RFA No.86 of 2008(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.86 of 2008(O & M) Date of decision : 01.09.2011 Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. .....respondents RFA No.87 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. .....respondents RFA No.88 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. .....respondents RFA No.89 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.90 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.91 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.86 of 2008(O & M) 2 RFA No.92 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.93 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.94 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.95 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.96 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.97 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.98 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.86 of 2008(O & M) 3 RFA No.99 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.100 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.101 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.102 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.103 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.104 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.105 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.86 of 2008(O & M) 4 RFA No.106 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.107 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.108 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.109 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.110 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.111 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.112 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.86 of 2008(O & M) 5 RFA No.113 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.114 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.115 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.116 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.117 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.118 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.119 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.86 of 2008(O & M) 6 RFA No.120 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.121 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.122 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.123 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.124 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.125 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.126 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.86 of 2008(O & M) 7 RFA No.127 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.128 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.129 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.130 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.131 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.132 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.133 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.86 of 2008(O & M) 8 RFA No.134 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.135 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents RFA No.136 of 2008(O & M) Market Committee, Gidderbaha & anr. ....appellants Versus Punjab State & anr. ....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for the appellants Mr.Raj Karan Singh Brar,Advocate for respondent No.2 in RFA Nos.86, 96, 98, 105, 106, 108, 110,113,118, 122 to 124, 126, 130, 131, 133 of 2008 Mr.Surinder Garg, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 6 in RFA No.125 of 2008 Mr.Munish Behl, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3 in RFA No.128 of 2008 **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.(ORAL): CM No.330-CI of 2008 Civil Misc.application is allowed subject to all just RFA No.86 of 2008(O & M) 9 exceptions. Main appeals: Market Committee, Gidderbaha, has filed the above said 51 appeals, challenging the impugned award dated 15.10.2004 passed by the Reference Court, Faridkot, whereby, market value of the acquired land was determined at ` 1 lac per acre, along with the statutory benefits. The State of Punjab, vide notification dated July 22, 1991, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), intended to acquire land measuring 41 acres 5 kanals 4 marlas owned by the respondent-landowners for the purpose of setting up of a New Mandi Township at Gidderbaha for the benefit of the appellant-Market Committee. The aforesaid notification was followed by a declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act published in the official Gazette on 10.02.1992 acquiring the land. The Land Acquisition Collector, announced the award on 24.02.1994, whereby the market value of the land was awarded as ` 77,400/- per acre along with the statutory benefits. Dissatisfied from the aforesaid compensation, landowners filed applications under Section 18 of the Act, which were referred to the reference court. Before the reference court, claimants produced the following sale instances, in support of their case for enhancement of compensation: Exhibit Date of sale Area sold out Price paid Rs. Average Price per Acre Ex.PE 23/11/89 2 marlas ` 33,500/- Rs.14.61 lacs Ex.PF 13/09/90 4 marlas ` 15,500/- Rs.6.20 lacs Ex.PG 13/09/90 4 marlas ` 15,500/- Rs.6.20 lacs Ex.PH 11/09/90 4 marlas ` 12,000/- Rs.4.80 lacs Ex.PI 09/11/89 4 marlas ` 32,000/- Rs.6.40 lacs Ex.PJ 09/01/91 4 marlas ` 60,000/- Rs.4.36 lacs The respondent-State also produced the sale deeds Ex.R3 to Ex.R6, which are tabulated below: RFA No.86 of 2008(O & M) 10 Exhibit Date of sale Area sold out Price paid Rs. Average Price per Acre Ex.R3 08/08/91 7 kanals 5 marlas ` 40,000/- Rs.45,000/- Ex.R4 22/08/89 5 kanals 7 marlas ` 20,000/- Rs.32,000/- Ex.R5 21/09/87 4 kanals 13 marlas ` 9000/- Rs.15,000/- Ex.R6 21/08/87 4 kanals 14 marlas ` 9000/- Rs.15,000/- After considering the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the reference court, vide impugned award, determined the market value of the land in question at ` 1 lac per acre along with the statutory benefits. The aforesaid award of the reference court is under challenge before this Court. It is pertinent to mention, at this stage that appellant Committee Gidderbaha, was not a party before the reference Court. However, an application has been made before this Court in each appeal under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC with a prayer to grant permission to the appellant to file the instant appeal challenging the impugned award. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P.Awas Evam Vikas Parishad vs. Gyan Devi(dead) by LRs and another AIR 1995 SC 724 to contend that in the event of enhancement of the amount of compensation by the reference Court if the Government does not file an appeal, the local authority can file an appeal against the award in the High Court after obtaining leave of the Court. However, no averment is made in the appeal or the application that the State of Punjab has not challenged the impugned award. Noticing the aforesaid fact on November 11, 2010, the RFA No.86 of 2008(O & M) 11 following order was passed by this Court: Learned counsel for the appellants submits that no appeal has been filed by the State of Punjab against the award dated 15.10.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridkot. Hence, the present appeals have been filed along with applications under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(for short 'CPC') for impleading the appellants as necessary parties as they are the beneficiaries. Let an affidavit of Secretary, Mandi Board be filed in this regard to state specifically that no appeal has been filed by the State against the impugned award. Adjourned to 04.03.2011. A photo copy of this order be placed on the file of other connected cases. Mr.Sikander Singh, General Manager(Marketing), Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, has filed affidavit dated 22.02.2011 which reads as follows: 1. That the abovesaid appeal along with 50 other connected appeals was listed for hearing on 11.11.2010 when this Hon'ble Court was pleased to adjourn the cases to 04.03.2011 with a direction to the Secretary, Punjab Mandi Board to file specific affidavit with regard to the fact that State of Punjab has not independently filed any such or similar appeals in the matter. 2. That in compliance of the above said directions, it is RFA No.86 of 2008(O & M) 12 hereby stated with responsibility that as per the record/information available with the Punjab Mandi Board Office, no appeal/s has been filed by the State of Punjab against the Land Reference Award dated 15.10.2004 passed by Sh.M.S.Virdi, Addl.District Judge, Shri Muktsar Sahib. There is no specific averment made on behalf of the appellant that the appellants have filed this affidavit after verifying such fact from the respondent-State of Punjab. It may also be noticed that there is a delay of 1070 days in filing the instant appeals. It has been averred in applications for condonation of delay that since the appellants were impleaded as a party in the reference application, they got to know about the proceedings only on 01.10.2007 when the respondent No.1 informed the appellants that the impugned award has been passed against them and thereafter necessary steps were taken to file the instant appeals to protect the interests of the Board and the Market Committee and the delay has been caused due to the aforesaid reasons. Be that as it may, since this appeal is being decided on merits, there is no need to give any findings on these applications. At the outset, it may be mentioned that there is not an iota of evidence of which the impugned award can be challenged by the appellants. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants could not point out any evidence on the basis of which it can be held that the enhancement of compensation by the impugned award was not justified. Admittedly, the sale deeds Ex.R3 to Ex.R6 placed on record by the State of Punjab were not even relied upon by the Land Acquisition Collector and the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Collector was much higher than sale price depicted by these sale deeds and thus they were RFA No.86 of 2008(O & M) 13 rightly discarded by the reference Court in view of the judgement of this Court in Suraj Bhan versus State of Haryana 2000(1) RCR(Civil) 300 (P & H). It may also be seen that the claimants/landowners have produced on record the sale instances Ex.PE to PZ and in all these sale instances the average price per acre is not less than ` 4,36,000/-per acre. However, the same have been discarded by the impugned award on imaginary grounds. There is nothing on record to support the reasoning given by the reference Court, in this regard. Learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out that the aforesaid sale instances pertains to small pieces of land, whereas a big chunk of land was required and therefore vide impugned acquisition these sale instances are of little help to determine the real market value. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ravinder Narain and another v.Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 481 has held that where there is no other material it may in appropriate cases be open to the adjudicating Court to make comparison of the prices paid for small plots of land. However, in such cases necessary reductions/adjustments have to be made while determining the prices. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Atma Singh(died) through LRs and others vs.State of Haryana & another AIR 2008 Supreme Court 709 has held that the sale instances, produced by the appellants, pertaining to small pieces of land, cannot be discarded when instances of large pieces of land were not available. As such, small scale instances can be used as a safeguard for determining the market value of the land after making a suitable cut. In the case of Basant Kumar and others vs.Union of India and others (1996) 11 SCC 542 K.Vasuandara Devi vs.Revenue Divisional Officer(LAO)(1995) 5 SCC 426 after determining the market value of the acquired land on the basis of small instances, a cut of 33% was applied. Similarly, in the case of Atma Singh RFA No.86 of 2008(O & M) 14 (died) through LRs & ors. vs.State of Haryana & another(supra) after determining the market value of the acquired land on the basis of small instances, a cut of 33% was held to be suitable. Thus the arguments as raised is not acceptable for the reason that even in a case of acquisition of big chunk of land even the same sale instances pertaining to same pieces of land can be relied after applying a suitable cut. In this view of mine, I am fortified by the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as discussed above. Thus, even if a suitable cut is applied, the market value of the land will not be less than ` 1 lac per acre as awarded by the impugned award in any manner. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in these appeals and the same are dismissed. However, the aforesaid findings are only for the purpose of disposing of these appeals filed on behalf of the appellants for reducing of the determined compensation. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 01.09.2011 neenu