RFA No. 146 of 2005 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 146 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision: August 26, 2010 Jagtar Singh and others .. Appellants Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Arun Nehra and Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocates for the land owners. Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 146 to 157 and 320 to 333 of 2005, as common questions of law and facts are involved. The land owners are in appeal against the award of the learned court below seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land, whereas the State has filed appeals seeking reduction thereof. Briefly, the facts are that the land measuring 62 kanals, situated in village Mataur, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib was acquired by the State Government vide notification dated 18.6.1998, published in newspaper on 29.6.1998, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for construction of Police Station. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land as under: RFA No. 146 of 2005 [2] “Sr. No. Kind of land Rate (per acre) Rates (per acre) for land situated in ` within 40 karams of the road in ` ....................................................................................................................................................... 1. Chahi/Nehri 3,00,000/- 4,50,000/- 2. Barani/Banjar Zadid/ 1,95,000/- 2,93,500/- Kadim 3. Gair Mumkin Pahar/ 65,000/- 97,500/- Cho/Khad. 4. Gair Mumkin abadi 4,55,000/- No additional benefit area which is under abadi within municipal limit or Lal Dora out of the Municipal limit or Lal Dora but within 40 karams from this limit or Lal Dora. 5. Gair Mumkin House/ 4,55,000/- No additional benefit.” Abadi which is outside the limit but under the khasra number. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 20,000/- per marla, i.e., ` 32,00,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that considering the evidence produced on record by the land owners, the value of the acquired land, as assessed by the learned court below, is not just and fair. Reference was made to sale deed (Ex. P2), whereby 16 marlas of land of village Mataur was sold for a sum of ` 4,50,000/- at an average price of ` 28,125/- per marla and sale deed (Ex. P3) dated 12.9.1996, whereby 8 marlas of land of village Lodhipur was sold for a sum of ` 2,00,000/- at an average price of ` 25,000/- per marla. Further reliance was placed upon a judgment of this court in RFA No. 4176 of 2002— Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab, decided on 5.5.2009, whereby for the acquisition carried out vide notification dated 4.12.1998 for the purpose of Tourist and Reception Centre, this court had awarded compensation of ` 33,750/- per marla. As regards location of the land, it was submitted that the same was within the municipal limits of Anandpur Sahib. The entire area in the close vicinity of the acquired land was already developed. It was surrounded by commercial and residential establishments. It is quite close to historical Gurudwara Anandpur Sahib. Main bus stand of Anandpur Sahib was not far of. The acquired land is located on main Ropar-Nangal road. Just opposite the acquired land is a petrol pump and adjoining the same is Guru Teg Bahadur Khalsa College. Power colony RFA No. 146 of 2005 [3] was also located adjacent to the college, a portion of back side of which touched the boundary of the acquired land. Sant Piara Park was also not far of from the acquired land and close to that was a three star hotel and a portion of the land acquired for the purpose of Tourist and Reception Centre, which was subject- matter of appeal before this court in Harbhajan Singh's case (supra). As is evident from site plan Ex. A, land dealt with in Harbhajan Singh's case (supra) is located on a link road from Nangal-Ropar road, whereas the acquired land is located on the main Nangal-Ropar road. Considering the aforesaid facts, the value as determined by this court in Harbhajan Singh's case (supra) should be awarded to the land owners in the present case, the same being the best piece of evidence. In RFA Nos. 149, 155 and 157 of 2005, additional argument was raised with regard to valuation of fruit bearing trees existing on the acquired land. It was submitted that though the award of the Collector, as regards fruit bearing trees, was on the basis of calculation made as per Dr. Nijjar's formula, but the required appreciation in terms of increase in the price index had not been granted, to which the land owners are entitled to. The price index in the year 1985 was 127.2, which increased to 358.8 in the year 1998 and there being increase of 231.6, which comes out to 182%, whereas the learned court below has awarded merely 20%. This error deserves to be corrected. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that none of the sale deeds, sought to be relied upon by the land owners, has been located on any of the site plan produced on record by them not even in the site plan which has been produced as Ex. A along with application for additional evidence. The judgment of this Court in Harbhajan Singh's case (supra) pertaining to acquisition of land of merely 18 marlas cannot possibly be relied upon for the purpose of determination of fair value of big chunk of 62 kanals of land. In fact, the sale deeds produced by the State on record as Ex. R2 to Ex. R4, even though post acquisition, very well show the value of the land in the area even after the date of acquisition. It was further submitted that even in the aforesaid case, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 4.12.1998, whereas in the present case, the same was issued on 29.6.1998. The same being subsequent in time otherwise also cannot be relied upon. The learned court below has further committed an illegality in setting aside the belting system adopted by the Collector for valuing the acquired land, as it cannot be denied that value of the acquired land on road is much more than the value in the rear. In fact, a perusal of the impugned award of the learned court below shows that there was no basis for assessing the RFA No. 146 of 2005 [4] value of the acquired land @ ` 20,000/- per marla. As far as valuation of fruit bearing trees is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent could not raise any argument worth consideration, as the learned court below on that account had failed to award compensation to the land owners in terms of the settled proposition of law. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. As per site plan (Ex. A) produced on record, the location of the acquired land is well evident. The same was within the municipal limits of Anandpur Sahib. It was surrounded by commercial and residential area. The acquired land is located on main Ropar-Nangal road. Just opposite the acquired land is a petrol pump and adjoining the same is Guru Teg Bahadur Khalsa College. Power colony was also located adjacent to the college, a portion of back side of which touched the boundary of the acquired land. Sant Piara Park was also not far off and close to that was a three star hotel. The same site plan also shows the location of the land acquired vide notification dated 4.12.1998, the value whereof was determined at ` 33,750/- per marla in Harbhajan Singh's case (supra). The acquisition in the aforesaid case for the purpose of Tourist and Reception Centre was merely of 18 marlas of land. The compensation in the aforesaid case was assessed considering a sale deed pertaining to part of land of the same khasra number. The acquisition in the present case is for a large chunk of 62 kanals of land. The same cannot possibly be made the basis for determination of compensation for such a big chunk of land. While assessing the compensation for the land acquired for Tourist and Reception Centre, which is located adjacent to a three star hotel, sale deed, as is placed on record in the present case as Ex. P2 dated 22.11.1996, was relied upon. In the aforesaid sale deed, 16 marlas of land was sold at an average price of ` 28,125/- per marla. The notification in the present case was issued on 18.6.1998, published on 29.6.1998, i.e., one year and seven months thereafter. In case, increase @ 12% per annum is granted thereon, the same would come out to ` 33,468.75 per acre. Considering the fact that the land dealt with in the aforesaid sale deed was merely for 16 marlas of land and the acquired land is 62 kanals and located towards Ropar side from the city, whereas the land pertaining to the sale deed is located towards the city, in my opinion, a cut of 50% would be reasonable. If the same is applied, the value shall come out to ` 16,734/- per marla (rounded off to ` 17,000/- per marla), i.e., ` 27,20,000/- per acre. However, the same cannot be the value of the entire acquired land, which has a depth of more than five acres RFA No. 146 of 2005 [5] from the road. The same can be granted as compensation for the depth of land upto two acres from the main road. For the land behind that, the amount of compensation has to be lesser, as the land, which abuts the main road and the land behind that cannot be assessed at the same rate. For the assessment thereof, a rough estimate has to be made which, in my opinion, can be by reducing the value, as granted from the main road, by 50%. Accordingly, after reducing 50% therefrom, the value of the land beyond two acres shall be assessed at ` 8,500/- per marla, i.e., ` 13,60,000/- per acre. The land owners shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits. Another issue involved in the present case is regarding valuation of the fruit bearing trees. It has been admitted by RW3 in his cross-examination that calculation of the compensation for the fruit bearing trees has been made as per Dr. Nijjar's formula. However, the fact remains that assessment as per Dr. Nijjar's formula is as per price index of 1985. The acquisition in the present case was made in the year 1998. The price index in the year 1985 was 127.2, which increased to 358.8 in the year 1998. There being difference of 231.6, the percentage increase would come out to 182%. The learned court below had committed an error in awarding increase only @ 20%. Accordingly, the award of the learned court below is modified to the extent that on the value of fruit bearing trees, as assessed by the Collector, the land owners shall be entitled to increase of 182% thereon. They shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available to them under the Act. The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge August 26 ,2010 mk (Refer to Reporter)