R.F.A. No. 1169 of 1988 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: January 06, 2009 (1) R.F.A. No. 1169 of 1988 (O&M) The State of Punjab .. Appellant v. Ram Parkash and others .. Respondents (2) R.F.A. No. 703 of 1988 (O&M) Gurbachan Singh .. Appellant v. The State of Punjab and another .. Respondents (3) R.F.A. No. 808 of 1988 (O&M) Guriqbal Singh (deceased) through LRs .. Appellant v. State of Punjab and another .. Respondents (4) R.F.A. No. 997 of 1988 (O&M) Ram Parkash and others .. Appellants v. State of Punjab .. Respondent (5) R.F.A. No. 998 of 1988 (O&M) Colonel Sir Harinder Singh Brar Bans Bahadur (deceased) through LRs .. Appellants v. State of Punjab .. Respondent R.F.A. No. 1169 of 1988 [2] (6) R.F.A. No. 1170 of 1988 (O&M) The State of Punjab and another .. Appellants v. Colonel Harinder Singh Brar (deceased) through LRs .. Respondents (7) R.F.A. No. 1171 of 1988 (O&M) The State of Punjab .. Appellant v. Gurbachan Singh .. Respondent (8) R.F.A. No. 1172 of 1988 (O&M) The State of Punjab .. Appellants v. Guriqbal Singh .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. V. K. Kataria, Ms. Lisa Gill and Mr. Avnish Mittal Advocates for the land owners. Mr. O. P. Dabla, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the State. Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for Punjab Mandi Board. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of a bunch of above mentioned eight appeals, as the same arise out of a common acquisition. R.F.A. Nos. 1169 to 1172 of 1988 have been filed by the State seeking reduction of the amount of compensation awarded to the land owners. R.F.A. No. 703, 808, 997 and 998 of 1988 have been filed by the land owners for further enhancement of the compensation of the acquired land. The facts have been noticed from R.F.A. No. 1169 of 1988. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 22.12.1979, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Punjab acquired land measuring 46 acres, 6 kanals and 13 marlas, situated in the R.F.A. No. 1169 of 1988 [3] area of Faridkot for expansion of New Mandi Township at Faridkot. The same was followed by notification dated 10.2.1982, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide his award dated 2.10.1982, determined the market value at Rs. 15,000/- per acre for Chahi land; Rs. 10,000/- per acre for Barani land; Rs. 25,000/- per acre for Banjar Kadim land and Rs. 25,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin kind of land. However, learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot, on reference under Section 18 of the Act, determined the market value at Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the value of the land, as determined by the learned court below, is not in conformity with the material placed on record by them. The Court below has failed to consider the fact that the land in question was strategically located at a commercial hub, where Grain Market was already situated adjoining the acquired land and in fact, the land was acquired for the purpose of expansion thereof after Faridkot was declared a district in the year 1972. The entire land forms part of 3 pockets, which is abutting the main road and plot measuring 23 kanals and 19 marlas, known as “Tikoni” forming part of khasra No. 4299 is even having roads on three sides. Substantiating argument regarding location and potential of the acquired land, it is submitted that the same abuts Ferozepur road. Residential colonies known as Narayan Singh Colony and Bhan Singh Colony are situated in the close vicinity. On eastern side, there are FCI Godowns, Railway Station was located merely at a distance of one kilometer. The acquired land adjoins the existing Grain Market and Canal Colony. Even the godowns of Warehousing Corporation are also situated adjoining the acquired land. Red Cross Bhawan and Government residential colonies and even complex of Government Medical College are also situated in the close vicinity of the acquired land. The land falls within the municipal limits as the same is located near the Railway Station and already constructed and commercialised area. It had great potential value being located on the main roads. For the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land, the submission is that the learned court below has totally failed to give weightage to the relevant evidence produced on record in the form of Exs. A47, Ex. A55, Ex. A56, Ex. A71 and also the rate at which the land was sold to Food Corporation of India way back on 30.7.1971 for the purpose of construction of godown. Further submission is that the learned court below had merely referred to sale deeds (Ex. A48, Ex. A52 and Ex. A61) for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land and had not considered other relevant evidence which clearly establish that value of the acquired land in the area R.F.A. No. 1169 of 1988 [4] was much more than what was determined. The evidence produced by the land owners should not have been considered in isolation without even reference to other material evidence produced by them. The factor that Faridkot was declared a district in the year 1972 was not even considered which will certainly shoot up the price of the land in the area as thereafter the pace of development accelerated. Referring to the evidence which, according to the learned counsel for the land owners, is most material, the submission is that Ex. A47 is the judgment of this Court in R.F.A. No. 1637 of 1979 –Gursewak Singh Sekhon v. The Special Land Acquisition Collector and another, decided on 6.11.1980, pertaining to the acquisition of land for Cantonment carried out vide notification dated 28.8.1974, where the value was determined at Rs. 60,000/- per acre for the land abutting the road upto a depth of 40 karams and for the rest of the land at the rate of Rs. 33,000/- per acre. The location of this portion of land acquired for the purpose of construction of Cantonment was 4 kilometers away from the acquired land and there is a gap of 5 years in the acquisition. Further reference was made to document (Ex. A55) showing the rate at which the plots were sold in Grain Market, which is already existing at the site adjoining the large piece of land where in the auctions carried out from 1970 to 1974, the rates have been mentioned which vary from Rs. 6,200/- to Rs. 28,200/-. Reliance has also been placed upon a sale deed (Ex. A56) registered in favour of an allottee where he had purchased a plot measuring 20'x125' (nine marlas approximately) for a consideration of Rs. 30,000/- in an open auction held on 13.6.1974. The plot is located in Grain Market already developed. The submission is that even if sale deed (Ex. A56) pertained to a small piece of plot purchased in auction by the vendee therein, the advantages attached thereto being located in a developed Grain Market can very well be set off with the time gap where the auction was carried out about 5-1/2 years before the acquisition of the land and further by applying a small cut therein. Reliance was also placed upon Ex. A71, a judgment of this court in R.F.A. No. 1363 of 1979—Col. Sir Harinder Singh Brar v. State of Punjab and another, decided on 24.9.1980, pertaining to the acquisition for construction of a ware house vide notification issued on 21.7.1972, where the value was determined at Rs. 37,500/- per acre. The land pertaining thereto is located in the vicinity of the acquired land, accordingly, has relevance. The submission is that above judgment in Col. Sir Harinder Singh Brar's case (supra) clearly establishes that even in the year 1972, more than 7 years prior to the acquisition in the present case, the value of the land even off the road was Rs. 37,500/- per acre. Going even prior thereto, reference was made to sale deed Ex. AW12 dated 30.7.1971, whereby 19 kanals R.F.A. No. 1169 of 1988 [5] and 14 marlas of land was sold to Food Corporation of India @ Rs. 30,000/- per acre. Even this portion of land is not located on the main road, as is the land in the case in hand. Cumulatively referring to the evidence, the submission is that it clearly establishes increasing trend of prices of land in the area. The value which was Rs. 30,000/- per acre in July, 1971 increased to Rs. 37,500/- per acre in July, 1972, whereas for the acquisition carried out in August, 1974 at a distance of about 4 kilometers away, the value of the land on the main road was assessed at Rs. 60,000/- per acre and the value as shown in sale deed (Ex. A56) for a plot sold in open auction in the Grain Market, the value was nearly Rs. 3,300/- per marla, i.e., Rs. 5,28,000/- per acre. Considering the aforesaid evidence, the amount of compensation as determined by the learned court below certainly deserves increase by this Court. As far as reliance on the rate at which the plots are sold in the Grain Market for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land with reference to Exs. A55 and Ex. A56, reliance was placed upon a judgment of this Court in Sudhir Kumar v. State of Punjab and another, (1993-2) 104 PLR 603. It was further submitted by learned counsel for the land owners that though it is an admitted fact on record that super structures were existing on the acquired land, but still no compensation has been paid for the same. Reference was made to Ex. RW3/1, which is in the form of an estimate prepared by the Building Inspector of the Colonisation Department. On the other hand, learned counsels for the State and Mandi Board submitted that the value, as determined by the learned court below, is far more than what the land owners in the present case deserved. In fact, the same calls for reduction. Taking up the evidence led by the land owners, it was submitted that the District Judge merely relied upon the sale deeds as were produced by the land owners, accordingly they could not have grouse against the same. As far as reliance on Ex. A55, the list showing the minimum and maximum rates at which the plots were sold in the Grain Market, the submission is that the same does not depict the value at which the plots were in fact sold. It was further submitted that even reliance on sale deed (Ex. AW12) dated 30.7.1971 and judgments in Gursewak Singh's case and Col. Sir Harinder Singh Brar's case (supra) is also totally misplaced for the reason that they pertained to acquisition of land carried out much prior to the acquisition of land in question. It was further submitted that the land acquired for setting up of the Cantonment was not 4 kilometers away from the city as such, as was sought to be projected, rather, the same was close to the municipal boundary just outside the city. Even if the same was 4 kilometers away from the acquired land, the area in between was all populated. In fact, as has come R.F.A. No. 1169 of 1988 [6] in the evidence in Gursewak Singh's case (supra), there were industries located in its vicinity. Accordingly, the submission that the value, as determined in Col. Sir Harinder Singh Brar's case (supra) was pertaining to the acquisition of land for Cantonment, located 4 kilometers away from the city, accordingly, for the land situated within the city, the value, has to be much more, is totally misplaced. As far as value of superstructure is concerned, learned counsel for the State and Mandi Board were not able to controvert the claim made by the landowners as it was the Building Inspector Colonisation produced by them as RW3, who admitted the fact. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred records. In my opinion, the reliance on the auction price of small commercial plots in already developed grain market is totally misplaced, as the same does not in any way show the correct price of big chunk of land in the area. The sale of plots in a specialised market depends on certain factors primarily the demand and supply. As the number of plots are always limited and everyone in that line of business always looks to set up a business in that market because of certain added advantages there. Learned counsel for the appellants had relied upon Ex.-55 to show at what rates the plots were sold in the market in various auctions held. Though the document as such cannot be read in evidence as it only contains the minimum and maximum rates of plots in various auctions, however, still the same does not show any particular trend in prices. It is a list of rates of different sizes of plots allegedly sold in five different auctions. The plots are of three categories. One is grain shop measuring 20' x 125', SCF 20'x 80' and booth 10'x 30'. As per Ex. A-55, if the contention of the learned counsel for the landowners is considered, to mean that maximum price mentioned in the list is in fact the auction price at which the plots were sold, it is evident that in the auction held on 10.7.1970, a grain shop was sold for Rs. 18,500/- where as the same was sold for Rs. 10,000/- in auction held on 30.12.1971, and for Rs. 14,000/- in the auction held on 29.9.1972. On 16.3.1973, the same was sold at Rs. 22,000/- and in the auction held on 13.6.1974, the price shown is Rs. 35,000/-. In the auction held on 10.7.1970, a SCF was sold for Rs. 15,400/- whereas the same was sold for Rs. 15,500/- in auction held on 29.9.1972, and on 16.3.1973, the same was sold at Rs. 14,100/- and in the auction held on 13.6.1974, it was sold at Rs. 28,200/-. As far as price of booth in the auction held on 10.7.1970, it was sold at Rs. 10,300/-, whereas the same was sold for Rs. 5,000/- on 30.12.1971. In the auction held on 29.9.1972, the booth was sold at Rs. 6,200/- and on 16.3.1973 the same was sold at Rs. 4,500/-. R.F.A. No. 1169 of 1988 [7] Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar and others v. Haryana State and others, (2007) 7 SCC 609 considering the fact as to whether reliance on the prices fetched in auction sale of plots can be safely relied upon to determine fair value of the acquired land, observed as under: “An argument was raised that the prices of lands fetched in auction had been ignored on the basis that prices fetched in auction-sales cannot form the basis. It was submitted that there was no general rule that such prices cannot be adopted. On considering the relevant facts disclosed, it cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error in discarding those auction-sales while determining the compensation payable. The element of competition in auction-sales does not make them safeguides.” Even this Court in Smt. Sanjoyta Sehgal and others v. State of Haryana and another, 1987 Recent Revenue Reports 540 had held that prices fetched in auction sales of plots around the acquired land cannot be made basis for determination of fair value of the acquired land, as certain special features are attached in the auction sale. There are other reasons also for which the auction price of plots in new grain market cannot be considered to be a reliable piece of evidence in the present case. Even the purchase of land by Food Corporation of India for construction of Godown, which is located close to existing new grain market and the railway station, was sold @ Rs. 30,000/- per are vide sale deeds Ex. AW12/7 and Ex. AW12/8 dated 30.7.1971. If calculated as per chart Ex. A55 showing the details of auction of plots in the grain market for grain shop measuring 20'x125', the same was sold for Rs. 18,500/- in the year 1970 at an average price of Rs. 2,64,000/- per acre, whereas the land was purchased by Food Corporation of India @ Rs. 30,000/- per acre. Even for the land which was acquired for construction of warehouse on 21.7.1972, this court vide judgment dated 24.9.1980 in Col. Sir Harinder Singh Brar's case (supra) pertaining to the land of one of the appellants here, determined the value at Rs. 37,500/- per acre. Reliance of the learned counsel for the landowners even on this judgment for the proposition that landowners herein should be granted increase of 25% per annum as was granted in the aforesaid judgment in Col. Sir Harinder Singh Brar's case (supra) (Ex. A71) is totally misplaced for the reason that as the land exists today, if at all the compensation is to be assessed by granting annual increase, the same could not be more than 10-12% per annum. The trend of prices in the area is further evident from sale-deeds Ex. A-10 and A12/6 on record which though are later in time. R.F.A. No. 1169 of 1988 [8] Vide sale-deed, Ex. A-10, registered on 23.1.1980, a small plot of 17¾ marlas was sold for Rs. 10,000/-. This was forming part of khasra no. 4221 which is close to triangle (known as `Tikoni'). Similarly, AW-12/6, measuring 8 marlas land forming part of khasra no. 4221 located in the `Tikoni', was sold vide sale deed dated 15.4.1981 for Rs. 7,500/- at an average price of Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre. Further learned counsel for the landowners had also relied upon award pertaining to acquisition of land for construction of cantonment where the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 28.8.1974. It was sought to be claimed that the land pertaining thereto was 4-5 kilometers away from the city, where this court had assessed the value at Rs. 60,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- per acre for category `A' and `B' respectively. Category `A' was the land located on main road upto a depth of 40 karams, whereas category `B' was located behind that. A perusal of the site plan, Ex. A-51, shows that the location of the cantonment is about 3 kilometers away from the land in question but located just close to the boundary of Guru Gobind Singh Medical College, Narain Singh Colony, where other commercial establishments were also located in the vicinity which shows that the land was not 4-5 kilometers away from the abadi of the city. Even there also for the land which was acquired in August 1974, the compensation was assessed at Rs. 30,000/- per acre for the land which was located off the road whereas Rs. 60,000/- per acre was assessed for the land which was located on the road. In the present case, the learned court below relied upon certain sale-deeds Ex. A-48, A-52 and A-61 and assessed the value at Rs. 1 lac per acre. Even if the award Ex. A-71 pertaining to the acquisition for construction of warehouse on 21.7.1972 is considered, the value as assessed by the learned court below is arrived at by granting an increase @ 15% per annum. If the award pertaining to the land for cantonment is also considered, the average price for the land located on the main and off the road after granting annual increase of 15% therein for the period of five years, the average value comes out to Rs. 79,000/- per acre and if the value as assessed for the land located on the main road is considered even if increase of 12% is granted thereon, the same comes out to Rs. 96,000/- per acre. Considering the aforesaid factors and also examining the value of the land in the vicinity and in the nearby area as was assessed either by the court or was paid by the parties in private sale transaction, in my opinion, no illegality has been committed by the learned court below while assessing the value for the entire chunk of land at Rs. 1 lac per acre. It is for the reason that three portions of land are strategically located where one portion is a strip of land located on the road, another is triangular (Tikoni) which is surrounded by three roads, third abuts the main road but is R.F.A. No. 1169 of 1988 [9] located behind the grain market already developed. Accordingly, for the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award as far as the amount of compensation is concerned. As regards the claim of costs of superstructure existing at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act is concerned, Sham Kumar Sharma, Building Inspector Colonisation, appearing RW3, stated that he had inspected the spot and prepared the assessment of servant quarters of Tahli Ground of Raja Harinder Singh which is Ex. RW3/1. The facts regarding existence of superstructure and also that no compensation was paid therefor, the claim regarding value of superstructure as is assessed by the State and produced in report Ex. RW3/1 is accepted. Accordingly, it is directed that the landowners shall be entitled to receive compensation for the superstructure existing on the acquired land as determined by the State. They shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available under the Act. The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid manner. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge January 06 ,2009 mk (Refer to Reporter)