R.F.A. No. 1139 of 1996 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 1139 of 1996 (O&M) Date of decision: 5.1.2011 Smt. Yash Gupta and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Akshay Jain, Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal and Mr. R. A. Yadav, Advocates for the land owners. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 1139, 1239, 1343 of 1996 and 215 to 223 of 1997, as common questions of law and facts are involved. In the appeals filed by the land owners, they are seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land, whereas in the appeals filed by the State, the prayer is for reduction thereof. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 1139 of 1996. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 8.4.1988, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana acquired 5.25 acres of land, situated within the revenue estates of three villages, namely, Dundahera, Mullahera and Daulatpur Nasirabad (Carterpuri), Tehsil and District Gurgaon for industrial, residential-cum- commercial purpose at Gurgaon. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 2,50,000/- per acre for the land of villages Dundahera and Mullahera and ` 2,00,000/- per acre for the land of village Daulatpur Nasirabad (Carterpuri). 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 @ R.F.A. No. 1139 of 1996 [2] ` 100/- per square yard. In LAC No. 190 of 1992, the land owners were also awarded ` 39,720/- in respect of the trees standing on the acquired land. Regarding super structure, compensation was enhanced by 50% over and above the base value assessed by the Collector. It is this award which is impugned in the present set of appeals. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the acquired land in the present case is in the form of a small left out portion located at different places, otherwise big chunk of land was already acquired and had been developed during the interregnum period. The land owners in the present case have merely been awarded increase @ 12% per annum, which should have been @ 12% per annum cumulative, as has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in The General Manager, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and another, JT 2008(9) SC 480. It was further submitted that the value of trees standing on the acquired land has not been assessed properly. The life of trees should have been taken as claimed by the land owners, as there was no cross- examination or evidence in rebuttal led by the State. Even for super structure existing on the acquired land, the amount awarded to the land owners is quite meagre, which deserves to be enhanced further and the land owners be paid the amount claimed by them. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that there was a time gap of 7 years between the two acquisitions. The earlier acquisition for the purpose of development as Sector 23-A, Gurgaon was vide notification dated 13.11.1981, whereas notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 8.4.1988. In the earlier acquisition, the land pertained to village Daulatpur Nasirabad. For such a huge gap in the two acquisitions, increase @ 12% per annum should not be awarded, rather, the court should have considered the evidence produced by the parties on record in the form of sale deeds. Even otherwise, the increase @ 12% per annum, as awarded by the learned court below, is on the higher side as in the early 80s, it should not have been more than 8-10% per annum. The sale deeds produced by the State which pertained to the same village have not been considered. As far as claim of the land owners with regard to valuation of trees, it was submitted that there was no clinching evidence produced by the land owners on record to show the life of the trees, as it was merely oral evidence led. Even the number of trees claimed by them was also quite high. However, for that the figure submitted by the State was accepted. Still, the learned court below had awarded increase in the valuation thereof, which is much more than what the land owners deserved, as there was no basis for assessing that R.F.A. No. 1139 of 1996 [3] amount of compensation. Similar is the position with regard to super structure existing on the acquired land. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. The total acquired land in the present case is merely 5.25 acres, which is situated in the revenue estates of three villages, namely, Dundahera, Mullahera and Daulatpur Nasirabad (Carterpuri), which was acquired for development and utilisation thereof as industrial, residential and commercial purposes at Gurgaon. Site plan (Ex. R10) produced on record shows the location of the acquired land. It is in the form of small pockets, otherwise the area had already been acquired and developed earlier. The learned court below for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land had relied upon the award pertaining to acquisition of land of village Carterpuri, vide notification dated 13.11.1981 and considering the time gap of about 7 years had awarded increase of 90% thereon. The compensation for the earlier acquisition of land of village Carterpuri was assessed @ ` 54.60 per square yard and in the present case, the same was assessed @ ` 100/- per square yard, which would come out in case about 83% is added thereon. In my opinion, considering the peculiar type of acquisition where small left out pockets were acquired later on, in case the court below had relied upon earlier award pertaining to the acquisition in the area and awarded increase thereon at a fixed percentage, no fault as such can be found considering the fact that during the interregnum, the area had already been developed. The sale deeds which are relied upon by the State to clam that value of the land in the area was quite less are only to be noticed and rejected for the reason that the land of the villages being under acquisition, these can be termed to be distress sales. Accordingly, I do not find any case is made out for interference in the award of the learned court below as far as value of the acquired land is concerned. In so far as valuation of trees standing on the acquired land is concerned, in my opinion, the same also does not call for any interference. It has been noticed by the learned court below that the land owners claimed that there were 1,250 Safeda trees existing on the acquired land, which were more than 11 years old, but in the statement recorded in the court, the attorney of the land owners stated that age of the trees was 8-9 years. No expert in support of the claim was produced. The department assessed the number of trees at 662, which were standing on a total area of 9 kanals and 6 marlas. The learned court below R.F.A. No. 1139 of 1996 [4] estimated that timber value of the trees, as accounted for by the department, would be around ` 60/- per tree taking the same to be two quintals per tree and assessing @ ` 30/- per quintal. Taking the number of trees at 662, the amount of compensation was assessed. In the absence of any clinching evidence, this court is not inclined to interfere in the estimation made by the learned court below to that effect. So far as valuation of super structure is concerned, the learned court below applying a thumb rule had granted 50% increase over and above the basis value assessed by the Collector which was ` 15,373.80. Considering the smallness of the amount involved, this court would not like to interfere even with regard to the assessment of valuation of the super structure. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeals filed by the land owners as well as the State are dismissed. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 5.1.2011 mk