R.F.A. No. 3803 of 1992 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 18.11.2008 (1) R.F.A. No.3803 of 1992 State of Haryana ...Appellant vs. Ghanshyam (deceased) through LRs ...Respondent (2) R.F.A. No.3804 of 1992 State of Haryana ...Appellant vs. Arjan and others ...Respondents (3) R.F.A. No.3805 of 1992 State of Haryana ...Appellant vs. Umrab Singh and others ...Respondents (4) R.F.A. No.3806 of 1992 State of Haryana ...Appellant vs. Gulab Singh ...Respondent (5) R.F.A. No.3807 of 1992 State of Haryana ...Appellant vs. Ram Kanwar and others ...Respondents R.F.A. No. 3803 of 1992 [2] (6) R.F.A. No.3808 of 1992 State of Haryana ...Appellant vs. Kishan Lal ...Respondent (7) R.F.A. No.3809 of 1992 State of Haryana ...Appellant vs. Mandir Sita Ram ...Respondent (8) R.F.A. No.3810 of 1992 State of Haryana ...Appellant vs. Lachmi Narain ...Respondent (9) R.F.A. No.3811 of 1992 State of Haryana ...Appellant vs. Chand and others ...Respondents (10) R.F.A. No.3812 of 1992 State of Haryana ...Appellant vs. Sanwat Singh (deceased) through Lrs ...Respondent R.F.A. No. 3803 of 1992 [3] (11)R.F.A. No.3813 of 1992 State of Haryana ...Appellant vs. Sis Ram and others ...Respondents (12) R.F.A. No.3814 of 1992 State of Haryana ...Appellant vs. Khub Ram and others ...Respondents (13) R.F.A. No.3815 of 1992 State of Haryana ...Appellant vs. Ram Sarup and others ...Respondents (14) R.F.A. No.3816 of 1992 State of Haryana ...Appellant vs. Sarjeet Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the State. Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the land owners. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of a bunch of 14 appeals, as the same arise out of a common acquisition. The State is in appeal against the award of the learned court below seeking reduction of the compensation awarded to the land owners for the acquired R.F.A. No. 3803 of 1992 [4] land. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 17.7.1979, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana acquired 7.46 acres of land in village Palra, Hadbast No. 164, Tehsil Gurgaon, District Gurgaon for construction of a road from Bad Shahpur-Teekli Road to Sakatpur via Palra. The same was followed by notification dated 18.11.1980 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide his award dated 31.1.1981, determined the market value of land at Rs. 10,000/- per acre for chahi land; Rs. 8,000/- per acre for Magda and Gair Mumkin Gatwar land and Rs. 3,040/- per acre for Banjar kind of land. However, Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, on reference under Section 18 of the Act, determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 22,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the learned court below, while assessing the market value of the acquired land, has totally ignored the evidence produced by the State on record. If the same is considered, the value cannot be assessed @ Rs. 22,000/- per acre, as has been determined. He further submitted that grant of additional compensation @ 12% per annum under Section 23(1-A) of the Act is totally uncalled for because acquisition in the present case was made vide notification dated 17.7.1979 issued under Section 4 of the Act. Even the award of the Collector was passed on 31.1.1981, i.e., before the provisions of Section 23(1-A) of the Act came into force. Reliance was placed upon Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Anoop Singh and another, (2003) 2 SCC 484. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the learned court below, while assessing the fair value of the acquired land, has not properly considered the sale deeds produced by the land owners in terms of which the value in the vicinity was much more. The acquisition in the present case was made on 17.7.1979. The sale deeds produced by the respondents showed the value at Rs. 21,333/- on 24.4.1978 and no benefit for the period after which the acquisition was made, was granted. As far as sale deeds, produced by the State, are concerned, the submission is that those were registered almost 3 years prior to the acquisition and therefore, were not relevant. As far as the issue regarding grant of benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act is concerned, he could not dispute that the issue raised is covered against him in Ghaziabad Development Authority's case (supra). Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. R.F.A. No. 3803 of 1992 [5] As far as determination of value of the acquired land is concerned, I do not find any merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the State. The sale deeds produced by the State were rightly ignored, as those were registered three years prior to the date of acquisition, whereas the sale deeds produced by the respondents were quite close to the date of acquisition and consideration money paid therein was also Rs. 21,333/- per acre for a chunk of 6 kanals of land, on the basis of which the value was determined for acquisition made nearly one year and three months thereafter at Rs. 22,000/- per acre. Accordingly, on that account, the award of the learned court below is upheld. With regard to grant of benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act, it would be relevant to refer to clauses (a) and (b) of Section 30(1) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, which are extracted below: 30. Transition provisions- (1) The provisions of sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 of the principal Act, as inserted by clause (a) of Section 15 of this Act, shall apply and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation to,- (a) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the principal Act pending on the 30th day of April, 1982 (the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, in the (House of the People) in which no award has been made by the Collector before that date; (b) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the principal Act commenced after that date, whether or not an award has been made by the Collector before the date of commencement of this Act.” Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority's case (supra) considered the issue in detail, wherein it was held that if the case of the land owner does not fall within the ambit of clauses (a) and (b) of Section 30 (1) of the amending Act, he is not entitled to the benefits available under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. As is evident from the facts of the present case, the case of the land owners does not fall within either of the clauses as the acquisition of land and the award of the Collector is before the cut off date. Accordingly, the award of the learned court below to the extent it grants benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act is concerned, is set aside. The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid manner indicated above. However, it is directed that as the acquisition carried out about 30 years back was merely for 7.46 acres of land and compensation assessed is Rs. 22,000/- per acre R.F.A. No. 3803 of 1992 [6] and the amount payable under Section 23(1-A) of the Act being 12%, would be a small sum and the same having already been paid to the land owners be not recovered from them at this stage. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 18.11.2008 mk