R. F. A No. 254 of 2008 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R.F.A No. 254 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 04.4.2011 Parveen Kumari .....Appellant vs State of Haryana and others ....Respondents. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Mr. Kuldip Singh, Mr. J. K. Goel, Mr. Arvind Bansal, Mr. Bikram Chaudhary, Advocates, and Mr. G. S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for Mr. M. L. Sharma, Advocate, for the landowners Mr. H. S. Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the State. Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate for Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate, for HUDA. Rajesh Bindal J. 1. This order shall dispose of following appeals bearing; RFA Nos. 254 to 257, 369, 370, 445, 696, 1458, 1464, 1968, 1969, 5195, 5385, 5436, 5438, 5743 to 5745, of 2008; RFA Nos. 431, 3373, 3374, 3412 to 3415, 3500, 3515 to 3524, 3537 to 3539, 3561, 3565, 3566, 3638 to 3698, 3823 to 3834, 4243 to 4264, 4285, 4286, 4307 to 4410, 4422 to 4432, 4551 to 4558, 4560, 4573, 4595 to 4603, 5030, 5031, 5161 to 5172, 5297 to 5325, 5363 to 5394, 5396 to 5399, 5407 to 5421, 5432 to 5453, 5585, 5595 to 5598, 5930 of 2009; RFA Nos. 338, 339, 352, 353, 452, 478 to 480, 495, 537, 538, 1274, 1727, 1822, 2132, 2133, 2222, 2412 to 2414, 2483, 2503 to 2505, 4403 to 4405, 4418 to 4462 of 2010; and Cross Objection No. 215/CI of 2010, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. R. F. A No. 254 of 2008 (2) 2. The landowners have filed appeals and cross-objections seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land, whereas by filing appeals, the State of Haryana and Haryana Urban Development Authority are seeking reduction thereof. 3. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 9.8.2002, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), State of Haryana sought to acquire 277.46 acres of land situated within the revenue estate of village Patti Kaisth Seth, Hadbast No. 24, Tehsil and District Kaithal, for the purpose of development and utilisation thereof as residential, commercial and institutional Sector-21 Kaithal. The same was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 8.8.2003. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the Collector”) vide his award dated 5.8.2005 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 5,00,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below determined fair market value of the acquired land @ ` 350/- per square yard. The award was challenged before this court by both the parties. 4. This court vide judgement dated 5.12.2008 passed in RFA No. 361 of 2007 Jiwan Dass and others vs State of Haryana and others, remitted the cases back to the learned court below for re-determination of the value of the acquired land on the basis of evidence produced on record as earlier the value was assessed merely on the basis of Collector's rates. On remand, the market value of the acquired land has now been determined @ ` 280/- per square yard. Still dissatisfied, both the parties have impugned the award before this court. 5. Some appeals challenging the award of the learned court below assessing compensation @ ` 350/- per square yard are also pending and being disposed of now. 6. Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the acquired land had a strategic location being situated on Ambala- Hissar National Highway No. 65 on the one side and State Highway leading from Kaithal to Guhla-Cheeka on the other side. The land in question was acquired for development and utilisation as Sector-21. Vidyut Vihar R. F. A No. 254 of 2008 (3) Colony, Radha Swami Colony, D. A. V. Colony, Radha Swami Satsang Bhawan, Central Public School and D. C. Colony, were already existing in the area. The part of the acquired land was already having built up colonies where all the basic amenities had been provided by the Municipal Committee. The land is situated in the close vicinity of Sector 20, Kaithal, which is a fully developed sector. The actual market value of the acquired land at the time of acquisition was not less than ` 10,000/- per square yard. 7. Learned counsel for the landowners primarily relied upon two sets of evidence-first being the sale-deeds, Ex. P3 to Ex. P5, which were registered in the year 2001-02 i.e. prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The land pertaining thereto was part of the acquired land. It was submitted that an increase of 12% per annum should be granted thereon while assessing the market value of the acquired land, for the time gap from the date of registration of sale-deeds till the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. In addition to that reliance was placed upon Ex. P-32, an agreement to sell dated 15.2.1991 pertaining to land measuring 80 kanals 14 marlas, sold @ ` 8,75,000/- per acre. It was submitted that the vendor in the aforesaid case having not got the sale- deed registered, a suit was filed by the vendee bearing Civil Suit No. 746 of 1993, which was compromised and decreed vide order dated 15.1.1994 (Ex. P-21). After payment of the balance sale consideration, sale-deed was registered in favour of the vendee and thereafter mutation was also entered (Ex. P-157). Referring to the aforesaid transaction, it was submitted that this chunk of land was purchased by the Haryana State Electricity Board Employees Co-operative House Building Society Limited, Kaithal formerly known as Vidyut Vihar Group Housing Society for the purpose of construction of houses by its members. After allotment of plots to the members, they had raised construction of their houses thereon. As this sale transaction is for big chunk of land, no cut is required to be applied while assessing the compensation for the acquired land and an increase of 10% per annum should be granted thereon till the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. R. F. A No. 254 of 2008 (4) 8. It was further submitted that the entire area had, in fact, been developing at a fast pace as it was located within the municipal limits of Kaithal. Large number of people had purchased small plots there for the purpose of construction of their houses. 9. In support of his argument that the acquired land is situated within close vicinity of municipal limits, learned counsel for the landowners referred to statement of PW8 Joginder Singh, Building Clerk, Municipal Council, Kaithal, who deposed that behind the Radha Swami Satsang Building, there were fully developed Radha Swami Colony, Vidyut Vihar Colony, DAV Colony, and DAV School. To show the location of the acquired land the landowners produced in evidence PW6 Rakesh Kumar Dhiman, Draftsman, Kaithal, who prepared the site plan Ex. P-7. With regard to the plea regarding location of the land, loss of business, valuation of land and superstructure, learned counsel for the landowners also referred to statement of PW-10 Ashish Chaudhary, whose land had also been acquired. To show the genuineness of agreement to sell, Ex. P-32, he referred to the statement of PW-12 Bhawani Dass Kalyan, Cashier of the Haryana State Electricity Board Employees Co- operative House Building Society Limited, Kaithal, who stated that the land forming part of agreement to sell, Ex. P-32 is within the municipal limits. It was deposed by him that land measuring 9 acres was purchased in the year 1994 @ ` 8,75,000/- per acre and this sale transaction was confirmed vide judgement and decree dated 10.8.1995 in Civil Suit no. 462 of 1995 and on the basis thereof mutation was sanctioned. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that Ex. P-32, an agreement to sell, which ended into a compromise in the court, is not a transaction which should be relied upon for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land considering the fact that the consent of the parties was missing which is sine-qua-non for the purpose of placing reliance upon a sale transaction as it is always the price which a willing buyer is ready to pay to a willing seller. That willingness is missing in the aforesaid transaction. He further submitted that the other sale-deeds produced by the landowners are pertaining to small plots of land. No doubt these sale deeds are part of the acquired land but R. F. A No. 254 of 2008 (5) considering their size a reasonable cut is required to be applied on the sale consideration. 11. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that it would be reasonable to rely upon recent sale-deeds of the area instead of placing reliance upon a very old sale transaction by awarding increase thereon as the recent transaction would always show the latest trend of prices in the area. He further submitted that the area as such was not developed as there was no planned colony. No one had taken permission from the competent authority for development of the area as colony. It can at the most be said to be cluster of houses which were constructed without there being any specific planning. In addition thereto reference was made to the sale- deeds, Ex. R-1 to R-5, produced by the State showing the value of the land dealt with therein during the years 2000-02 ranging from ` 59/- to ` 101/- per square yard. 12. Regarding superstructures, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the learned court below has granted whatever claim the landowners had made, which was not reasonable as the assessment of the compensation made by the State was quite fair. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. 14. As far as the location of the land is concerned, the facts noticed in the preceding part of the judgment, are not in dispute. 15. Now coming to the valuation of the acquired land, the landowners have placed reliance upon three sale-deeds Ex. P-3 to Ex. P-5, the details thereof are as under:- Exhibit Date of registration Area sold Sale price in ` Price per square yard in ` P-3 8.5.2001 675 square yards 2,36,250/- 350/- P-4 7.3.2001 1100 square yards 3,35,000/- 304/- P-5 22.1.2002 200 square yard 67,000/- 335/- 16. The aforesaid sale-deeds produced by the landowners were registered prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. It is admitted that the land dealt with in the aforesaid sale-deeds is forming part of the acquired land. For the time gap 12% per annum can very well be added thereon from the date of registration of sale-deed till the issuance R. F. A No. 254 of 2008 (6) of notification under Section 4 of the Act. After addition the sale consideration paid therein as on the date of the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 9.8.2002, shall come out as under:- Exhibit Date of registration Area sold Sale price in ` Price per square yard in ` Price per square yard in ` after adding 12% per annum P-3 8.5.2001 675 square yards 2,36,250/- 350/- 402.50 P-4 7.3.2001 1100 square yards 3,35,000/- 304/- 355.68 P-5 22.1.2002 200 square yards 67,000/- 335/- 355.10 17. The average price per square yard paid thereon would come out to ` 371.81. 18. In addition to that the landowners sought to place reliance upon an agreement to sell dated 15.2.1991 (Ex. P-32), which was entered into more than 11 years prior to the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The land pertaining to that is also part of the acquired land. The transaction was @ ` 8,75,000/- per acre i.e. @ ` 180/- per square yard. However, in my opinion, it would not be reasonable to place reliance upon the aforesaid sale transaction considering the fact that there are three sale transactions available on record which were registered quite close to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. 19. The State has produced the following sale transactions showing the value of the acquired land in the area:- Exhibit Date of registration Area sold Sale price in ` R-1 31.1.2002 3 kanals 17 marlas 1,20,000/- R-2 5.3.2001 12 marlas 36,500/- R-3 24.12.2001 1 kanal 17 marlas 81,000/- R-4 15.3.2005 1 kanal 14 marlas 80,000/- R-5 27.2.2001 12.25 marlas 37,000/- R-6 26.3.2002 3 kanals 19.5 marlas 1,50,000/- R-7 21.5.2004 1 kanal 14 marlas 75,000/- R-8 4.1.2000 6.5 marlas 20,000/- 20. Sale-deeds, Ex. R-4 and R-7 were registered after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and the same cannot be relied upon while assessing the compensation for the acquired land. As has come in the evidence, sale-deeds, Ex. R-1 to R-8 do not pertain to the acquired land. R. F. A No. 254 of 2008 (7) 21. As far as the sale-deeds produced by the State are concerned, in my opinion, those have rightly been rejected by the learned court below as the land pertaining thereto is not forming part of the acquired land. 22. With reference to the evidence led by the parties, this court is of the opinion that it is only sale transactions, Ex. P-3 to Ex. P-5, which are relevant for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land. The value shown therein as on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act has already been determined at ` 371.81. Considering the fact that the aforesaid sale transactions were pertaining to plots ranging from 250 square yards to 1,100 square yards, a reasonable cut is required to be applied. The acquired land falls within the municipal limits of Kaithal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, 25% would be reasonable cut which can be applied in the present case. If 25% is reduced from ` 371.81, amount shall come to ` 278.32, which is quite close to amount of compensation of ` 280/- per square yard already assessed by the learned court below. Accordingly, in my opinion, no interference is called for in the present set of appeals as far as the valuation of the land is concerned. 23. As far as valuation of superstructures is concerned, there is no expertise available with this court to go into the minute details as regards the construction. Always thumb rule is applied in such type of cases. The claim of the landowners was that they had raised construction for the purpose of their residence which were either complete or in process. The compensation was claimed on that account. The learned court below finding the evidence led by the landowners to be trustworthy and there being no rebuttal by the State, assessed the compensation which, in my opinion, does not call for any interference by this court. 24. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded above, the appeals challenging the award of the learned court below passed after the remand of the cases by this court, are dismissed and the amount of compensation assessed @ ` 280/- per square yard is upheld. As far as the appeals filed by the landowners against the awards passed in the first round of litigation assessing the compensation @ ` 350/- per square yard is concerned, those are also dismissed. The appeals filed by the State impugning awards, R. F. A No. 254 of 2008 (8) assessing compensation @ ` 350/- per square yard in the first round of litigation, are accepted and the amount of compensation is determined @ ` 280/- per square yard. 04.4.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge