R.F.A. No. 1712 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: July 23,2010 (1) RFA No.1186 of 2007 (O&M) State of Haryana .....Appellant Versus Surinder Singh and another .....Respondents (2) RFA No.1277 of 2007 (O&M) State of Haryana .....Appellant Versus Karam Singh .....Respondent (3) RFA No.1278 of 2007 (O&M) State of Haryana .....Appellant Versus Baldev Singh (deceased) through LRs .....Respondents (4) RFA No.1279 of 2007 (O&M) State of Haryana .....Appellant Versus Joginder Singh and others .....Respondents (5) RFA No.1280 of 2007 (O&M) State of Haryana .....Appellant Versus Ranjit Singh and others .....Respondents R.F.A. No. 1712 of 2007 [2] (6) RFA No.1281 of 2007 (O&M) State of Haryana .....Appellant Versus Bakshish Singh and another .....Respondents (7) RFA No.1282 of 2007 (O&M) State of Haryana .....Appellant Versus Taranjit Singh and another .....Respondents (8) RFA No.1283 of 2007 (O&M) State of Haryana .....Appellant Versus Gian Singh and another .....Respondents (9) RFA No.1284 of 2007 (O&M) State of Haryana .....Appellant Versus Sh. Harjinder Singh .....Respondent (10) RFA No.1285 of 2007 (O&M) State of Haryana .....Appellant Versus Smt. Sona Devi .....Respondent (11) RFA No.1286 of 2007 (O&M) State of Haryana .....Appellant Versus Yadvinder Singh and others .....Respondents R.F.A. No. 1712 of 2007 [3] (12) RFA No.1287 of 2007 (O&M) State of Haryana .....Appellant Versus Jang Singh .....Respondent (13) RFA No.1712 of 2009 (O&M) Surinder Singh alias Kala Singh .....Appellant Versus State of Haryana .....Respondents (14) RFA No.1713 of 2007 (O&M) Sh. Harjinder Singh .....Appellant Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent (15) RFA No.1714 of 2007 (O&M) Taranjit Singh and another .....Appellants Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent (16) RFA No.1715 of 2007 (O&M) Bakshish Singh and another .....Appellants Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent (17) RFA No.1716 of 2007 (O&M) Joginder Singh .....Appellant Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent R.F.A. No. 1712 of 2007 [4] (18) RFA No.1717 of 2007 (O&M) Karam Singh .....Appellant Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent (19) RFA No.1718 of 2007 (O&M) Smt. Sona Devi .....Appellant Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent (20) RFA No.1719 of 2007 (O&M) Ranjit Singh and others .....Appellants Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent (21) RFA No.1720 of 2007 (O&M) Jang Singh .....Appellant Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent (22) RFA No.1721 of 2007 (O&M) Gian Singh and another .....Appellants Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent (23) RFA No.1722 of 2007 (O&M) Yadvinder Singh and others .....Appellants Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent R.F.A. No. 1712 of 2007 [5] (24) RFA No.418 of 2009 (O&M) Kulwinder Singh .....Appellant Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent (25) RFA No.419 of 2009 (O&M) Chhaju .....Appellant Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent (26) RFA No.420 of 2009 (O&M) Sukhjinder Singh and another .....Appellants Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent (27) RFA No.514 of 2009 (O&M) Shri Navtej Singh and others .....Appellants Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent (28) RFA No.2263 of 2009 (O&M) State of Haryana .....Appellant Versus Kulwinder Singh .....Respondent (29) RFA No.2264 of 2009 (O&M) State of Haryana .....Appellant Versus Chajju .....Respondent R.F.A. No. 1712 of 2007 [6] (30) RFA No.2265 of 2009 (O&M) State of Haryana .....Appellant Versus Sukhjinder Singh and another .....Respondents (31) RFA No.2266 of 2009 (O&M) The State of Haryana .....Appellant Versus Sh. Navtej Singh and others .....Respondents (32) RFA No.3739 of 2009 (O&M) State of Haryana .....Appellant Versus Karnail Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. J. S. Cooner, Advocate for the land owners. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of above mentioned 32 appeals, as common questions of law and facts are involved. 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 the appeals filed by the State of Haryana, prayer is for reduction of compensation awarded to the land owners for the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 1712 of 2007. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 10.9.2001, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana acquired 4.9 acres acres of land, situated in village Shahpur, Hadbast No. 125, Tehsil and District Ambala for augmentation of water R.F.A. No. 1712 of 2007 [7] supply scheme based on canal for Ambala Sadar Area at Ambala Cantt. The same was followed by notification dated 4.1.2001, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') awarded compensation @ ` 3,73,000/- per acre for Chahi/Nehri/Aabi kind of land; ` 2,25,000/- per acre for Barani kind of land and ` 1,50,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin kind of land. 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 @ ` 10,00,000/- per acre for Chahi/Nehri/Aabi kind of land; ` 6,00,000/- for barani kind of land and ` 4,00,000/- for gair mumkin kind of land. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that acquisition in the present case was for a small chunk of land measuring 4.9 acres, i.e., 39 kanals and 4 marlas. The learned court below ignored appropriate sale deeds (Ex. P2 to P6), which were registered quite close to the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, by relying upon sale deed (Ex. P1), which was quite old having been registered on 10.6.1992, whereas sale deeds (Ex. P2 to P4) were registered in May/June, 1998; sale deed (Ex. P5) was registered on 26.2.2001 and sale deed (Ex. P6) was registered in August, 2000 and notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 10.9.2001. If the value, as stated in the aforesaid sale deeds is considered, the land owners are entitled to further enhancement of compensation. Even if it is considered that the land dealt with in the aforesaid sale deeds was not a very big chunk, the acquired land was also small being 39 kanals and 4 marlas. At the most, a cut of 10/15% could be applied therein. On a specific query by the court as to whether there is any site plan produced on record by the land owners showing the location of the acquired land and also the land dealt with in the sale deeds relied upon, the answer was in negative. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the only sale deed produced by the State on record, i.e., Ex. R1 was not worth consideration, considering the fact that it was registered on 3.7.2002, after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act on 10.9.2001. He further submitted that the learned court below was quite generous in awarding compensation to the land owners. Their demand was ` 10,00,000/- per acre, which is always on the higher side, and the learned court below has awarded the same amount. In fact, all the sale deeds produced by the land owners were required to be rejected considering the fact that the area dealt with therein had not been depicted on any site plan produced on record by the land owners. The onus to prove that the R.F.A. No. 1712 of 2007 [8] value, as assessed by the Collector was not correct, is always on the land owners, which has to be discharged by leading cogent evidence. In the present case, the land owners having failed to lead any evidence worth reliance, the award of the Collector deserved to be upheld. In the alternative, it was submitted that even if the sale deeds produced by the land owners were required to be considered, the latest sale deed, which was quite close to the date of acquisition of land, should have been considered and a cut of at least 50% deserves to be applied thereon, considering the area dealt with in the sale deed vis-a-vis the acquired land. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. What can be opined from the material on record is that the land owners in the present case have failed to lead clinching evidence which could enable the Court to reach a conclusion that fair value of the acquired land was in terms of the claim made by them. Though they had produced various sale deeds on record, which in my opinion, is not enough as the onus to prove that the compensation as assessed by the Collector was not adequate is always on the land owners, who is in the position of a plaintiff. Reference for the purpose can be made to Para 28 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangunthala (Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar (L.A.) and Ors. 2010(2) Recent Apex Judgments 286. “28. It is settled that the burden of establishing/proving the market value of the lands is always on the claimants. In Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 1991(1) R.R.R. 427 : AIR 1990 SC 2192, this Court held that it is the duty of the Court to determine just and fair market value. It was further held that the claimants should produce necessary evidence on the value of land since the burden of proof is on them to establish the higher compensation claimed. While agreeing with the judgment in Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd (Supra), this Court in the case of Special Deputy Collector & Another v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao & Others, (1997) 6 SCC 41, held that in a claim for enhancement of compensation the burden of proof was on the claimants that land was capable of fetching higher compensation. Further in the case of Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad Development Authority and another, 2004(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 3 : (2004) 10 SCC 745, it was held that the burden of proving that the R.F.A. No. 1712 of 2007 [9] amount of compensation awarded by the Collector is inadequate lies upon the claimant and he is in the position of a plaintiff.” In case titled as Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (D) By LRs. Vs. State of Gujarat, 2005(2) RCR (Civil) 492, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down certain broad principles for determination of compensation for the acquired land. Relevant paras are reproduced hereunder:- 17.Section 23 of the Act specifies the matters required to be considered in determining the compensation; the principal among which is the determination of the market value of the land on the date of the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4. 18.One of the principles for determination of the amount of compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefor. It is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a willing and informed buyer would offer would be different in the cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the cases where he is not. 19.Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase. Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences have to be considered. 20.The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-a-vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. The positive and negative facts are as under :- _______________________________________________________ R.F.A. No. 1712 of 2007 [10] Positive facts Negative factors _______________________________________________________ (i) smallness of size (i) largeness of area (ii) proximity to a road (ii) situation in the interior at a distance from the road (iii) frontage on a road (iii) narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth (iv) nearness to developed (iv) lower level requiring area the depressed portion to be filled up (v) regular shape (v) remoteness from developed locality (vi) level vis-a-vis land under (vi) some special under acquisition disadvantageous factors which would deter a purchaser (vii)special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage. ____________________________________________________ 21. Whereas a smaller plot may be within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed preparing a layout plan, carving out roads, leaving open spaces, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers and the hazards of an entrepreneur. Such development charges may range between 20% and 50% of the total price.” In case titled as Haridwar Development Authority, Haridwar Versus Raghubir Singh etc., 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 301, the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined as under:- “6. The question whether the acquired lands have to be valued uniformly at the same rate, or whether different areas in the acquired lands have to be valued at different rates, depends upon the extent of the land acquired, the location, proximity to an access road/Main Road/Highway or to a City/Town/Village, and other relevant circumstances. We may illustrate: R.F.A. No. 1712 of 2007 [11] (A) When a small and compact extent of land is acquired and the entire area is similarly situated, it will be appropriate to value the acquired land at a single uniform rate. (B) If a large tract of land is acquired with some lands facing a main road or a national highway and other lands being in the interior, the normal procedure is to value the lands adjacent to the main road at a higher rate and the interior lands which do not have road access, at a lesser rate. (C) Where a very large tract of land on the outskirts of a town is acquired one end of the acquired lands adjoining the town boundary, the other end being two to three kilometers away, obviously, the rake that is adopted for the land nearest to the town cannot be adopted for the land which is farther away from the town. In such a situation, what is known as a belting method is adopted and the belt or strip adjacent to the town boundary will be given the highest price, the remotest belt with be awarded the lowest rate, the belts/strips of lands falling in between, will be awarded gradually reducing rates from the highest to the lowest. (D)Where a very large tract of land with a radius of one to two kilometres is acquired, but the entire land acquired is far away from any town or city limits, without any special Main road access, then it is logical to award the entire land, one uniform rate. The fact that the distance between one point to another point in the acquired lands, may be as much as two to three kilometres may not make any difference.” In case titled as Thakur Kuldeep Singh (D) Thr. L.R. & Ors. Versus Union of India and Ors., 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 372, the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined as under:- “6. Sections 23 and 24 of the Act speak about the matters to be considered and to be neglected in determining compensation. Let us consider whether the appellants are entitled to higher compensation than that of the one fixed by the High Court or Union of India is justified in seeking reduction of the market value/compensation for the acquired land. While fixing compensation, it is the duty of the Land R.F.A. No. 1712 of 2007 [12] Acquisition Collector as well as the Court to take into consideration the nature of the land, its suitability, nature of the use to which the lands are sought to be acquired on the date of notification, income derived or derivable from or any other special distinctive feature which the land is possessed of, the sale transactions in respect of land covered by the same notification are all relevant factors to be taken into consideration in determining the market value. It is equally to consider the suitability of neighbourhood lands as are possessed of similar potentiality or any advantageous features or any special characteristics available. The Land Acquisition Collector as well as the Court should always keep in their mind that the object of assessment is to arrive at a reasonable and adequate market value of the land. While doing so, imagination should be eschewed and mechanical assessment of evidence should be avoided. More attention should be on the bona fide and genuine sale transactions as guiding star in evaluating the evidence. The relevant factor would be that of the hypothetical willing vendor would offer for the land and what a willing purchaser of normal human conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market conditions prevailing in the open market in the locality in which the acquired lands are situated as on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. In other words, the Judge who sits in the armchair of the willing buyer and seek an answer to the question whether in the given set of circumstances as a prudent buyer he would offer the same market value which the court proposed to fix for the acquired lands in the available market conditions. The market value so determined should be just, adequate and reasonable.” To discharge the burden, the primary thing which was required to be produced on record by the land owners was the site plan showing the boundaries of the acquired land vis-a-vis its location along with its surroundings. The land owners were further required to point out on site plan produced on record the exact location of the land dealt with in the sale deeds produced by them in support of the claim for enhancement of compensation. Mere saying the Hadbast number of the acquired land and also the land dealt with in the sale deeds would not be enough to R.F.A. No. 1712 of 2007 [13] claim that the land pertaining to the sale deeds is located close to the acquired land. Further even saying that the land dealt with in the sale deeds also pertained to the same village is also a misnomer, as even big chunk of land pertaining to a village may have certain locations, which are more advantageous being located on the National Highway, State Highway, village approach road, near the village abadi, close to the source of irrigation or having independent source of irrigation. All these factors can be appreciated by the court while assessing the compensation for the acquired land, if the evidence produced by the parties on record is clear. What has been felt in the present case is that even the State failed to discharge its duties. It cannot be disputed that the State should always be fair to its subjects. If the land had been acquired, the first and foremost duty of the Collector is to award compensation, which is just and fair, but what is seen in most of the cases is that the compensation assessed is quite meager and the land owners aggrieved against that approach the court for further enhancement. Whenever the matter comes to the court, it is the foremost duty of the State as well to produce relevant and fair evidence on record to show the value of land at the time of acquisition. What is seen is that this is not done. Dealing with a case under similar circumstances, this Court in R.F.A. No. 3008 of 2008 –Smt. Poonam v. State of Haryana and another, decided on 25.2.2009, observed as under: “This court is constrained to comment upon the conduct of the State as well as HUDA for the reason that even though they had notice of the fact that the land owners had produced on record various sale deeds showing the consideration paid therein ranging from Rs. 12,00,000/- to Rs. 80,00,000/- per acre, no documentary evidence was led by the State or HUDA to rebut this evidence. In many cases, earlier HUDA had been raising hue and cry that while determining the compensation payable for the land acquired for their use and benefit, for which though they have to bear the burden of enhanced compensation, no opportunity of hearing is afforded to them. What is generally seen is that practically no evidence is led by HUDA in any of the cases before the Reference Court and similar is the position with regard to addressing arguments before the higher courts, where they follow the State. It is probably for the reason that burden of enhanced compensation is permitted to be passed on to the allottees of the plots carved out in the area acquired. The fact cannot be disputed that even though the State is the custodian of the records of registration of sale deeds. All the sale deeds, which are registered R.F.A. No. 1712 of 2007 [14] in any area acquired subsequently are available with the Registrar. In spite of the State, being in custody of the record, it is generally seen that no effort is made by the State to produce on record the best evidence before the Court. Many a times, it is seen that the officials of various departments appear as witnesses for the land owners deposing in their favour even in oral evidence.” This Court, while dealing with RFA No. 2419 of 2006 –State of Haryana v. Rajinder Singh and others, decided on 5.4.2010, under similar circumstances, was constrained to make the following observations: “Many a times the land owners do not produce relevant sale deeds or the site plans or do not point out the land pertaining to the sale deeds on the site plan so produced in a calculated effort or to enable the court to reach to a right conclusion. As in case the land pertaining to the sale deeds produced by the land owners are marked on the site plan, it is quite easy for the court to consider the relevancy thereof for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land. It is very difficult for the court to determine compensation in the land acquisition cases unless there is a site plan on record showing the boundary of acquired land. The development existing on or near the acquired land on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and the exact location of the land/plot dealt with in various sale deeds sought to be relied upon by either of the parties in the evidence led by them, to show the fair value of the acquired land. In my opinion, the evidence led by the land owners in the present case was not at all convincing which could enable the court to reach a fair conclusion to assess the market value of the acquired land. On the other hand it cannot be disputed that the land is always dear to the farmers. It is their bread and butter. They put hard labour thereon to earn their livelihood. It is with heavy heart that they have to part with the same only on account of the fact that it was a compulsory acquisition. Otherwise one may or may not agree to sell the land. Once some one is being asked to part with his source of livelihood, he deserves to be compensated adequately. In my opinion, merely because of lack on the part of the land owners or their counsel in the court below in not leading trustworthy and clinching evidence to prove the value of the land on the date of R.F.A. No. 1712 of 2007 [15] acquisition they should not be made to suffer.” If the facts of the present case are considered in the light of enunciation of law, as referred to above, it is evident from the record that though