R.F.A. No. 2269 of 2005 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 2269 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision: October 28, 2010 Baldev Singh .. Appellant v. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Arun Nehra, Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Mr. Naveen Sharma, Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocates for the land owners. Mr. D. V. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Naginder Singh, Advocate for PUDA/GMADA. Ms. Radhika Suri, Advocate for PUDA. Mr. P. S. Thiara, Advocate for PUDA. Mr. Rajesh Chaudhary, Advocate for Mr. Sanjiv Pandey, Advocate for PUDA. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. 1. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 2269, 2270, 2540, 2547, 2894, 2913, 2920, 2921, 3118, 3184 to 3191, 3269, 3270 of 2005; R.F.A. Nos. 119, 216, 480, 529, 531, 534, 566, 691 to 693, 793, 797, 798, 1179 to 1186, 1189, 1195, 1270, 1273, 1337, 1338, 1805, 1806, 1840, 1873, 2053, 2201, 2202, 2322, 2327, 2539 to 2544, 2548, 2549, 2591, 2626, 2631, 2705, 2953, 3049 to 3053, 3348, 3350, 3351, 3370, 3377 to 3379, 3452 to 3454, 3458 to 3464 of 2006; R.F.A. Nos. 1123, 1983, 1984, 1998, 3935 of 2007; and R.F.A. Nos. 506 and 2466 of 2008, as common questions of law and facts are involved. R.F.A. No. 2269 of 2005 [2] 2. In the appeals filed by the land owners, they are seeking further enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned court below for the acquired land, whereas in the appeals filed by the State/ Punjab Urban Development Authority (for short, `PUDA') and Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (for short, ` GMADA'), the prayer is for reduction thereof. 3. Present set of appeals pertain to acquisition of land in villages Anandpur Sahib, Mataur and Lodhipur in District Rupnagar. 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 17.7.1997, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), land measuring 422 kanals and 17 marlas in village Lodhipur, District Rupnagar, was acquired by the State of Punjab for setting up of Urban Estate at Anandpur Sahib. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), vide award dated 28.1.1998, assessed the market value of the acquired land within 40 karams from road @ ` 2,93,500/- pera acre for Barani land; ` 4,55,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin abadi; ` 97,500/- for Gair Mumkin Pahar. Outside 40 karams from the road, the same was assessed @ ` 1,95,000/- per acre for Barani land and ` 65,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin Pahar. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 14,100/- per marla. 5. Vide same notification, land measuring 139 kanals and 3 marlas in village Anandpur Sahib and 75 kanals and 12 marlas in village Mataur, District Ropar was also acquired for the same purpose. The Collector vide award dated 5.2.1998 assessed the market value of the acquired land as under: Sr. No. Kind of land Rate per acre in Rates per acre ` for land situated within 40 karams of the road in ` ................................................................................................................. 1. Chahi/Nehri 3,00,000/- 4,50,000/- 2. Barani/Banjar Zadid 1,95,000/- 2,93,500/- Kadim 3. Gair Mumkin Pahari/ 65,000/- 97,500/- choe/khad 4. Gair Mumkin abadi area 4,55,000/- which is under abadi within municipal limit or Lal Dora or out of the R.F.A. No. 2269 of 2005 [3] Municipal limit or Lal Dora but within 40 karams from this limit Lal Dora. 6. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 20,000/- per marla. 7. Vide another notification dated 24.9.1997, issued under Section 4 of the Act, land measuring 191 kanals and 14 marlas in village Lodhipur, Anandpur Sahib and Mataur was acquired for the same purpose. The same was followed by notification dated 8.5.1998, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector, vide award dated 24.7.1998, assessed the market value of the acquired land as under: Sr. No. Kind of land Rate per acre in Rates per acre ` for land situated within 40 karams of the road in ` ................................................................................................................. 1. Chahi/Nehri 3,00,000/- 4,50,000/- 2. Barani/Banjar Zadid 1,95,000/- 2,93,500/- Kadim 3. Gair Mumkin Pahar/ 65,000/- 97,500/- choe/khad 4. Gair Mumkin abadi area 4,55,000/- No additional which is under abadi benefit within municipal limit or Lal Dora or out of the Municipal limit or Lal Dora but within 40 karams from this limit Lal Dora. 5. Gair Mumkin House/abadi 4,55,000/- which is outside the limit but under the house only for that khasra No. 8. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 14,100/- per marla. 9. Vide another notification dated 12.11.1997, issued under Section 4 of the Act, land measuring 44 kanals and 9 marlas, situated in villages Anandpur Sahib, Mataur and Lodhipur was acquired for the same purpose. The Collector, R.F.A. No. 2269 of 2005 [4] vide award dated 25.7.1998, assessed the market value of the acquired land as under: Sr. No. Kind of land Rate per acre in ` ................................................................................................................. 1. Chahi/Nehri 3,00,000/- 2. Barani/Banjar Zadid 1,95,000/- Kadim 3. Gair Mumkin Pahar/ 65,000/- choe/khad 4. Gair Mumkin abadi area 4,55,000/- which is under abadi within municipal limit or Lal Dora or out of the Municipal limit or Lal Dora but within 40 karams from this limit Lal Dora. 5. Gair Mumkin house/ 4,55,000/- abadi which is outside the limit but under the house only for that khasra No. 10. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 24,200/- per marla. 11. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the land in question is part of Ward No. 6 situated within the municipal limits of Anandpur Sahib. It is located on Dashmesh Academy road. Number of residential colonies were located in the close vicinity. Anandpur Sahib is a place where historical Keshgarh Sahib, Killa Anandpur Garh Sahib and other Gurudwaras are situated in the vicinity of the acquired land. Bus stand of Anandpur Sahib, which is on Chandigarh-Nangal road, is hardly at a distance of one kilometer therefrom. City of Anandpur Sahib was fast expanding on this side. The location of the acquired land within the municipal limits itself shows its future potential value. 12. As far as valuation of the land is concerned, referring to record of Land Reference No. 133 dated 24.7.2000, learned counsel for the land owners placed reliance on sale deed (Ex. P6) dated 2.9.1996, registered on 13.9.1996, vide which 8 marlas of land was sold for a sum of ` 2,00,000/- at an average price of ` R.F.A. No. 2269 of 2005 [5] 25,000/- per marla and sale deed (Ex.P26) dated 18.8.1997, vide which 5 marlas of land was sold for ` 1,50,000/- at an average price of ` 30,000/- per marla. The submission was that the land dealt with in the aforesaid sale deeds was part of the acquired land. Further reliance was placed upon sale deed (Ex. P5) dated 22.11.1996, vide which 16 marlas of land was sold for ` 4,50,000/- at an average price of ` 28,125/- per marla and judgment of this court in R.F.A. No. 4176 of 2002—Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab, decided on 5.5.2009, pertaining to the acquisition of land for Tourist and Reception Centre. The submission was that the land pertaining to sale deed (Ex. P5) and the judgment of this court in Harbhajan Singh's case (supra) is also located quite close to the acquired land. Land pertaining to sale deed (Ex. P5) was executed on 22.11.1996 is quite close to the land acquired in the present case. The genuineness of the same is not in doubt. The same was earlier relied upon by this court while assessing the compensation in Harbhajan Singh's case (supra). Even in the present case, it can be relied upon as such without applying any cut. 13. He further submitted that the contention raised by the land owners that the acquired land falls within the municipal limits was admitted by the State in reply to paragraph 5(1) of the objections filed by them. The State did not lead any evidence to controvert the evidence led by the land owners and only the Collector's rates fixed for registration of sale deeds were produced. 14. He further submitted that it is a unique case in which the State has not filed appeals in all the cases, as in some of the cases appeals have been filed by the State, whereas in some of the cases, it has been filed by PUDA and in some of the cases by GMADA. Still, in some of the land references, which were decided by the learned court below, no appeal has been filed by either of the aforesaid party. Relying upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mahadev v. The Asstt. Commissioner/Land Acquisition Officer, (1994-2004) (Vol. II) Supreme Court Judgments on Land Acquisition 1658, it was submitted that in such a situation, the appeals filed by the State/ PUDA/ GMADA are liable to be dismissed as such and the claim made by the land owners seeking enhancement of compensation deserves to be allowed. 15. Reliance was also placed upon Smt. Mahabiri Devi and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2005(4) RCR (Civil) 142 to submit that when the land is situated within the municipal limits, no cut as such should be applied. In support of the contention that once the land is situated within the municipal limits, its future potential is evident, reliance was placed upon Bhagwat Sarup and another v. Haryana State and others, 2004(2) LACC 499. R.F.A. No. 2269 of 2005 [6] 16. On the other hand, Mr. D. V. Sharma, Senior Advocate appearing for the State and for GMADA in some of the appeals submitted that the land owners themselves had produced on record sale deed (Ex. P2 in LAC No. 25 of 2002) registered on 22.7.1996 pertaining to 10 kanals and one marla of land sold for a sum of ` 20,00,000/-. The same pertained to village Sohana. Further sale deed (Ex. P3) dated 14.8.1996 was produced, whereby 8 kanals of land was sold for ` 20,00,000/- which pertained to village Sohana. Considering the fact that the acquisition was for a big chunk of land and the aforesaid sale deeds were quite small in comparison thereto, a cut of at least 1/3rd is required to be applied in the consideration paid therein. As far as sale deeds sought to be relied upon by learned counsel for the land owners is concerned, the submission was that those merely pertained to 5 marlas, 8 marlas and 16 marlas of land, located some where in the abadi area, which cannot possibly be made the basis for determination of value of big chunk of land. If the land is to be developed and sold in small plots, a large area is left for providing infrastructural facilities and substantial amount is required to be spent for external and internal development. Further, even a private person cannot sell the plots as such in view of the restriction as for the purpose of development of a colony, permission and licences are required to be obtained. 17. It was further submitted that the learned court below while assessing the compensation has committed a patent error. The first case pertaining to the acquisition of land for village Anandpur Sahib decided by the learned Reference Court is subject-matter of appeal in RFA No. 2466 of 2008. A perusal thereof shows that in that case, reliance was placed upon its earlier award pertaining to acquisition of land vide notification dated 12.11.1997 for village Anandpur Sahib. For the purpose of assessment thereof, the sale deed, which was registered after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was considered, which may not have relevance in the present case. 18. On a query by the court as to whether any appeal has been filed in the award relied upon by the learned court below in the aforesaid appeal, the submission was that in the affidavit filed today, it has been mentioned that the same has been filed. However, on checking in the computer, it was found that no appeal against the award dated 27.2.2007 relied upon by the learned court below in the award impugned in RFA No. 2466 of 2008, has been numbered till date. 19. Continuing with his submissions, learned counsel submitted that in the evidence led in that case, it was proved that the land was Gair Mumkin Pahar, Choe etc. A lot of efforts were required to be made before it was made fit for carving out plots. In fact, at the time of acquisition, the entire land was not within R.F.A. No. 2269 of 2005 [7] the municipal limits. No evidence was led by the land owners to prove that the land was within the municipal limits when it was acquired. It is the award impugned in RFA No. 2466 of 2008, which was subsequently relied upon by the learned court below for assessing compensation in other cases. However, still there was variation in the amount of compensation awarded therein. Referring to the discrepancies, it was submitted that in RFA No. 3350 of 2006, in terms of the sale deeds relied upon by the land owners, the value at the most would come out to ` 18,750/- per marla, whereas the learned court below had awarded ` 20,000/- per marla. Similarly, in RFA No. 3348 of 2006, consideration paid in the sale deed relied upon (Ex. P4) was merely ` 12,000/- per marla, but the learned court below granted ` 14,100/- per marla. 20. Referring to the award of compensation for the land pertaining to village Lodhipur, it was submitted that first case in the series is subject-matter of appeal in RFA No. 2920 of 2005. A perusal thereof shows that reliance in that case was placed upon the earlier award of the learned Reference Court pertaining to acquisition of land vide notification dated 9.3.1998, whereas the notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 9.7.1997. It was a total anomalous situation. The land owners have been awarded compensation which they did not deserve. It is this award which was though followed subsequently in other cases, but still the compensation awarded was different. Relying upon Basant Kumar and others v. Union of India and others, (1996) 11 SCC 542; Special Deputy Collector and another v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others, AIR 1997 SC 2625 and Union of India and others v. Mangatu Ram and others, (1997) 6 SCC 59, it was submitted that belting system was required to be applied as the value of the land located on main road is always more than the value of land situated behind that, to which the access of road is not there. 21. In response to the argument of learned counsel for the land owners regarding non-filing of appeals in all the cases by the State or the beneficiaries of the acquisition, namely, PUDA/GMADA, an affidavit of Mr. Balbir Singh, Land Acquisition Collector, was filed in court. It has been mentioned therein that out of 83 objections received by the Collector against various awards of the Collector, appeals have been filed in 71 cases either by the State or PUDA or GMADA. Three cases were entrusted to Mr. Rajiv Malhotra Advocate for filing. As per information gathered, these have not been filed. Two cases were entrusted to another counsel, who also did not file those appeals. Regarding five cases, it was submitted that initially the Advocate General had opined that the cases were not fit for filing appeals, however, now GMADA is in the process of filing appeals in R.F.A. No. 2269 of 2005 [8] those cases. It was further admitted by him that in some more cases, there are no appeals filed either by State or PUDA or GMADA. Learned counsel had further not been able to explain as to why in all the cases the appeals had not been filed either by the State or PUDA. 22. The State had acquired the land for the benefit of PUDA. GMADA came into picture now when it has been entrusted the jurisdiction to deal with and develop the area in Anandpur Sahib as well. Meaning thereby that it is an admitted position on record that in all the cases, the award passed by the learned court below pertaining to the same acquisition has not been challenged. Another fact, which was confronted to the learned counsel, who appeared in the appeals filed by the State through the Land Acquisition Collector was that as to under what authority private counsel had filed appeals on behalf of the State keeping in view of the judgment of this court in Civil Revision No. 269 of 2009-- State of Punjab through the Land Acquisition Collector v. Charan Singh, decided on 6.7.2010. The submission of the learned counsel was that he had been instructed by the Collector to file those appeals. On a query by the court as to whether the Collector is the final authority and also whether on behalf of the State, the appeals are required to be filed by the Advocate General's office or through a private counsel and also as to who opined the cases to be fit for filing appeals and further authorised engagement of a private counsel, learned counsel was unable to submit any explanation. This specific query was raised considering the fact that in the affidavit of Mr. Balbir Singh filed in court today, it was mentioned that in five of the land references, Advocate General had opined the same to be unfit for filing appeals. 23. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. 24. Before I proceed to deal with the contentions raised by learned counsel for the land owners impugning the awards of the learned courts below seeking further enhancement of compensation, I would like to deal with the appeals filed by the State/PUDA/GMADA. It is a unique case in which though a lot of contentions were raised by the learned counsel appearing for the State/ PUDA/GMADA that award of the learned court below is quite exhorbitant considering the evidence on record by the parties as the amount of compensation has been enhanced from ` 14,000/- per marla to ` 24,200/- per marla. as against the award of the Collector determining the value thereof at ` 65,000/- to ` 4,55,000/- per acre. Still the manner in which the cases have been dealt with either shows total casualness or connivance. R.F.A. No. 2269 of 2005 [9] 25. On appraisal of the cases listed before this court, it was found that total 73 land references pertaining to the acquisition of land vide notification in question were decided by the learned court below by different awards. What is generally seen is that either the State files appeal against the award of the learned court below impugning the same or the beneficiary for whom the land is acquired challenges the same. In some of the cases, for the reasons best known to the authorities, but which are no more secret, the same award is challenged by the State as well as by the authority for whose benefit the land is acquired. This court has not come across any case in which some of the awards had been impugned by the State whereas in some of the awards, the appeals were filed by the PUDA for whose benefit the land was acquired, whereas some of the appeals were filed by GMADA which had later on taken over the job from PUDA. Still, there were cases in which no appeals had been filed. It is also a fact admitted by Mr. Balbir Singh in his affidavit filed in court on 5.10.2010 that in five cases, the Advocate General had opined that the same were not fit for filing appeals and it was for this reason that no appeals were preferred. 26. The State filed appeals in 25 cases, whereas PUDA/GMADA filed appeals in 22 cases. 27. Today, fresh appeals filed by GMADA were listed for urgent motion hearing along with application for seeking permission to file appeals being beneficiary of the acquired land and also application seeking condonation of delay of 3 years and 267 days and 4 years and 198 days in filing the appeals. Those appeals have been dismissed separately by this court while finding that there was no reason what to talk of sufficient reason for condoning the delay in filing those appeals, as admittedly the beneficiary of the acquisition at the relevant time, namely, PUDA was in knowledge of the awards being passed by the learned court below and in some of the cases it had even filed appeals earlier along with application for permission to file appeal within the period of limitation, whereas in some of the cases, the same were filed beyond limitation as well. 28. With regard to acquisition of land vide notification dated 17.7.1997, as per the record available, it is found that 53 land references were decided by the learned court below. PUDA filed appeals in 22 cases, whereas the State filed appeals in 25 cases, the total being 47. In six cases, no appeal was filed. 29. Out of the aforesaid six cases, five appeals filed by GMADA in Land Reference Nos. 179, 182, 183, 31 and 32 forming part of R.F.A. Nos.4989, 4990, 4991, 4999 and 5000 of 2010 were dismissed by this court on account of delay and laches. In one Land Reference No. 173, no appeal has been filed either by the R.F.A. No. 2269 of 2005 [10] State or PUDA or GMADA till date. The State filed appeals in 25 land references. Fresh appeals were filed by GMADA in 22, out of the aforesaid 25 land references, even though it was sought to be claimed in those appeals that these are being filed as a precaution considering the fact that the appeals filed by the Land Acquisition Collector and PUDA on behalf of the State may not be maintainable for various reasons, however, still no appeals have been filed in Land Reference Nos. 25, 29 and 132. 30. As far as appeals pertaining to land acquired vide notification dated 24.9.1997 is concerned, the learned court below decided nine references and PUDA is in appeal in all the nine cases. The learned court below had relied upon the award pertaining to the acquisition dated 17.7.1997 while assessing the compensation in this case. 31. For the land acquired vide notification dated 12.11.1997, 11 land references were decided. The State filed appeals in four cases engaging a private counsel; PUDA filed appeal in one case and GMADA filed appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 3 years and 267 days (R.F.A. No. 5013 of 2010). Meaning thereby, there is no appeal in five cases either by the State or PUDA or GMADA. 32. In totality, the position, as exists now, is that out of total 73 land references decided by the leaned court below, there are appeals even if taken collectively by the State/PUDA/GMADA only in 52 cases and in other cases either the award of the learned court below was accepted by the State or the beneficiary of the acquisition or the same having been upheld on account of dismissal of the appeals being time barred. 33. As regards appeals filed by