. However, the same is falsified even from the sale deeds produced on record by the State, wherein the consideration paid is ranging from ` 70,588/- to ` 72,000/- per acre. In the totality of the circumstances, in my opinion, sale deed (Ex. P2) can very well be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land, though not as such. The average sale consideration paid therein was ` 4,00,000/- per acre. As there is no site plan on record to show its exact location, however, still from the sale deed it is evident that the same is located on National Highway. Even the vendor had stated in his examination-in- chief that location thereof is close to the acquired land. There was no cross- examination on that point. However, still considering the fact that it was registered 5 months after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and giving some margin for the same and even considering the fact that it may be a little bit better located, in my opinion, the amount of compensation, as assessed by the R.F.A. No. 555 of 2000 [ 4] learned court below, certainly deserves increase and the same is assessed at ` 3,25,000/- per acre as against ` 2,75,000/- per acre awarded by the learned court below. Ordered accordingly. The land owner shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available to him under the Act. The appeal is disposed of in the manner indicated above. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 6.9.2010 mk