RFA No. 1750 of 1994 [1] In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 29.4.2009 1. R.F.A. No. 1750 of 1994 (O&M) Shagan Lal .. Appellant vs State of Punjab and another .. Respondents 2. R.F.A. No. 1751 of 1994 (O&M) Harbans Kaur and others .. Appellants vs State of Punjab and another .. Respondents 3. R.F.A. No. 1752 of 1994 (O&M) Lachhman Dass .. Appellant vs State of Punjab and another .. Respondents 4. R.F.A. No. 1753 of 1994 (O&M) Maya Devi (died) through LRs .. Appellant vs State of Punjab and another .. Respondents 5. R.F.A. No. 1754 of 1994 (O&M) Mohan Lal .. Appellant vs State of Punjab and another .. Respondents 6. R.F.A. No. 1755 of 1994 (O&M) Kashmiri Lal and another .. Appellants vs State of Punjab and another .. Respondents 7. R.F.A. No. 2505 of 1994 (O&M) State of Punjab and another .. Appellants vs Shagan Lal .. Respondent 8. R.F.A. No. 2506 of 1994 (O&M) State of Punjab and another .. Appellants vs Maya Devi .. Respondent 9. R.F.A. No. 2507 of 1994 (O&M) State of Punjab and another .. Appellants vs Lachhman Dass .. Respondent RFA No. 1750 of 1994 [2] 10. R.F.A. No. 2508 of 1994 (O&M) State of Punjab and another .. Appellants vs Kashmiri Lal and another .. Respondents 11. R.F.A. No. 2509 of 1994 (O&M) State of Punjab and another .. Appellants vs Harbans Kaur and others .. Respondents 12. R.F.A. No. 2510 of 1994 (O&M) State of Punjab and another .. Appellants vs Mohan Lal .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. M. K. Dogra and Mr. M. K. Upneja, Advocates for the land owners. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of a bunch of 12 appeals, as the same arise out of a common acquisition. R.F.A. Nos. 1750 to 1755 of 1994 have been filed by the land owners seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. R.F.A. Nos. 2505 to 2510 of 1994 have been filed by the State seeking reduction of compensation awarded to the land owners. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 8 kanals 13 marlas, falling in village Painchanwali, Tehsil Fazlika, District Ferozepur, was acquired vide notification dated 11.9.1989 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for public purpose. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') awarded Rs. 5 lac per acre as compensation for the acquired land. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, determined the fair value @ Rs. 10,000/- per marla. It is this award, which is impugned in the present set of appeals. Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the learned court RFA No. 1750 of 1994 [3] below has failed to appreciate the evidence led by the landowners on record and give due weightage thereto. It has failed to appreciate the admitted facts on record regarding the location of the land which is in the heart of the town. In fact, in his cross-examination RW1 Raj Kumar admitted that metalled road Fazlika city to Bathinda is situated on eastern side of the acquired land. Building of veterinary hospital, tehsil complex, civil court complex adjoin the acquired land. Across the metaled road, buildings of PWD Rest house, Police Station Fazlika City, Main Post office, Telephone Exchange, Fire-Station, bus-stand, etc. are situated. The entire area in the surrounding is urbanised. On the road there are shops. There was, in fact, no other open space available in the area as the entire area was thickly populated. Reliance was placed upon sale-deeds, Ex.A-15, 17 and 18 vide which plots were sold in the grain market at Fazlika. It was further submitted that the grain market was situated outside the municipal area whereas the land in question was situated within the heart of the town. He further submitted that even the sale-deeds produced by the State, Ex. R1 and R2, for plots measuring 300 square feet and 400 square feet, clearly establishes that the area was quite thickly populated where the land or shops were being sold in the form of small plots. The average sale consideration paid in Ex. R1 was Rs. 66.67 per square feet whereas in Ex. R2, it was Rs. 50/- per square feet. He further submitted that the learned court below had devised a new formula for applying cut as total acquired land was 173 marlas out of which the learned court below directed deduction of 20% i.e. 33 marls and ordered payment of compensation only for 140 marlas. He further submitted that the land for extension of grain market was acquired vide notification dated 9.12.1987 for which the Collector had assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 1,10,400/- per acre which was enhanced to Rs. 8/- per square feet by the Additional District Judge. Further this court in RFA No. 2368 of 1991 Sudhir Kumar vs State of Punjab and another decided on 29.3.1993, Ex. AX-5 had determined the value of the acquired land therein at Rs. 64/- per square feet. The aforesaid judgment attained finality as the State did not challenge the same any further. The acquisition in the present case being 1 year 9 months thereafter and the land also being located at more strategic place, the landowners are entitled to further increase thereon. It was further submitted that the observations of the learned court below for granting lesser compensation to the landowners here inspite of the fact that the land is strategically located within the heart of the town are totally perverse. It was mentioned in the judgment that the grain market is posh business center whereas the acquired land is situated close to RFA No. 1750 of 1994 [4] Civil Court complex, Tehsil Complex and Sub-Jail and it is a known fact that persons of bad character are lodged in the jails and visit courts and tehsil complex. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that considering the location of the land along with the court complex, tehsil complex and especially jail it had no potential. The existence of the jail certainly reduces the value of the land located in the vicinity. However, the factum that it is located adjoining to the tehsil complex, court complex is not denied. It was further submitted that sale-deeds produced by the landowners showing the value of the plots sold in the grain market cannot possibly be relied upon considering its strategical location and a market developed with all civic amenities. However, he was unable to controvert the contention of the learned counsel for the landowners that the judgment of this court in Sudhir Kumar's case (supra) attained finality. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. As far as the location of the land is concerned, the parties are not in dispute. It is located in the heart of the town. Metaled road leading to Bathinda city is situated on eastern side of the acquired land. There are buildings of veterinary hospital, tehsil complex, civil court complex near the acquired land. PWD Rest house, Police Station Fazlika City, Main Post office, Telephone Exchange, Fire- Station, bus-stand, etc. are situated across the metalled road. All area in the surrounding is urbanised. The area near the acquired land was developed area and no open space was available in the heart of the town except the acquired land. Now coming to the issue of consideration of fair value of the acquired land. Firstly, I would like to deal with the observations made by the learned court below while determining the compensation payable to the landowners. In my considered opinion, the view expressed by the learned court below that the land did not have potential for the reason of its being located close to the tehsil complex, civil court complex and jail, as these places are only visited by bad elements, is totally perverse. It may be some personal experience of the officer concerned. Otherwise the aforesaid places, except the jail which is called reformatory home, are not only visited by bad elements. These are the institutions created for good governance. In the tehsil complex, the officers of the District Administration have their offices and take care of the city for all its needs etc. whereas for any dispute/ disagreement, the parties approach the courts for settlement of their disputes. It is only in the criminal cases where some alleged criminals are brought to the court those are also innocents till such time they were RFA No. 1750 of 1994 [5] convicted. The observation, in my opinion, as was made by the learned court below are totally uncalled for and not based on the record or the facts. Further the method by which the cut was sought to be applied while determining the amount of compensation merely applying thumb rule is totally strange. The learned court below sought to reduce the area of land for which the compensation was to be paid after determining the amount of compensation. Such a method is not known to law. As far as determination of fair value of the acquired land is concerned, there are two sale-deeds produced by the State on record, Ex. R1 and R2. In sale deed Ex. R1, 300 square feet of area was dealt with for a total consideration of Rs. 20,000/- at an average price of Rs. 66.67 per square feet. The said sale deed was registered on 10.4.1989. Vide sale deed Ex. R2, registered on 6.4.1989, 400 square feet of area was dealt with for a total consideration of Rs. 20,000/- at an average price of Rs. 50/- per square feet. Meaning thereby that even the State was also conscious of the fact that for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land, it would be sale deeds pertaining to small plots, which would be relevant and large chunk of land will not be available in that area for which a sale deed could be found. As far as relevance of the evidence led by the land owners is concerned, reliance was placed upon three sale deeds, namely, Ex. A15, Ex. A17 and Ex. A18. These are pertaining to plots sold in Grain Market. Further reliance was on a judgment of this Court in Sudhir Kumar's case (supra) which was pertaining to the acquisition of land for extension of Grain Market. The notification under Section 4 of the Act therein was issued on 9.12.1987. The Collector had determined the market value of the land in that case at Rs. 1,10,400/- per acre, which was enhanced to Rs. 8/- per square feet by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur. In Regular First Appeal before this Court, the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 64/- per square feet in Sudhir Kumar's case (supra). In comparison to this and to consider the relevance thereof for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land, a few facts would be relevant, namely, that notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present set of appeals was issued on 11.9.1989, i.e., about one year and 9 months thereafter. The Collector had assessed the value of the acquired land at Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre, as against Rs. 1,10,400/- per acre in the case of acquisition of land for Mandi, which was enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- per marla by the learned court below. As far as location is concerned, both are located strategically and had their own advantages attached. None of them can be said to be less advantageous if compared with each RFA No. 1750 of 1994 [6] other to opine that the value should be assessed at a lesser rate. The land in question is located in the heart of the town, where the entire neighbouring area is being used either for commercial or residential purposes, whereas the Grain Market, for which the acquisition was carried out vide notification dated 9.12.1987 is located outside the municipal limits though abutting Ferozepur-Abohar road. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the value, as has been assessed by this Court for the acquisition carried out for Grain Market about one year and 9 months prior to the present acquisition can very well be relied upon for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land. The total area of acquired land is 8 kanals and 13 marlas, whereas the area, which was acquired for extension of Grain Market was 19 kanals and 14 marlas. Even if it is considered for arguments' sake that the value of the land pertaining to Grain Market is a little bit more, as compared to the value of the land, there is a time gap of one year and 9 months in the two acquisition, but still only the same amount of compensation is being granted for the present acquisition. Accordingly, the value of the acquired land is determined at Rs. 64/- per square feet. The land owners shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available under the Act. The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge April 29, 2009 mk