R.F.A. No. 789 of 2004 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: October ,2008 1) RFA No. 789 of 2004 and X-objection No. 134-CI of 2008 Date of Decision: 30.10.2008 State of Haryana .....Appellant v. Smt. Chirya .....Respondent 2) R.F.A. No. 790 of 2004 and X-objection No. 137-CI of 2004 State of Haryana .....Appellant v. Singha Ram .....Respondent 3) R.F.A. No.791 of 2004 State of Haryana .....Appellant v. Surender Singh .....Respondent 4) R.F.A. No.793 of 2004 State of Haryana .....Appellant v. Ran Singh .....Respondent 5) R.F.A. No.794 of 2004 and X-objection No. 132-CI of 2004 State of Haryana .....Appellant v. Surji .....Respondent 6) R.F.A. No.795 of 2004 State of Haryana .....Appellant v. Dalip Singh .....Respondent R.F.A. No. 789 of 2004 [ 2] 7) R.F.A. No.79 6 of 2004 and X-objection No. 131-CI of 2004 State of Haryana .....Appellant v. Amrati .....Respondent 8) R.F.A. No.797 of 2004 State of Haryana .....Appellant v. Raghbir Singh .....Respondent 9) R.F.A. No.79 8 of 2004 State of Haryana .....Appellant v. Sampuran Singh .....Respondent 10) R.F.A. No.799 of 2004 State of Haryana .....Appellant v. Shubh Ram .....Respondent 11) R.F.A. No.800 of 2004 State of Haryana .....Appellant v. Ram Singh .....Respondent 12) R.F.A. No.801 of 2004 State of Haryana .....Appellant v. Risal Singh .....Respondent 13) R.F.A. No.802 of 2004 and X-objection No. 135-CI of 2004 State of Haryana .....Appellant v. Badoo .....Respondent R.F.A. No. 789 of 2004 [ 3] 14) R.F.A. No.803 of 2004 and X-objection No. 133-CI of 2004 State of Haryana .....Appellant v. Shanti .....Respondent 15) R.F.A. No.804 of 2004 State of Haryana .....Appellant v. Balbir Singh .....Respondent 16) R.F.A. No.805 of 2004 and X-objection No. 136-CI of 2004 State of Haryana .....Appellant v. Puran .....Respondent 17) R.F.A. No.806 of 2004 and X-objection No. 138-CI of 2004 State of Haryana .....Appellant v. Dariya Singh .....Respondent 18) R.F.A. No.953 of 2004 and Surender Singh .....Appellant v. State of Haryana .....Respondent 19) R.F.A. No.954 of 2004 Ram Singh .....Appellant v. State of Haryana .....Respondent 20) R.F.A. No.955 of 2004 Sampuran Singh .....Appellant v. State of Haryana .....Respondent R.F.A. No. 789 of 2004 [ 4] CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. H.S. Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. S.S.Goripuria, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State. Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate for the land owners-respondents. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of a bunch of 20 cases, as the same arise out of a common acquisition. R.F.A. Nos. 789 to 791, 793 to 806 of 2004 have been filed by the State against the award of the learned court below, seeking reduction of compensation awarded to the land owners. In R.F.A. Nos. 789, 790, 794, 796, 802, 803, 805 and 806 of 2004, the land owners have filed cross-objections seeking further enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned court below. They have also filed R.F.A. Nos. 953 to 955 of 2004 praying for similar relief. The facts have been noticed from R.F.A. No. 789 of 2004. Briefly, the facts are that notification dated 10.1.1997 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') was issued for acquisition of 236 kanals and 11 marlas of land in the revenue estate of Loharu Town, Tehsil Loharu, District Bhiwani for setting up Government Polytechnic College, Loharu. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), vide award dated 22.8.1997, assessed the value of the total land at Rs. 27,67,969/-. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani relying upon the evidence led by the State in the form of Ex. R2 determined the value of the land by classifying the same into two categories, i.e., upto 100 meters from G.T. Road was categorised as class `A' and rest of the land as class `B'. The compensation payable for class `A' was determined as Rs. 1,17,014/- per acre, whereas for class `B' land, it was determined as Rs. 1,12,344/- per acre. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the value of the land, as determined by the learned court below, is not in conformity with the evidence produced by them on record. In fact, the entire evidence of the land owners has been ignored. Even the sale instance (Ex. PJ) which was forming part of the acquired land has not been considered at all, whereas sale deed (Ex. R2) has been considered, which pertained to land situated 2-3 kilometers away from the acquired land and off the main road, whereas the land in question is situated on R.F.A. No. 789 of 2004 [ 5] the main road which is surrounded by the area already developed. The land had great potential for urbanisation as the same is situated within the municipal limits, where the sale deeds are executed by measuring the land in square yards and not in acres because it is only small plots which are sold there. Referring to the evidence, it was submitted that document Ex. PA is a memo issued by Civil Court, Loharu fixing the minimum rate at which the sale deeds for the land situated in the area were to be registered. In terms of this document, from Octroi Post No. 7 to the College, the minimum value was determined at Rs. 200/- per square yard. Further reference is to the sale deed (Ex. P1) showing sale of 3 marlas of land @ Rs. 1,100/- per square yard which is forming part of the acquired land. The submission is that even if the transaction is for a small piece of plot but forming part of the acquired land, the same cannot possibly be ignored being best piece of evidence for the purpose of determination of fair value of the land. Considering the fact that it was a transaction for 3 marlas of plot, whereas the acquisition was for 236 kanals and 11 marlas of land, a reasonable cut can be applied which may be to the extent of 30-40% . On the other hand, learned Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that the learned court below has already granted much more compensation to the land owners. In fact, they were not entitled to that much amount and the same calls for reduction. Sale deed (Ex. PJ) cannot possibly be relied upon for the purpose of determination of fair value of the land in the present case for the simple reason that the same is only for an area of 3 marlas. Firstly, it cannot be made basis for determination of the value of a large chunk of land. Secondly, even otherwise the same should not be relied upon as such because it is not showing fair value of the land in the area. In the absence of any other evidence in support, to place reliance on Ex.PJ would be totally inappropriate. The genuineness of this sale deed is also in doubt as the same has been got registered just before the acquisition to escalate claim for the acquired land. The land in fact on the date of acquisition was put to agricultural use. In fact, sale deeds (Ex. R1 and R2) are the best piece of evidence. Those were comparatively for big chunk of land. For the purpose of consideration of fair value of land under acquisition, the same should be relied upon. As far as reliance on document (Ex. PA), a communication by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) fixing minimum rate for registration of sale deeds is concerned, the submission is that the same cannot be said to be a good piece of evidence for the purpose of determination of fair value of the land, as the object and purpose thereof is different and the same does not depict the value at which the transactions are in fact taking place in the area. R.F.A. No. 789 of 2004 [ 6] Further, he submitted that Hon'ble the Supreme Court, while considering the value of plots shown in small transactions, for the purpose of reliance thereof for determining the fair value of a big chunk of land, directed for applying deduction to the extent of 86%. Reliance has been placed upon K.S. Shivadevamma and others v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer and another, (1996) 2 SCC 62 and Basavva (Smt.) and others v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer and others, 1996(9) SCC 640. The belting system applied by the learned court below, while assessing the value of the land by creating two categories, i.e., class `A' and class `B' was also uncalled for as the same is not in conformity with law. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. PW2- Kamal Singh, Draftsman in his oral evidence submitted that the acquired land is situated on the main Loharu-Bhiwani road. Adjacent thereto is the office of Forest Department, shops, Government School etc. In front of the acquired land across the road, shops are situated besides government quarters, Public Health Office, Patwar Khana and BDO office. Government College, Loharu is also adjacent to the acquired land, which falls within the municipal limits of Loharu. Bus stand of Loharu is also not far off from the acquired land. The entire area in between the acquired land the bus stand was urbanised. PW4- Satyawan, Registration Clerk in the office of Tehsildar-cum-Registrar, Loharu produced sale deeds (Ex. PF, Ex.PG, Ex.PH and Ex.PJ). Sale deed (Ex.PJ) was stated to be out of the acquired land, whereby 3 marlas plot was sold for Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre, which was registered on 1.10.1996. As far as location of the land is concerned, the same was not disputed in the evidence led by the State. To show the value of the acquired land, the State produced two sale deeds (Ex. R1 and Ex. R2). It was admitted in the cross-examination by RW1-Vikas Gottan that the land forming part of the sale deeds, produced by the State, was located at a distance of 3-4 kilometers from the acquired land and further that the same were not on the main road, but far away from the road. The land in question was agricultural in nature. From the evidence led by both the parties, the location of the land was established and so the potentiality. The learned court below rightly did not place reliance on sale deeds (Ex. R1 and Ex. R2). Land forming part of sale deed (Ex. R1) was located at a distance of 3-4 kilometers from the acquired land, whereas the land pertaining to sale deed (Ex. R2) was located at a distance of 2-3 kilometers from the acquired land. The primary contention raised by learned counsel for the land owners R.F.A. No. 789 of 2004 [ 7] was that sale deed (Ex.PJ) should alone be considered for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land. The land forming part therein was sold at a price of Rs. 1,100/- per square yard. Even if a reasonable cut of 30-40% is applied thereon, the value should be determined as such. However, I do not find any merit in this submission of learned counsel for the land owners for the reason that there is another sale deed available on record, i.e., Ex. PF, whereby 12 marlas of land was sold for Rs. 63,000/-, which was registered on 13.7.1994. The land pertaining to this sale deed is forming part of khasra No. 192. Similar is the position with regard to sale deed (Ex. PJ), which is also forming part of khasra Nos. 179 and 192. The difference in price within a period of two years is shown to be exhorbitant. The location of land forming part of sale deeds (Ex. PF and Ex. PJ) is across the road at one place. The average price in sale deed (Ex. PF) is Rs. 5,250/- per marla, whereas in sale deed (Ex. PJ), it is Rs. 33,333/- per marla. There is no other evidence to support the claim of the land owners to the effect that there was so much increase in the value of the land within this period of two years. Accordingly, I do not find it safe to rely upon sale deed (Ex. PJ) which though is forming part of the acquired land, but considering the fact that the acquisition was made vide notification dated 10.1.1997 and the sale deed was got registered on 1.10.1996, it may have been objectively done to escalate the claim for the acquired land. In my considered opinion, it would be comparatively safe to refer and rely upon sale deed (Ex. PF) by applying a reasonable cut therein, considering the fact that the same was for a small piece of land, situated on the main road and dealt with by the parties therein for commercial purpose according to their specific need. As referred to above, the average consideration paid in sale deed (Ex. PF) is Rs. 5,250/- per marla. Considering the fact that acquisition of the land was nearly 2-1/2 years thereafter, I deem it appropriate to grant 25% increase to the value so mentioned in sale deed (Ex. PF). Adding a sum of Rs. 1,310/- therein, the value of the land in sale deed (Ex. PF), as on the date of acquisition, would come out to Rs. 6,650/- per marla. In my opinion, considering the factum of its being a small piece of plot, situated on the main road dealt with for commercial use, a cut of 70% would be appropriate. Accordingly, reducing a sum of Rs. 4,592/- therefrom, the value of the acquired land would come out to Rs. 1,968/- per marla, i.e., Rs. 3,14,880/- per acre, multiplying the value by 160, i.e., the number of marlas in one acre. It is rounded off to Rs. 3,15,000/- per acre. As the land forming part of the sale deed, on which reliance was placed for the purpose of determination of aforesaid value was situated on the main road, the value which is R.F.A. No. 789 of 2004 [ 8] determined as above, would be for a depth upto 100 meters from the main road. For the land situated behind it, the same value cannot be assessed as it had the problem of access from the main road. Accordingly, in my opinion, the same should be taken as Rs. 1,60,000/- per acre. The land owners shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits as available under the Act. Accordingly, the appeals as well as cross-objections filed by the State are dismissed and the appeals as well as cross-objections filed by the land owners are allowed in the above terms. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge October 30, 2008 mk