RFA No. 792 of 1996 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 792 of 1996 Date of decision: 06.11.2009 Ran Singh and another ....Appellants Versus Haryana State and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Y.P. Malik, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Rajiv Kawatra, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. R.A. Yadav, Advocate ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This order shall dispose of RFA No. 792 of 1996 titled Ran Singh and another Vs. Haryana State and others, RFA No. 863 of 1996 titled Tandon Gopal and another Vs. Haryana State and others, RFA No. 896 of 1996 titled Ved Singh and others Vs. Haryana State and others and RFA No. 950 of 1996 titled Indraj Singh and others Vs. Haryana State and others, as they arise out of the common award. For brevity sake, facts are being taken from RFA No. 792 of 1996. The appellant-landowners have invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the award dated 8.12.1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak, vide which the reference made by the appellants against the award of the learned Collector was ordered to be dismissed. RFA No. 792 of 1996 -2- The State of Haryana issued a notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act by invoking emergency provisions to acquire land measuring 4.30 acres in the area of Bahadurgargh for construction of sector road in the HUDA Sector Bahadurgarh, vide notification dated 8.4.1991. The acquired land was equivalent to 6 bighas 17 biswas 11 biswansi, out of which only 9 biswas 15 biswansi was gair mumkin and remaining 6 bighas 7 biswas 16 biswansi was nehri. The learned Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 9.3.1992 awarded compensation @ Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lac only) per acre for nehri kind of land and Rs.1.5 lac (Rupees one lac and five thousand only) per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. The land owners were also awarded compensation for super-structures and trees standing on the land along with solatium and other statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act. The landowners-claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to challenge the award passed by the learned Land Acquisition Collector by claiming that the value of the acquired land was not less than Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) per square yard. Some of the claimants even claimed compensation @ Rs.12000/- (Rupees twelve thousand only) per square yard or Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lac only) per acre. The basis for the claim was, that the land was situated in the abadi adjacent to the various factories and was in the developed area of the HUDA Sectors. Reference was opposed by the State of Haryana on the plea that the award passed by the learned Land Acquisition Collector was just and fair, as the compensation awarded was adequate, which represented RFA No. 792 of 1996 -3- the true market value of the acquired land. The only issue with which we are concerned in this appeal, is with regard to the market value of the acquired land at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. In support of the claim, the appellants examined Ved Singh as PW1, who stated that at the time of acquisition of the land, the market value was about Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) per square yard. He also deposed about the location of the acquired land to be about two acres from HUDA Sector No. 6 in the area of Bahadurgarh. Witnesses examined also deposed that area was surrounded by abadi, therefore, the market value was Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) per square yard. Documentary evidence by way of sale deed Ex. PA was also relied upon, vide which 2550 square yards of land was sold for a sum of Rs.5,87,500/- (Rupees five lac eighty seven thousand and five hundred only) on 28.2.1989. The State in support of its case examined RW1 Anup Singh, Patwari, who produced sale deeds Ex. D1 to Ex. D5 of the same area along with site plan Ex. D6. The details of the sale deeds Ex. D1 to D5 are as under: - Exhibit of sale deed Date of sale Area sold Amount of sale considerati on Per acre rate Distance from the acquired land Ex. D1 16.11.89 17 Biswas Rs.53,500/- Rs.100707/- 3 Rect. Angles Ex. D2 04/04/91 2 Biswas Rs.6,000/- Rs.96,000/- 5 Rect. Angles Ex. D3 17.5.91 2 Biswas Rs.6,000/- Rs.96,000/- '' Ex. D4 23.5.91 2 Biswas Rs.6,000/- Rs.96,000/- '' Ex. D5 23.8.91 1 Biswa Rs.2,000/- Rs.64,000/- 6 Rect. Angles RFA No. 792 of 1996 -4- The learned Reference Court found that Ex. PA on which reliance was placed by the appellants-landowners, was situated on the juncture of Jhajjar Road and Beri Road on the focal point abutting the juncture of two roads, therefore, it would have fetched more price because of the situation. The learned Court also held, that the land of the appellants was in the interior i.e. away from the land sold vide Ex. PA, which was abutting the road juncture, as referred to above. The learned Court, therefore, rejected this sale deed for assessing the market value. Ex. D1 to Ex. D5 were rejected, as these were depicting the market value even less than the assessed by the learned Land Acquisition Collector. For the reasons recorded, the learned Reference Court dismissed the reference filed by the appellants under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Mr. Y.P. Malik, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, has challenged the impugned award primarily on the ground that the learned Reference Court committed an error in ignoring the sale deed Ex. PA, which was dated 28.2.1989 i.e. two years prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was qua the land situated within the vicinity of the acquired area, as the distance of the land sold vide Ex. PA was only 3 acres from the acquired land. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that Ex. PA was the best piece of evidence to determine the market value of the area. The rate according to Ex. PA comes to Rs.11,15,098/- (Rupees eleven lac fifteen thousand and ninety eight only) per acre. The appellants, thus, claimed that they were entitled to compensation at this rate. Mr. Rajiv Kawatra, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, RFA No. 792 of 1996 -5- Haryana, vehemently contended that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants deserve to be straightaway rejected in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. Hanumantha Reddy (dead) by LRs Vs. Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal R. Officer, (2003)12 Supreme Court Cases 642, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down that the land abutting national highway fetches much higher price than the land lying in the interior, therefore, the sale instances of the land abutting the national highway cannot be relied upon for determining the compensation of land 100 yards away from the national highway. Learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanta Devi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2008 AIR SCW 5241 to contend that if deduction of development charges is made from the price of the land, on which reliance is placed, award passed by the learned Reference Court cannot be faulted with, specially keeping in view the fact that cut for development charges was to be imposed, keeping in view the fact that the sale deed was qua a small piece of land as compared to the acquired land . On consideration, I find force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. It is well settled law, that in order to assess the market value, the Court is to determine the value which the land would fetch for the seller from the intending buyer. Sale deed Ex. PA was not qua the land on the national highway but only on a juncture of village roads, therefore, it cannot be said that sale deed Ex. PA could not be taken into consideration at all, RFA No. 792 of 1996 -6- but at the same time, it has to be borne in mind that the land sold vide Ex. PA was certainly to fetch more price from an intending buyer because of its location because of juncture of two roads, whereas the acquired land was about three acres away from the land sold vide Ex. PA. In this eventuality, in order to assess the market value, it would be appropriate to impose cut of 1/3rd on the price depicted in the sale deed Ex. PA. The cut of 1/3rd is imposed keeping in view the fact that even acquired land is within the vicinity of the abadi area, which is a developed HUDA Sector, as would be clear from the object of acquisition itself. Keeping in view the fact that the land has the potentiality of residential and commercial area, there was no need to even bifurcate the land into nehri and gair mumkin, as the whole land was to fetch same price. For the reasons stated, these appeals are allowed, the market value of the acquired land is enhanced to Rs.7,43,000/- (Rupees seven lec and forty three thousand only) per acre (rounded up). The land owners shall also be entitled to other statutory benefits like solatium and interest etc. on the enhanced compensation. No costs. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge November 06, 2009 R.S.