R.F.A. No. 1867 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 1867 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.9.2010 Jani alias Jai Narain .... Appellant vs. State of Haryana and another .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Jangra, Advocate, for the Marketing Board. RAJESH BINDAL, J This order will dispose of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 1867, 1868, 2854, 2855, 3117, 3118, 3119 of 2006 and 1088 of 2007, as the same arise out of common acquisition. The land owners are in appeal before this Court against the award of the learned court below passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that land measuring 26 acres 4 kanals 13 marlas situated in village Dadri, Hadbast No. 147, District Bhiwani, was acquired by the State of Haryana vide notification dated 8.6.1998 issued under Section 4 of the Act for the grain and vegetable market, its office and staff quarters. The same was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act issued on 24.3.1999. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land at ` 85/- per square yard. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the claimants filed objections, which were referred to learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 26.11.2005, dismissed the references. It is this award which is impugned in the present set of appeals. Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the value of the acquired land as assessed by the learned court below is not in consonance with the R.F.A. No. 1867 of 2006 -2- evidence led on record by the landowners. In fact, the learned court below has given a go-bye to the settled principles of law for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land. Even if small pieces of transaction are produced on record, the same can very well be relied upon for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land after applying appropriate cut, however, the learned court below totally ignored the same. In the present case, the landowners produced four sale-deeds, Ex. P-2 to P5. The location of the land in two of the sale-deeds, Ex. P-4 and Ex.P-5, is towards the city from the acquired land, whereas the location of the land of other two sale-deeds, Ex. P-2 and Ex. P-3, is beyond the acquired land on the other side. The entire land was forming part of municipal limits. It was surrounded by roads on two sides. In fact, there was no evidence led by the State to controvert the claim made by the landowners and the same having gone unrebutted, they were entitled to get the compensation in terms of the evidence led. It was admitted by the witness produced by the respondents RW1 Shashi Kumar, Mandi Supervisor that the industrial area setup in the city was merely one kilometer from the acquired land. The land being within the municipal limits it had great future potential for development as residential or commercial area specially on account of the fact that two roads were abutting the same and the depth from the road was also not much considering that it was a chunk of merely 26 acres 4 kanals and 13 marlas of land. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the sale instances produced on record by the landowners could not possibly be relied upon as those pertained to small plots of one marla to three marlas of land. These plots were located on main roads towards the city. If compared with the land in question these located at a more advantageous position. It was admitted by the landowners themselves that the land was barani when it was acquired. Considering that fact no illegality has been committed by the learned court below in dismissing the references and upholding the award of the Collector, which even on the basis of evidence produced on record by the landowners, could not be faulted with. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. In the present case the land was acquired for the purpose of construction of grain and vegetable market, its office and quarters of the employees. It was a chunk of 26 acres 4 kanals and 13 marlas of land. The evidence led by the landowners to the effect that the entire land was part and parcel of the municipal limits, Dadri, was not controverted by the State as no question was put to the landowners in the cross-examination when they appeared R.F.A. No. 1867 of 2006 -3- in the witness box. Another fact which is not in dispute is that the acquired land is surrounded by roads on two sides. It also came in the cross-examination of RW1 Shashi Kumar, Mandi Supervisor that the industrial area in the city was located merely at a distance of one kilometer from the acquired land. It means the land beyond the acquired land was also being developed. Once the area was part of the municipal limits, it certainly had great potential for being used for residential and commercial purposes and on that account merely opining that it was barani or nehri looses its significance as the same is fit for construction activities. Out of the four sale-deeds produced on record by the landowners, in my opinion, sale-deeds, Ex. P-4 and Ex. P-5, can be relied upon for determination of fair value of the acquired land. Vide sale-deed, Ex. P-4, land measuring 3 marlas was sold on 5.3.1998 for a consideration of ` 22,500/- on an average price of ` 250/- per square yard and the same is located as Mark-B on the site plan, Ex. P-1. As per sale-deed, Ex. P-5, which is shown as mark-A on the site plan, Ex. P-1, one marla of land was sold for a consideration of ` 16,500/- on 5.3.1998. The average consideration paid in the aforesaid sale-deed comes to ` 550/- per square yard. The land pertaining to these sale-deeds is located on the main road. Even the acquired land is also abutting the main road and is surrounded by road on other side. Merely because the area dealt with therein was quite small, I do not find it justifiable to reject the same altogether. Considering the fact that those were located towards the city and on the road, a reasonable cut can be applied. In the present case, in my opinion, out of the aforesaid two sale-deeds, it would be more safe to rely upon sale-deed, Ex. P-4, dated 5.3.1998, whereby 3 marlas of land was sold for a consideration of ` 22,500/-, at an average price of ` 250/- per square yard. I do not find safe to place reliance on Ex. P-5, considering the fact that though the same was registered on the same date i.e. 5.3.1998 but the consideration paid therein was more than the double to the aforesaid sale-deed. There can be may compelling reasons on account of which a buyer may have paid the more price for that small portion of land. Considering the smallness and closeness to the city, in my opinion, a cut of 50% can be applied. Accordingly, applying a cut of 50% on the average value of sale-deed, Ex. P-4, the value of the acquired land can very well be assessed @ ` 125/- per square yard. It is ordered accordingly. The landowners shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available under the Act. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a recent judgment in Civil Appeal No. 6515 of 2009 Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation vs Pran Sukh and others decided on 17.8.2010, to ensure that the landowners are not fleeced by R.F.A. No. 1867 of 2006 -4- the middleman in the process of disbursement of enhanced compensation, issued certain directions. I deem it appropriate to issue the same directions in the present set of appeals as well. The same are as under:- “With a view to ensure that the land owners are not fleeced by the middleman, we deem it proper to issue following further directions: (i) The Land Acquisition Collector shall depute officers subordinate to him now below the rank of Naib Tehsildar, who shall get in touch with all the land owners and/or their legal representatives and inform them about their entitlement and right to receive enhanced compensation. (ii) The concerned officers shall also instruct the land owners and/or their legal representatives to open saving bank account in case they already do not have such account. (iii) The bank account numbers of the land owners should be given to the Land Acquisition Collector within three months. (iv) The Land Acquisition Collector shall deposit the cheques of compensation in the bank accounts of the land owners.” The impugned award of the learned court below is modified to the extent mentioned above. The appeals stand disposed of in the manner discussed above. 29.9.2010. (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge