CM No.270-CI of 2010 and RFA No.104 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.270-CI of 2010 and RFA No.104 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 8.9.2011 Market Committee, Pillukhera District, Jind ......Appellant(s) Versus Ishwar Singh and another ......Respondent(s) CM No.274-CI of 2010 and RFA No.105 of 2010 (O&M) Market Committee, Pillukhera ......Appellant(s) Versus Ram Dhari and others ......Respondent(s) CM No.278-CI of 2010 and RFA No.106 of 2010 (O&M) Market Committee, Pillukhera ......Appellant(s) Versus Subhash and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Raman B. Garg, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This judgment shall dispose of three appeals i.e. RFA No.104 to 106 of 2010 which have arisen out of the same notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short the 'Act') and one common award of the Reference Court. However, the facts are taken from RFA No.104 of 2010. The State of Haryana issued notification under Section 4 of the Act on 1.4.2004 intending to acquire land measuring 2 acres 2 kanals 9 marlas situated in village Pillukhera Tehsil Safidon District Jind for a public purpose i.e. for providing water supply and sewerage facilities in CM No.270-CI of 2010 and RFA No.104 of 2010 (O&M) 2 New Grain Market Pillukhera, Tehsil and Distt. Jind. The said notification was followed by declaration dated 29.3.2005 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector passed an award on 13.1.2006 determining the market value of the land at ` 5,00,000/- per acre for Nehri Kind of land. Aggrieved from the aforesaid compensation, claimants/land- owners filed references which were referred to the Additional District Judge, Jind (exercising the power of the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act). The references were contested by the State of Haryana by filing written statement wherein it was contended that the amount of compensation was rightly awarded by the Collector and the same was received by the landowners without any protest. Since the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was adequate, correct and justified, references were liable to be dismissed. In support of their claim, the landowners in addition to the oral evidence also produced on record sale deed dated 11.12.2003 as Ex.PW1/C, copy of mutation Ex.PW2/2B, site plan as Ex.PW4/A and sale deed dated 22.2.2006 as Ex.P-1. On the other hand, State of Haryana examined Ved Singh, E.O Market Committee, Pillukhera (appellant) besides placing on record copy of award Ex.RW/1/A, letter dated 2.4.2008 as Mark RA and sale deed dated 23.1.2008 as Mark-RB. On consideration of evidence on record and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Reference Court found that the land in question which has been provided for water supply and sewerage facilities in the New Grain Market Pillukhera Mandi, is situated in Pillukhera town and has potential value for commercial, residential and industrial purposes CM No.270-CI of 2010 and RFA No.104 of 2010 (O&M) 3 and is situated near the pucca road. It also came on record by way of oral evidence that the land was very much fertile and yielding three crops in a year and the same had been bifurcated in parts because of acquisition and has become uncultiviable. The Reference Court did not rely upon sale deed Ex.PW/1C being a small piece of land. However, the Reference Court found that because of the acquisition, the petitioners must have suffered great hardship which has not been considered while determining compensation by the Land Acquisition Collector. Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the Reference Court determined the market value of the land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act at ` 6,00,000/- per acre for all kinds of acquired land. It is pertinent to mention that the award of the Reference Court has not been challenged by the State of Haryana by filing an appeal . However, the appellant-Market Committee, Pillukhera has sought permission of this Court to file this appeal as the land was acquired by the State at its expenses and for its benefits. The said prayer of the appellant was allowed by this Court vide order dated 22.1.2010. Challenging the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the Reference Court has fell into error while enhancing the compensation from ` 5,00,000/- to ` 6,00,000/- per acres on account of hardship caused to the landowners because of acquisition of land without being any evidence on record in this regard. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, there is no evidence on record to disclose the nature and extent of alleged hardship caused to the land owners and thus, the compensation was enhanced without assigning any reason or justification and the same being based on surmises and conjectures, was liable to be set aside. It may be noticed that appeals have been filed after a delay of CM No.270-CI of 2010 and RFA No.104 of 2010 (O&M) 4 195 days. Applications for condoning the delay of 195 days in all these appeals have also been filed. Since these appeals are being decided on merits, therefore, the applications for condonation of delay of 195 days in filing these appeals do not survive. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have also perused the impugned award and the relevant sale deeds which are part of the record with the help of the learned counsel for the appellant. Admittedly, sale deed Ex.PW-1/C is comparable in point of time and situation, as the same is located in the vicinity of the acquired land. As per the aforesaid sale deed, land measuring 4 marlas was sold for a sum of ` 24,000/- on 11.12.2003 i.e. ` 9,60,000/- per acre. The said sale deed has been ignored by the Reference Court only it being for a small piece of land. To my mind, the Reference Court has gone wrong in not relying upon the said sale instance Ex.PW1/C. It is well settled that in the absence of any other evidence even a sale instance pertaining to a small piece of land can be safely relied upon to determine the market value of the land in question, after applying a suitable cut on the sale value of such a sale instance if the said sale instance is otherwise comparable and is relevant. I am fortified in my view in this regard by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anjali Molu Dessai versus State of Goa and another 2011(3) RCR (Civil) 696 and Ravinder Narain Vs. Union of India 2004 (1) J.R. (SC) 525. It was also so held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.6127-6128 of 2011 (Valliyammal and another etc. versus Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) and another etc.) decided on 1.8.2011. It may also be useful to refer to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Atam Singh (died) through LRs and others versus State of Haryana and others AIR 2008 SC 709 wherein the Supreme CM No.270-CI of 2010 and RFA No.104 of 2010 (O&M) 5 Court has relied upon a sale instance pertaining to a small piece of land after applying a cut of 33% to determine the market value. Thus, even if we apply the cut of 33% in this case on the sale price of Ex.PW1/C, the market value will be more than ` 6,00,000/- in view of the aforesaid discussion, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant loses its significance. Even if we assume that there is no evidence to the effect that hardship has been caused to the landowners by the acquisition in hand, though, it has come in the statement of witnesses that because of the acquisition, their lands have been bifurcated and have become uncultivable, the compensation granted by the Reference Court is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in these appeals. Dismissed. September 8, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE CM No.270-CI of 2010 and RFA No.104 of 2010 (O&M) 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.274-CI of 2010 and RFA No.105 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 8.9.2011 Market Committee, Pillukhera ......Appellant(s) Versus Ram Dhari and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Raman B. Garg, Advocate for the appellant(s). Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. For orders, see RFA No.104 of 2010. September 8, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE CM No.270-CI of 2010 and RFA No.104 of 2010 (O&M) 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.278-CI of 2010 and RFA No.106 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 8.9.2011 Market Committee, Pillukhera ......Appellant(s) Versus Subhash and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Raman B. Garg, Advocate for the appellant(s). Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. For orders, see RFA No.104 of 2010. September 8, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE