IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.4252-CI of 2011 and RFA No.1811 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.8.2011 State of Haryana ......Appellant(s) Versus Ghurmal and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1812 of 2011 (O&M) State of Haryana ......Appellant(s) Versus Lehru ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, AAG, Haryana. Mr. J.S. Hooda, Advocate for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. CM No.4252-CI of 2011 Reply to the application for condonation of delay filed in Court. The same is taken on record. Since the appeals have been decided on merits, applications for condonation of delay in filing as well as refiling the appeal does not survive. RFA No.1811 of 2011 (O&M) This judgment shall dispose of two appeals i.e. RFA Nos.1811 and 1812 of 2011 which have arisen out of one common award of the Reference Court whereby market value of the land in question was determined at Rs.85/- per sq.yard on the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The instant appeals have been filed on behalf of the State of Haryana on the ground that amount of compensation awarded by the Reference Court is on the higher side. As per the brief facts of the case, land measuring 1.35 acres situated in village Kalwaka, Hadbast No.6, Tehsil Palwal, District Faridabad was acquired by the State Government at public expenses for the public purpose namely, for the construction of a road from Allahapur to Kalwaka link road Nangla Bhiku road in Faridabad District, vide notification dated 25.7.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Act and published in the Government gazette on 15.8.2000 followed by a declaration issued vide notification dated 14.8.2001 under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector, Faridabad vide his award dated 31.7.2003 assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre ( i.e. 41.32 per sq.yard) on the basis of rates supplied to him by the District Collector. Other statutory benefits were also allowed. Not satisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the respondents filed reference applications for determining the market value of the land which were referred by the Land Acquisition Collector to the Reference Court. In the applications, the land owners-respondents submitted that the acquired land had great potential for utilization of the acquired land for industrial purposes and also can be put to residential use being nearby to the village abadi. The said potentiality of the land has been ignored by the Collector while determining the market value. Besides this, due to the acquisition, remaining land of the owners was rendered useless. It was also argued that at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the prevailing market value in the vicinity was of Rs.5,00,000/- per acre. In the written statement filed on behalf of the appellant-State, all the grounds on which enhancement was sought were controverted. It was submitted that just and fair compensation had already been granted by the Land Acquisition Collector and there was no scope for enhancement. Thus, prayer for dismissal of the reference applications was made. Vide impugned award, the Land Acquisition Collector, determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs.5,00,000/- per acre as on the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. While determining the market value of the land in question, the Reference Court relied upon sale transaction dated 2.6.2000 (Ex.P-2) and after applying a cut of 25% on the said value, determined the market value at Rs.85 per sq. yard. The relevant paragraphs of the Reference Court read thus: “In order to prove the market value of the suit land on the relevant date, petitioners examined two witnesses, who supported the case for enhancement. Petitioners have relied upon following sale instances. Sr. No. Ex. Date of sale deed Area Sale price (In Rs.) Sale Price per sq.yd. (In Rs.) Location/ village 1. P1 25.10.1999 1 Marla 3500/- 115.7 Kalwaka 2. P2 19.5.2000 7 Marla 21,000/- 99.2 ,, 3. 2.6.2000 7 Marla 24,000/- 113.3 ,, 23. On the other hand, respondents examined Shri Ram Dass Patwari in the office of PWD (B&R), Palwal as RW1, who defended the award of the LAC to be just, fair and reasonable. Respondents also tendered in evidence certified copy of the sale instances Ex.R2 to R4, details of which are as under:- Sr. No . Ex. Date of sale deed Area Sale price (In Rs.) Sale Price per sq.yd. (In Rs.) Location/ village 1. R4 12.8.1999 2-1 45,000 32.28 Kalwaka 2. R3 8.12.1999 2-11 60,000 38.89 ,, 3. R2 10.1.2000 2-12 62,000 39.42 ,, 24. On perusal of the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the petitioners, it is found that there is no basis for the petitioners to claim that land in the vicinity had the prevailing market value of Rs.1000/- sq. yard as is contended by PW1 & PW2. Said rate was not even claimed in the petitions. No instance has been produced on file in order to show that land at this rate had ever been sold in the vicinity of the acquired suit land. 25. As far as sale instances relied by respondent are concerned, these are liable to be ignored, as these were not even referred by the Collector assessing the market value at the time of announcing the Award. Even otherwise, these sale instances reveal that land had been sold at the rate even lesser than what has been assessed by the LAC. As such, these instances cannot be taken into consideration. 26. Coming to the sale instances relied by the petitioners, by way of sale deed Ex.P1, One Marla of land was sold in October, 1999 at the rate of approximately Rs.115/- per square yard. Comparing to other sale instances on file, the said sale instance Ex.P1 is of small area and about ten months prior to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act and so, liable to be ignored. 27. The other sale instances Ex.P2 dated 19.5.2000 and dated 2.6.2000 are quite relevant. By way of sale deed dated 19.5.2000 Ex.P2, an area of 7 Marlas situated in village Kalwaka itself was sold for Rs.21,000/- i.e. Approximately @ Rs.99/- per square yard. Same land was sold after ten days only i.e. on 2.6.2000 for an amount of Rs.24,000/- i.e. at the rate of approximately Rs.113/- per square yard as evident from the certified copy of the sale deed available on file. 28. Objection is raised by learned Government Pleader that the sale instances relied by the petitioners are of quite smaller area and so, these cannot be taken into consideration. The objection is devoid of merit. It is to be noted that area of acquired land itself is small being 1.35 acre. Therefore, though the sale instances are comparatively of small area, but 7 Marla of area, which has been sold by way of sale deed dated 19.5.2000 and 2.6.2000 cannot be said to be very small comparing to the acquired suit land. Thus, sale instance Ex.P2 dated 19.5.2000 and subsequent sale instance dated 2.6.2000 are quite relevant being proximate to the date of notification having come into existence only about two months prior to the date of notification and also because of the fact that these pertain to village Kalwaka itself. The only disadvantage is that in comparison to the area of the acquired land, these are of smaller area. These sale instances cannot be ignored merely because these are of smaller area, which otherwise are relevant being proximate in time and nature of the land. 29. In the above circumstances, the question arises that how far the above sale instances, which are otherwise relevant being quite proximate to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act and also being in respect of similar nature of land, situated in same village, can be used when these are otherwise in respect of smaller area of land in comparison to the acquired land. 30. In Maya Devi Vs. State of of Haryana 1999(1) LACC, 413, a Division Bench of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that although no absolute rule is evolved for determination of the question whether sale transaction relating to small price of land can constitute basis for determination of market value of a larger tract of land, broadly speaking there is a consensus among the Courts that such transactions cannot ordinarily form the basis of determination of the market value of a big piece of land acquired by the State. However, Hon'ble Supreme Court in H.P. Housing Board Vs. Bharat S. Negi 2004(2) R.C.R. 186 observed that even if the acquisition is of large tract of land and all sale transactions proved on record relate to small pieces of land, all are to be considered by the Court and can be relied upon by applying a reasonable cut on that account. In Ravinder Narain Vs. Union of India 2004 (1) J.R. (SC) 525, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that where large area is the subject matter of acquisition, rate at which small plots are sold cannot be said to be a safe criteria but it cannot be laid down as an absolute proposition that the rates fixed for the small plots cannot be the basis for fixation of the rate. Same view was taken in L.A.O vs. Nookala Rajamallu 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 293. It was also observed therein that if there is no other material available, small instances of the plots can be made the basis for consideration to assess reasonable market value of the adjoining agricultural land by deducting development charges as there is always a room for guess. In an another case titled Amarjit Kaur Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala 2004 (2) RCR (Civil) 590, sale deeds of the relevant period were rejected by the Addl. District Judge on the ground that those sale deeds pertained to small sale transactions. It was held by Hon'ble High Court that where there is no other material available to assess the market value, the sale transactions of small plots can be taken into consideration by applying 1/3rd cut. Hon'ble High Court relied upon Ravinder Narain's case (cited supra). 31. Thus, the legal position which emerges is that though small sale instances are not safe method for determining market value of large chunk of acquired land but it cannot be an absolute proposition to exclude the same absolutely. If no other relevant evidence is available and such instances are of the close proximity in time of the notification and the acquired land, such evidence can be relied upon for the purpose to maintain a balance by applying a reasonable cut. 32. In the present case, having regard to the factual and legal position as above, the sale transaction dated 2.6.2000 which was effected subsequent to the sale deed Ex.P2 can be made the basis pertaining to the market value of the suit land. It has to be kept in view for determining the market value of the suit land, which can be assessed by making a reasonable cut. Having regard to the smaller area, I am of the view that 25% cut is liable to be applied. After applying 25% cut to the price of Rs.113/- whereby land had been sold on 2.6.2000, the market value of the acquired suit land works out at Rs.84.75. To make it in round figure, the market value is assessed at Rs.85/- per square yard. There is not much difference between the date of the above sale instance and the date of notification and, therefore, no further increase is liable to be given. 33. Consequent to my discussion, the market value of the acquired land is assessed at Rs.85/- per square yard as on date of publication of notification under section 4 of the Act i.e. 15.8.2000. I will hasten to add that market value cannot be assessed with precision and to some extent, one has to fall back to the rule of thumb as no two pieces of land can be exactly similar. Many times element of guess work is also involved in determining the market value as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prithvi Raj Taneja's case (cited supra). Issue no.1 is decided accordingly.” Challenging the impugned award, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the Reference Court has erred at law in granting the amount of compensation @ Rs.85/- per sq.yard without any evidence. According to the learned counsel for the appellant-State, the sale instances relied upon by the Reference Court are of quite smaller area and the same cannot be taken into consideration. The argument raised is without any merit. It is to be noted that area of acquired land itself is small being 1.35 acre. Though the sale instances are of comparatively small area i.e. 7 marlas which has been sold by way of sale deeds dated 19.5.2000 and 2.6.2000 but the same cannot be ignored for comparing the same with the acquired land. There is no dispute that otherwise the aforesaid sale instances are quite relevant being proximate to the date of notification and also because of the fact that the same pertains to the land situated in the vicinity of the acquired land. The only disadvantage is that in comparison to the area of the acquired land, these are of smaller areas but it is equally well settled that though small sale instances are not safe method for determining the market value of large chunk of acquired land but it cannot be an absolute proposition to exclude such small instances absolutely. If no other relevant evidence is available and such instances are of the close proximity in time of the notification and the acquired land, such evidence can be relied upon for the purpose of determination of market value and to maintain a balance, a reasonable cut can be applied. Nothing has been shown as to how the cut of 25% as applied by the Reference Court is on the lower side. Even otherwise the area acquired is also very small i.e. 1.35 acre only. In view of the aforesaid discussion, no fault can be found with the market value of the land as determined by the Reference Court. Thus, both these appeals are dismissed being without any merit. August 19, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.4255-CI of 2011 and RFA No.1812 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.8.2011 State of Haryana ......Appellant(s) Versus Lehru ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, AAG, Haryana. Mr. J.S. Hooda, Advocate for the respondent. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. CM No.4255-CI of 2011 Reply to the application for condonation of delay filed in Court. The same is taken on record. Since the appeals have been decided on merits, applications for condonation of delay in filing as well as refiling the appeal does not survive. RFA No.1812 of 2011 (O&M) For orders, see judgment of even date passed in RFA No.1811 of 2011 (State of Haryana Versus Ghurmal and others). August 19, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE