1 RFA No. 3298 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH --- Regular First Appeal No. 3298 of 2008 and other connected appeals (O&M Date of Decision: 17.8.2009 State of Haryana through Collector, Jind --- Appellant Versus Nirmal Singh --- Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL *** PRESENT Mr. H.S. Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Ashish Sharma, Deputy Advocate General Haryana for the appellant. Mr. Arihant Jain, Mr. Arun Jindal and Mr. Rishav Jain Advocates for the respondents. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J This judgment will dispose of a bunch of 100 Regular First Appeals bearing Nos. 2184 to 2188, 2360 to 2365, 2482 to 2492, 2762 to 2768, 2773 to 2775, 2777, 2788, 2887, 3831 to 3833, 4613, 4625, 3317 to 3324, 3298 to 3316, 3325 to 3327, and 2499 to 2501 of 2008 filed by the State of Haryana seeking reduction in the amount of compensation awarded by the reference court and 2532 to 2538, 3527, 3727, 4733 to 4736, 4738, 4739, 4741, 4742, 4898 to 4901, 4744 of 2008 and 322, 324, 325, 329 and 332 of 2009 filed by the landowners for enhancement of the same, as they arise out of the same notifications and the similar awards of the Reference Court. 2 RFA No. 3298 of 2008 The brief facts of the case are that the State of Haryana vide notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) issued on 25.8.2005, sought to acquire land for a common public purpose, namely, construction of BML Hansi - Butana Branch, in five villages, namely, Shanpur, Todikheri, Didwara, Anta and Nimnabad, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind. The said notification was followed by declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act published in the Haryana Government Gazette on the same date i.e. 19.9.2005, pursuant to which the land was acquired. The Land Acquisition Collector, vide its award dated 6.1.2006, assessed the compensation in respect of the acquired land at the rate of rupees five lacs per acre for all kinds of land. Feeling dissatisfied, the land-owners sought references under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court, after considering the material produced before it, determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate of rupees seven lacs per acre for all kinds of land. Besides the compensation, the landowners were also held entitled to other statutory benefits available under Sections 23(1) and 23(2) of the Act. In addition, the land-owners were also held entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, at the rate of 9% per annum from the date on which the possession of the land was taken and it was ordered to be paid up to the date of payment of the enhanced compensation in the Court. It was further ordered that in case the enhanced compensation was paid after the expiry of period of one year from the date on which the possession was taken, 3 RFA No. 3298 of 2008 interest at the rate of 15% per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the period of one year on the amount of such enhanced payment or part thereof, which would remain unpaid before the date of expiry of one year. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the record with their assistance. Learned counsel appearing for the land-owners submitted that the market value of the acquired land as determined by the Reference Court is inadequate, rather in view of the potentiality of the acquired land, it ought to have been more than what was assessed by the Reference Court. According to the learned counsel, the sale instance, Exhibit PW6/B, produced by the landowners is a copy of the sale deed dated 20.6.2006 whereby land measuring 17 Kanals 12 Marlas of village Nimnabad was sold for a sum of Rs. 16,50,000/- i.e. at the rate of Rs. 7,50,000/- per acre. The counsel appearing for the land-owners, thus, submitted that the Reference Court ought to have granted at least that much amount of compensation in respect of the acquired land. In support of their submission, learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Mal Singh v. Punjab State Electricity Board, 1989(2) All India Land Laws Reporter 354. On the other hand, Mr. H.S. Hooda, learned Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the State submitted that the sale instance produced by the land-owners was of the period subsequent to the date of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act 4 RFA No. 3298 of 2008 and, therefore, no reliance could have been placed on the said sale instance. Mr. Hooda further submitted that the copy of the mutation, Exhibit R-1, which was produced by the State, related to the sale transaction dated 7.11.2005 whereby the land was sold at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/- per acre. On the strength of this sale instance, Mr. Hooda submitted that the compensation at the rate of Rs. 7,00,000/- as awarded by the Reference Court calls for reduction and the award of the Land Acquisition Collector deserves to be maintained. Section 23 provides for matters to be considered by the court in determining the just and adequate compensation to be awarded for the land acquired under the Act. According to it, the prevailing market value of the land as on the date of notification published under Section 4(1) of the Act is payable to the landowner whose land has been acquired by the State. The factors to be taken into consideration while assessing the value of the acquired land, clauses 1 to 6 stipulated in the Section can be taken into consideration. The claimants’ stand in the position of plaintiffs and burden is cast upon them to establish by adducing cogent and convincing evidence that the acquired land can fetch higher market value than what is determined by the Land Acquisition Collector, which is only an offer from the State but not conclusive. The object of reference under Section 18 of the Act is to bring on record the sale instances which the acquired land was capable of fetching in the open market as on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the 5 RFA No. 3298 of 2008 Act. It is well settled that the best evidence in this respect would be the sale transaction relating to acquired land, the time at which and purpose of sale of property, the nature of the consideration and the manner in which the transaction came to be effected. The claimant is required to produce documents evidencing comparable sale transaction of similar and similarly situated lands on the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. It is the attending facts and circumstances that would furnish guidance to arrive at the market value of the acquired land and it is equally relevant to consider the potentiality of the acquired land or any advantageous features or any special circumstances available in each case. Ordinarily, guesswork is to be kept at bay while assessing the market value of the acquired land, the feats of imagination should be avoided and assessment of evidence in mechanical manner eschewed but at the same time bona fide and genuine sale transactions are guiding factors in evaluating the evidence. The fair, reasonable and adequate market value of the acquired land is always a factual question depending upon the evidence adduced, circumstantial evidence and probabilities arising in each case. However, a situation may arise where there may not be guiding sale instances in the form that no transaction had taken place in or about the acquired land for a long period on or about or prior to issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. In such an eventuality reliance upon some guess work is inevitable. The Court 6 RFA No. 3298 of 2008 in such circumstances has to balance the equities inasmuch as it has to ensure that the landowners are paid adequate compensation for their acquired land as they have been deprived of their property but at the same time, unnecessary and very heavy burden should not be put on the public exchequer in the form of compensation by misplacing reliance on sympathies or undue emphasis on the claimants’ right to compensation. After considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the award passed by the Reference Court determining compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 7,00,000/- per acre does not call for any interference. In cases where there is no sale instance available of the prior period when the land had been acquired, the instances and sale transactions of the future period can be relied upon for determining the market value of the acquired land. However, caution has to be applied while placing reliance on sale instance of future period and necessary cut applied. This Court in Mal Singh’s case (supra), while relying upon post-notification instances had assessed the market value of the acquired land by suitably reducing from the value of those transactions. The Land Acquisition Collector had awarded compensation at the rate of rupees. five lacs per acre. In other words, the mutation, Exhibit R-1, in respect of sale deed dated 7.11.2005 on which reliance had been placed by the learned Advocate General, was not taken as guiding factor by the Land 7 RFA No. 3298 of 2008 Acquisition Collector. Once that was so, then the only instance available on record was Exhibit PW6/B on which reference court had relied, whereby the land had been sold at the rate of Rs. 7,50,000/- per acre, and after applying a cut of Rs. 50,000/-, determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 7,00,000/- per acre. Nothing could be shown by the State that the transaction, Exhibit PW6/B, was not bona fide. Thus, the market value determined by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs. 7,00,000/- per acre in the facts and circumstances of the present case does not appear to be either excessive or inadequate. Adverting to the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the land-owners that due to construction of canal their land had been bifurcated into parts and this resulted in reduction of the market value. No weight can be attached to this submission. Nothing was shown either before the Reference Court or this Court with reference to any material on the record or otherwise, as to what amount of compensation was sought by them on this ground before the two forums below and how the said question was decided. In the absence of any claim having been made before the Reference Court, this question cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in the present appeal. In view of the above, there is no ground to interfere with the award of the Reference Court. In these cases, the market value of the acquired land as determined by the Reference Court does not call 8 RFA No. 3298 of 2008 for any reduction or enhancement and as such the impugned award of the Reference Court is upheld. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) August 17, 2009 JUDGE *RKMALIK*