RFA No.1139 of 1992 -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.1139 of 1992 Date of Decision: 22.12.2008 Ajit Singh and others ..Appellants. Vs. State of Haryana and another ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.H.S.Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana with Ms.Mamta Singla Talwar, AAG Haryana for the respondents. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. By this judgment, I shall be disposing of 10 Regular First Appeals bearing Nos.1139 of 1992, 2055 of 1993, 2514, 2263, 2264, 2265, 2266, 2267, 2234 and 2398 of 1991 as common question of law and facts are involved therein. In pursuance of the Govt. notification dated 1.5.1986 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as the `Act') followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act, an area of land measuring 32.25 acres in village Rohtak, H.B No.74 Tehsil and District Rohtak was acquired at public expense for public purpose, namely, for the construction of 220 KV Sub Station. On actual measurement, the land on the spot was found to be 31.21 acres instead of 32.25 acres. The acquired land was classified as under : RFA No.1139 of 1992 -2 - Sr.No. Class of land acquired Area under Acquisition 1. Chahi/Nehri 43 K - 3 M 2. Barani 5 K - 18 M 3. Gair Mumkin Banjar 0 K - 18 M 49K - 19 M The District Revenue Officer – cum- Land Acquisition Collector, Rohtak (for short `the Collector') vide his award No.74 for the year 1987-88 dated 24.3.1987 determined the compensation @ Rs.40,000/- per acre for Chahi and Nehri land; Rs.30,000/- per acre for Barani land and Rs.28,000/- per acre for Banjar Qadim land. In the Objections under Section 18 of the Act, the land owners claimed compensation @ Rs.200/- per square yard. It was alleged that the acquired land was situated in the National Project Capital area between Jind and Gohana Roads and was most suitable for industrial and residential purposes being a part of Rohtak city. In the written statement, it was alleged that proper and adequate compensation has already been assessed by the Collector and it does not require any further enhancement. Both the parties led their respective evidence. The claimants relied upon sale deeds which are reproduced as under : Sr. No. Date of sale deed Sale Area Amount Consideration per acre Rs. Square yards Rs. 1. Copy of sale deed 7000.00 200 1,69,400/- dt.22.6.1984 (Ex.P3) 2. Copy of sale deed 9999.00 222 2,17,800/- dt.29.8.1984 (Ex.P4) RFA No.1139 of 1992 -3 - 3. Copy of sale deed 10500.00 322 1,57,826/- dt.10.4.1984 (Ex.P5) 4. Copy of sale deed 12000.00 300 1,93,600/- dt.12.6.1984 (Ex.P6) 5. Copy of sale deed 14000.00 480 1,41,116/- dt.29.5.1985 (Ex.P7) 6. Copy of sale deed 1500.00 20 3,63,000/- dt.24.7.1985 (Ex.P8) 7. Copy of sale deed 6000.00 200 1,45,200/- dt.29.5.1986 (Ex.P9) 8. Copy of sale deed 15600/- 1-Biswa 5,03,360/- dt.16.7.1988 (Ex.P18) (150 sq.yards) The State of Haryana also tendered sale deeds Ex.R2, Ex.R3 and Ex.R4. The learned Reference Court, after taking into consideration, entire oral as well as documentary evidence on record, came to a conclusion that the claimants are not entitled to any enhanced compensation except @ Rs.40,000/- per acre for the land classified as Banjar Qadim and Barani. Aggrieved against the award of the Reference Court, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the evidence led by the appellants has been misread by the Reference Court inasmuch as the sale deeds Ex.P3 to Ex.P9 and Ex.P18 have not been duly appreciated on the ground that claimants have neither produced any site plan locating sale deeds Ex.P3 to Ex.P9 and Ex.P18 nor led any evidence to show that the afore-mentioned sale deeds relate to the sale of land situated near the acquired land. The learned Reference Court has also held that claimants have not led any evidence to prove that as to what was the kind of land which was sold by means of the aforesaid sale deeds, therefore, the acquired RFA No.1139 of 1992 -4 - land cannot be compared for determining its market value with the land forming part of the aforesaid sale deeds. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn the attention of this Court to document Ex.P1 on record, which is a site plan in which the acquired land has been shown in red boundary line, the existing Abadi is shown in sky blue colour, the existing colony plots are shown in light brown colour and four plots were shown as plots A,B,C and D of an area measuring 20 sq.yards, 300 sq.yards, 480 sq.yards and 200 sq. yards. Learned counsel for the appellants has tried to relate the said plots with the sale deeds on record Ex.P6, Ex.P7, Ex.P8 and Ex.P9. It is contended that PW3 Rajinder Singh has tendered the sale deeds and stated that land depicted in the aforesaid sale deed is located in the same locality. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that since notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 1.5.1986, therefore, sale deed Ex.P18 may be kept out of consideration as it pertains to a post notification sale dated 16.7.1988 but rest of the sale deeds especially Ex.P3, Ex.P4, Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 are prior to the date of notification whereas sale deeds Ex.P7 to Ex.P9 are though post notification but are very near to the date when notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued, therefore, these sale deeds may be taken into consideration and after drawing an average of the aforesaid sale deeds, compensation may be determined afresh. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents-State has argued that sale instances referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants in the site plan Ex.P1 are in the existing residential colony and are abutting the road. Since the land sold vide the aforesaid sale deeds on RFA No.1139 of 1992 -5 - which counsel for the appellants has relied, pertains to a very small piece of land and is part of the residential colony, it is apparent that they are being used or purchased for the residential purpose. On this premise, learned State counsel has submitted that the sale instances relied upon by the counsel for the appellants cannot be set up as an example for the purpose of determining the compensation of the acquired land which is agricultural in nature. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. The learned Reference Court has apparently committed an error while appreciating the evidence available on record and observed that the claimants have not produced any evidence for locating the land forming part of the sale deeds Ex.P3 to Ex.P9 and Ex.P18. It further erred in observing that the claimants have neither produced site plan of the land sold by means of the aforesaid sale deeds nor the copies from the revenue record and any evidence to show that the above mentioned sale deeds pertain to the sale of land situated adjacent to the acquired land. In fact, the claimants have produced on record site plan Ex.P1 in which the acquired land has been clearly shown in the red border line, the existing Abadi is shown in blue colour and existing Colony is shown in light brown colour. The claimants have also shown the four plots with letters A,B,C,D in Ex.P1 which coincides with sale deeds Ex.P6, Ex.P7, Ex.P8 and Ex.P9. These sale deeds have been produced by PW3 Rajinder Singh, who has categorically stated that the sale deeds are pertaining to the sale of land in the same locality. It is apparent from the site plan Ex.P1 that plots A,B,C and D are only 300 yards RFA No.1139 of 1992 -6 - from the acquired land and can be considered to be from the same locality. The total sale price of these three plots which are forming part of sale deeds Ex.P6, Ex.P7 and Ex.P9, comes to Rs.4,79,916/- per acre and the average sale price comes to Rs.1,59,972/- per acre. Since the sale deeds Ex.P6, Ex.P7 and Ex.P9 are of small pieces of land vis a vis acquired land measuring 32.25 acres (31.21 acres) and are on the road in the existing residential colony, therefore, it would be appropriate to apply cut of 50% to determine the compensation in the present case. In that circumstance, the amount of compensation comes to Rs.79,986/- per acre. The other sale deeds tendered by the claimants which have not been shown in the site plan Ex.P1, cannot be taken into consideration. Thus, in my view, the award of the learned Reference Court who had just maintained the award of the Collector is unsustainable and is thus, set aside. The claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.79,986/- in spite of Rs.40,000/- per acre at a uniform rate for all types of land along with all the statutory benefits in terms of the provisions of the Amended Act along with costs of the appeals. Thus, the appeals filed by the land owners- claimants are hereby allowed and that of the State are hereby dismissed as indicated above. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 22.12.2008 Judge Meenu