R.F.A. No. 2767 of 1994 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: November 10, 2008 (1) R.F.A. No. 2767 of 1994 Suba Singh and others .. Appellants v. State of Punjab and others .. Respondents (2) R.F.A. No. 300 of 1994 Nirmal Singh and others .. Appellants v. State of Punjab and others .. Respondents (3) R.F.A. No. 301 of 1994 Devinder Singh and others .. Appellants v. State of Punjab and others .. Respondents (4) R.F.A. No. 901 of 1994 Jhilmil Singh .. Appellant v. State of Punjab and others .. Respondents (5) R.F.A. No. 961 of 1994 Milkha Singh .. Appellant v. The Collector, Land Acquisition and others .. Respondents (6) R.F.A. No. 962 of 1994 Milkha Singh and others .. Appellants v. The Collector, Land Acquisition and others .. Respondents R.F.A. No. 2767 of 1994 [2] (7) R.F.A. No. 963 of 1994 Darshan Singh and others .. Appellants v. The Collector, Land Acquisition and others .. Respondents (8) R.F.A. No. 964 of 1994 Ajit Singh and others .. Appellants v. The Collector, Land Acquisition and others .. Respondents (9) R.F.A. No. 968 of 1994 Pritam Singh and others .. Appellants v. The Collector, Land Acquisition and others .. Respondents (10) R.F.A. No. 992 of 1994 Smt. Pritam Kaur .. Appellant v. The Collector, Land Acquisition and others .. Respondents (11) R.F.A. No. 1127 of 1994 Balbir Singh and others .. Appellants v. State of Punjab and others .. Respondents (12) R.F.A. No. 1356 of 1994 Niranjan Singh .. Appellant v. The Collector, Land Acquisition and others .. Respondents R.F.A. No. 2767 of 1994 [3] (13) R.F.A. No. 1955 of 1994 Manmohan Lal and others .. Appellants v. State of Punjab and others .. Respondents (14) R.F.A. No. 1743 of 2005 Surjit Singh .. Appellant v. State of Punjab and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: S/ Shri G.S. Punia, S. K. Singla, G.S. Dhaliwal for M.L. Sharma, Advocates for the land owners. Shri H.S.Riar, Senior Advocate with Shri Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for Punjab Mandi Board. Shri O. P. Dabla, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the State. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of a bunch of 14 appeals, as the same arise out of a common acquisition. However, the facts have been noticed from R.F.A. No. 2767 of 1994. The land owners are in appeal before this Court against the award of the learned Court below for further enhancement of the compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 27 kanals 8 marlas situated in the revenue estate of Jandiala Guru was acquired by the Punjab Government vide notification dated 26.2.1979 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for the purpose of development as Mandi Township, Jandiala Guru. The same was followed by notification dated 27.2.1980 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide his award dated 17.8.1987, determined the market value of land at Rs. 17,000/- per acre. However, the Additional District Judge, R.F.A. No. 2767 of 1994 [4] on reference under Section 18 of the Act, assessed the market value of the acquired @ Rs. 40,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Reference Court has not considered the evidence produced by them in the form of sale instances in their true perspective while determining the fair value of the acquired land. The fact that the land in question was abutting G.T. Road (NH-1) on one side and Gehri road leading from G.T. Road to Railway Station on the other side has been totally ignored. They further submitted that the entire area in the vicinity had already been developed. There were number of commercial establishments and factories in the vicinity. Even a Cantonment had also been set up just opposite the acquired land across Gehri road. Abadi of old village was also not situated at a far off place. Though, it was a small town but was fast developing. Bus stand was also situated just close to the acquired land which clearly established the commercial value thereof. In fact, the entire pressure of urbanisation near the village abadi was towards this land. The same being situated at the crossing of G.T. Road and the road leading to Railway Station- Jandiala Guru. Learned counsel further submitted that the finding recorded by the learned court below with regard to the location of the land being not on G. T. road is erroneous as the same is not supported by the material on record. A perusal of the award of the Collector and the site plan (Ex. A2) on record clearly shows that khasra numbers, which were acquired, abut G.T. Road on one side and Gehri road leading to Railway Station, Jandiala Guru on the other side. As far as fair value of the acquired land is concerned, reference was made to the evidence led on record in the form of sale deeds (Ex. AX/1 to Ex. AX/8), whereby the land was sold at an average price of Rs. 1,44,000/- to Rs. 3,20,000/- per acre. The submission is that the appellants in the present case are entitled to compensation for acquisition of land to that extent and no cut as such should be applied on the value of the land, as is shown in the aforesaid sale deeds, as the entire area was already developed, where civic amenities were existing. Reliance was placed on Kasturi and others v. State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 202; The Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar v. Vidya Suri (Smt.) and others, 2006(1) PLR 153 and Harbans Singh and others v. State of Punjab through the Land Acquisition Collector, Patiala, 2006(1) PLR 157. Without prejudice to the above submissions, it is further submitted that even if a cut is to be applied, the same should not be more than 1/3rd as is held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Bhagwathula Samanna and others v. Special R.F.A. No. 2767 of 1994 [5] Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1992 SC 2298. It was also submitted that the land which was situated on G.T. Road and also on Gehri road carries special value, keeping in view its strategical location and future potential. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that a perusal of the award of the Collector shows that the land owners had not been able to substantiate their claim before him in the objections filed in response to the notice issued under Section 9 of the Act. The claim of compensation before the Collector was merely Rs. 1,00,000/-per acre, but now the same is sought to be exaggerated. The site was inspected by the Collector and it was found that the same is not on G.T. Road, as is sought to be claimed by learned counsel for the appellants. The findings recorded by the learned court below regarding the location of the land, being not on G.T. Road, is in consonance with the material placed on record. There was no development in the vicinity of the acquired land, as is sought to be projected, rather, it was with the acquisition that developments in the area started. Railway Station is at a distance of 3 kilometers from the crossing at G.T. Road, where the acquired land is located. Bazar is also at a far off place and so is the village abadi. As far as Cantonment is concerned, the submission is that it is not a big Cantonment as such, but certain barracks of the soldiers had been constructed opposite the acquired land across Gehri road. The sale deeds, as were produced by the State, clearly established that the value of the acquired land, as was assessed by the Collector, deserved to be upheld, but still the learned court below was quite generous in further enhancing the compensation to Rs. 40,000/- per acre which does not call for any interference and the impugned award deserves to be upheld. Heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the relevant referred record. As far as the issue regarding location of the land is concerned, in my opinion, that should not detain the court much for two reasons, namely, in response to the objections filed, Surjit Singh land owner (appellant in R.F.A. No. 1743 of 2005), it was specifically admitted in reply filed thereto that part of the land is situated on G.T. Road. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the appellants had been able to show from the site plan (Ex. A2) that some of the khasra numbers, as mentioned in the award of the Collector, are located on G.T. Road and some part of the land is located on other side at Gehri road. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the learned court below on the issue that no land is located on G.T. Road is found to be erroneous and is set aside. As far as determination of fair value of the acquired land is R.F.A. No. 2767 of 1994 [6] concerned, the land owners had produced 8 sale deeds (Ex. AX/1 to Ex. AX/8) on record. A perusal thereof shows that sale deeds (Ex. AX/1, Ex. AX/4, Ex. AX/6 and Ex. AX/7) were registered much after the acquisition of the land. Accordingly, the same cannot be considered for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land, as there are sale deeds available regarding the transactions effected prior to the notification. Out of other sale deeds on record, land measuring 10 marlas each, which was dealt with in sale deeds dated 28.3.1978 and 7.2.1978 (Ex. AX/2 and Ex. AX/3), the same was sold at an average price of Rs. 1,44,000/- per acre and is located on the road leading from G.T. Road in the opposite direction to Gehri road. As far as sale deed (Ex. AX/5) is concerned, the same is located on G.T. Road where the transaction was entered into on 2.2.1978 for 26 marlas of land at an average price of Rs. 1,20,000/- per acre (it was wrongly recorded as about Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre in the impugned award as the consideration paid was Rs. 19,500/- for 26 marlas of land). As far as sale deed (Ex. AX/8) is concerned, though the same is not as such located on the site plan but, as referred to by learned counsel for the appellants, from the descriptions mentioned in the sale deed, the same is located near the ice factory which is located on G.T. Road. Vide this sale deed, 7 marlas of land @ Rs. 1472/- per marla was sold for Rs. 10,350/-, making it an average of about Rs. 2,36,000/- per acre. As far as the sale deeds, produced by the State are concerned, a specific finding has been recorded by the learned court below in paragraph 24 of the impugned award that the land pertaining thereto is located at a far off distance from the acquired land the same cannot be considered as such because of there being no similarity between them. Even before this Court, learned counsel for the respondents have not been able to point out any material on record that any of the sale deeds produced by the State has any relevance as far as location of the land is concerned. In this factual matrix, this Court has to consider the value of the acquired land considering the sale deeds (Ex. AX/2, Ex. AX/3, Ex. AX/5 and Ex. AX/8). A perusal of the aforesaid sale deeds and also sale deeds (Ex. AX/4, Ex. AX/6 and Ex. AX/7), which were pertaining to the transactions entered into in 1980 shows that there was not much increase in the prices in the area in the period of 1-1/2 years, so no increase as such is considered on the transaction value as mentioned in sale deeds (Ex. AX/2, Ex. AX/3, Ex. AX/5 and Ex. AX/8) and the same are considered as such. R.F.A. No. 2767 of 1994 [7] Now the question is for determination of value of the land abutting G.T. Road, Gehri road and the land behind that. The fact cannot be denied that a portion of the land abutting G.T. Road, the road leading to Railway Station, Jandiala Guru from G.T. Road and the land behind that will have different value. The pressure of urbanisation, development and need for commercial plots is always first on the road, then on the land behind it. For the purpose of determination of value of three set of places, incidentally the evidence is also available in the same manner. The land pertaining to sale deeds (Ex. AX/5 and Ex. AX/8) is situated on G.T. Road, whereas the land pertaining to sale deeds (Ex. AX/2 and Ex. AX/3) is located on a road leading from G.T. Road, though on the opposite side of the road on which the acquired land abuts. As far as the value of the acquired land on G.T. Road is concerned, in my opinion, upto the depth of 100 meters from the road, taking the average of two sale deeds (Ex. AX/5 and Ex. AX/8), i.e., Rs. 1,78,000/- and applying a cut of 60% thereon, keeping in view the fact that the land sold vide aforesaid two sale deeds were for small plots of land situated on the road, the same comes to Rs. 71,000/- per acre. As far as the land situated on Gehri road leading to Railway Station, Jandiala Guru is concerned, the average price of two sale deeds (Ex. AX/2 and Ex. AX/3) is Rs. 1,44,000/- per acre. If a cut of 60% is applied even thereon, keeping in view the fact that the area dealt with therein was merely 10 marlas each, the value of the acquired land upto the depth of 100 meters on Gehri road is determined at Rs. 57,600/- per acre. As far as the land behind it is concerned, in my opinion, the same also deserves some appreciation. Accordingly, even the compensation therefor is enhanced from Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 45,000/- per acre. The appellants shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available under the Act. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of in the above terms. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge November 10, 2008 mk