RFA No. 1333 of 1991 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1) RFA No. 1333 of 1991 (O&M) Date of decision : 19.2.2010 ... Dhayan Singh ................Appellant vs. State of Haryana through Land Acquisition Collector, Jind. .................Respondent 2) RFA No. 1331 of 1991 (O&M) ... Dalip Singh and others ................Appellants vs. State of Haryana through Land Acquisition Collector, Jind. .................Respondent 3) RFA No. 1332 of 1991 (O&M) ... Kapur Singh ................Appellant vs. State of Haryana through Land Acquisition Collector, Jind. .................Respondent 4) RFA No. 1334 of 1991 (O&M) ... Jaswant Singh ................Appellant vs. State of Haryana through Land Acquisition Collector, Jind. .................Respondent RFA No. 1333 of 1991 -2- 5) RFA No. 1335 of 1991 (O&M) ... Tara Singh and others ................Appellants vs. State of Haryana through Land Acquisition Collector, Jind. .................Respondent 6) RFA No. 1336 of 1991 (O&M) ... Baldev Singh and others ................Appellants vs. State of Haryana through Land Acquisition Collector, Jind. .................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. V.K. Jain, Senior Advocate with Sh. Prashant Vashisht, Advocate for the appellant(s) Sh. J.S. Toor, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ... K.C. Puri, J. Vide this common judgment, I intend to dispose of RFA Nos. 1333 of 1991, 1331 of 1991, 1332 of 1991, 1334 of 1991, 1335 of 1991 and 1336 of 1991, as all these appeals arise out of the same award. Briefly stated, the Government of Haryana vide notification dated 1.6.1987 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition RFA No. 1333 of 1991 -3- Act (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'), acquired 123 kanals 9 marlas of land situated in village Garhi, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind, for construction of new Anaj Mandi, rest house, staff quarters, office and cart shed. The Collector vide award dated 18.5.1990 awarded compensation of the land under acquisition @ Rs.40,000/- per acre. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded statutory solatium but did not grant statutory benefit to the land owners under Section 23 (1-A) of the said Act. The appellants before this Court, filed references before the District Collector for enhancement, which were sent to the District Judge for adjudication. In the references, the amount claimed by the land owners was Rs. 2 lac per acre. It is pleaded by them that land under acquisition is situated near abadi of village and near the road and that land possessed industrial, residential and commercial potentiality. The prayer has also been made for grant of statutory benefits as provided under Section 23 (1-A) of the said Act. The claim petition was resisted by the State of Haryana through Administrator Market Committee, Narwana. It is pleaded that land owners has already been awarded just and proper compensation. The land under acquisition was simply agricultural land and has no potential value. The Additional District Judge framed the following issues:- 1. What was the market value of the land under acquisition? OPP 2. Whether there existed fruit trees in the land which belonged to Baldev Singh etc. and they were not paid compensation RFA No. 1333 of 1991 -4- thereof? OPP 3. How much amount petitioners Baldev Singh are entitled to in respect of their fruit trees? OPP 4. Relief. Learned Additional District Judge, after appreciating the sale deeds Exhibit P-3 to P-5 and Exhibit R-1 to R-3 returned the market value @ Rs.45,000/- per acre. Issues No. 2 and 3 were decided against Baldev Singh. The Additional District Judge, however, held the land owners entitled to claim the benefit under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act. The claimants were held entitled to solatium @ 30% on the enhanced market value. Other benefits under the Act were also granted. Feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the present six appeals have been filed. Since all these appeals arise out of the same award, as such these are decided by the common judgment. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) has challenged the finding on issue No.1 only during the course of arguments. No argument has been addressed on issues No. 2 and 3. So, finding on issues No. 2 and 3 stands affirmed. Now, reverting to issue No.1, learned counsel for the appellant(s) has submitted that learned Additional District Judge has ignored the valuable piece of evidence in the shape of sale deed Exhibit P-3. The said sale deed is dated 19.5.1987 i.e. immediate prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act. It is contended that said land is situated at about 3 acres from the acquired land. The RFA No. 1333 of 1991 -5- said land is also situated on main road i.e. Jind to Patiala road. The land covered by sale deed Exhibit P-3 was purchased for construction of sheller and sheller has already been constructed. Learned Additional District Judge discarded the said sale deed only on the ground that land covered by said sale deed is in respect of small piece of land. The said finding is wrong on the face of it as the sale deed Exhibit P-3 is in respect of more than 3 acres of land whereas the acquired land is only 15 acres. So, said sale deed is not in respect of a small piece of land. It is argued that from the perusal of the sale deed Exhibit P-4, it is revealed that 5 marlas of land has been sold for a consideration of Rs.6,000/- and as such per acre comes to Rs.1,92,000/-. The sale deed Exhibit P-5 is in respect of 2 marlas of land has been sold for a consideration of Rs.3,000/- and the date of sale is 18.5.1987 and the market values comes to Rs.2,40,000/-. So, the prayer has been made for enhancement of compensation to the extent of Rs. 2 lacs per acre. Counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court. It is submitted that in fact sale deeds Exhibit P-3 and P-5 have been manipulated by the land owners simply knowing the fact that land would be acquired, and to claim exaggerated amount of land. The Additional District Judge has rightly stated that sale instances of Exhibit P-3 to P-5 cannot be taken into account. It is further contended that sale covered by Exhibit P-3 is far away from the residential area. The small instances of 5 marlas and 2 marlas cannot be taken into account as observed by the trial Court. Moreover, the sale deeds Exhibit P-4 and P-5 cannot be considered as location of the RFA No. 1333 of 1991 -6- same has not been shown in the site plan produced by the appellants. It is further contended that the sale deeds Exhibit R-1 to R-3 produced by the State proves the value of the acquired land and according to these sale deeds the market value is much less than Rs.45,000/- per acre. So, the prayer has been made for dismissal of the appeals. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by both the sides and have also gone through the record of the case. The claimants have produced three sale deeds Exhibit P-3 to P-5, the detail of which has been given in para No. 10 of the judgment. The State has produced sale deeds Exhibit R-1 to R-3, which are also shown in para No.10 of the judgment. Learned Additional District Judge has not taken into account all these sale deeds produced by the appellants as well as, the respondent, however, enhanced the compensation to the extent of Rs.45,000/- per acre instead of Rs.40,000/- awarded by the Collector. Now, on re-appreciating the evidence, so far as sale deeds Exhibit P- 4 and P-5 are concerned, these have been rightly ignored by the Additional District Judge. Exhibit P-4 is the sale deed dated 03.1.1986 regarding 5 marlas of land for a consideration of Rs.6,000/- and market value according to that sale deed is Rs.1,92,000/- per acre. Sale deed Exhibit P-5 dated 18.5.1987 is in respect of 2 marlas of land for a consideration of Rs.3,000/- and market value comes to Rs.2,40,000/- per acre. Counsel for the appellants could not point out RFA No. 1333 of 1991 -7- the location of sales covered by Exhibit P-4 and P-5. Both these sale deeds are shown to be sold for commercial purpose. The land covered by Exhibit P-4 is shown to be on road i.e. Narwana – Patiala road. Whereas, the land covered by Exhibit P-5 is situated near abadi of village Garhi and property was purchased for commercial purpose. So, the sale instances of 5 marlas and 2 marlas of land, location of which is not clear from the map, have rightly been discarded by the Additional District Judge. The Additional District Judge has also rightly discarded the sale instances Exibit R-1 to R-3 as the location of this land has also not been shown in the site plan. Now, the sale deed which is left for consideration, is Exhibit P-3. The location of said sale deed has been shown in map which is Exhibit P-1 produced by the plaintiff-appellants. The land covered by Exhibit P-3 is about 2 acres away from the land acquired, but is not towards village abadi. The land acquired is towards village abadi whereas and land covered by Exhibit P-3 is on the other side of acquired land. The depth of the land acquired is up to 5 acre, whereas the depth of the land covered by Exhibit P-3 is only about 2 acre. The land situated on the road is more valuable than the land away from the road. The learned State counsel has submitted that sale deed Exhibit P-3 has been manipulated by the claimants in order to get the enhance the compensation, after having come to know about the factum of acquisition. However, that argument is beyond pleading. No suggestion was put to any witness before the Additional District Judge. So, the sale deed Exhibit P-3 should have been taken into RFA No. 1333 of 1991 -8- account by the Additional District Judge. However, the fact that it is in respect of 3 acres of land, whereas the acquired land is of 15 acres, and that depth of acquired land is 5 acre and depth of land Exhibit P-3 is only about 2 acres, has also to be considered. This Court in authority reported as Baldev Krishan Singh vs. Land Acquisition Collector 1999 (4) RCR (Civil) 541, has held that cut of 25% would be just and proper, where the acquired land is of large chunk, as compared to small instance of sale. So, relying upon the said authority, in my view the ends of justice would be met in case cut of 25% is imposed regarding the land covered by Exhibit P-3. So, the market value by imposing the cut of 25% comes to Rs.54,000/- per acre. That cut has been imposed on account of other factors, i.e. depth of the land, nearness of the acquired land towards village abadi than the land covered by Exhibit P-3. So, in view of the above discussion, the appeals are partly accepted. The market value of the land acquired at the time of acquisition is assessed as Rs.54,000/- per acre. The land owners are held entitled to claim the said rate alongwith other benefits under the Act, including solatium, benefit under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act, etc. Accordingly, the appeals stand disposed of as discussed above. ( K.C. Puri ) 19.2.2010 Judge chugh RFA No. 1333 of 1991 -9-