IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RFA No.884 of 1995 Date of decision: 4.11.2011 Hoshiar Singh & another -----Appellants Vs. State of Haryana -----Respondent and other connected cases being RFA No.885 of 1995 Rakesh Kumar & another -----Appellants Vs. State of Haryana -----Respondent RFA No.886 of 1995 Bihari & others -----Appellants Vs. State of Haryana -----Respondent RFA No.887 of 1995 Ram Mehar & others -----Appellants Vs. State of Haryana -----Respondent RFA No.888 of 1995 Ami Chand & others -----Appellants Vs. State of Haryana -----Respondent RFA No.889 of 1995 Hira -----Appellant Vs. State of Haryana -----Respondent RFA No.890 of 1995 RFA No.884 of 1995 Prabhu Dayal & others -----Appellants Vs. State of Haryana -----Respondent RFA No.891 of 1995 Hira & others -----Appellants Vs. State of Haryana -----Respondent RFA No.892 of 1995 Smt. Bharpai -----Appellant Vs. State of Haryana -----Respondent RFA No.893 of 1995 Ude Ram -----Appellant Vs. State of Haryana -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present:- Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ashish Gupta, AAG, Haryana. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of ten appeals i.e. RFA Nos.884 to 893 of 1995 as the same have arisen out of same acquisition proceedings which have culminated into one common award of the reference Court. 2 RFA No.884 of 1995 2. The landowners have filed the instant appeals against the award of the reference Court seeking enhancement of compensation for their acquired land. 3. The respondent-State issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) which was published in the Government gazette on 22.6.1990 intending to acquire land measuring 12.07 acres at public expenses for a public purpose namely construction of Gurgaon Water Supply (GWS) Channel in the area of Village Lagerpur, Tehsil Jhajjar, Distt. Rohtak. The said notification was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector rendered award on 30.5.1991 awarding compensation for the acquired land @ `1,00,000/- for Nehri/Chahi, `80,000/- Barani and `60,000/- for Banjar Kadim kind of land per acre. 4. The landowners/ appellants were not satisfied with the compensation awarded to them. They filed references under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation, pleading that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was inadequate and was less than half of the rates prevailing in the market at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and thus, they were entitled to the enhancement. 5. These reference applications were referred to the District Judge, Rohtak. The State of Haryana contested the aforesaid reference applications pleading that the Land Acquisition Collector had awarded just and reasonable market 3 RFA No.884 of 1995 value of the acquired land keeping in view the location of the land and other factors which were essential for the determination of the market value and no enhancement, whatsoever, was called for. 6. The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases before the reference Court. 7. The appellants relied upon three sale instances i.e. Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. Besides this, PW-1 Rohtas deposed that his land was acquired in the year 1990 and market value of the same was `5 lacs per acre. He further testified that the acquired land was situated within the abadi and on the road which connects Gurgaon with Bahadurgarh. However, he admitted that the acquired land was being used for agricultural purposes. PW-2 Chhotu Ram also deposed that rate of acquired land was between `4 lacs to `5 lacs per acre at the time of acquisition and their land was half kilometers away from the boundary of Delhi. However, he also admitted that the acquired land was agricultural in nature. 8. To the Contrary, the respondent-State examined Shri K.K. Gupta, SDO as RW-1 who tendered in evidence copies of sale deeds Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 which pertained to Village Devarkhana and Dariyapur which adjoins Village Lagerpur. He further stated that he was not able to find any sale transaction pertaining to Village Lagerpur. However, in cross-examination, he admitted that Village Badsa is about 4 kms. away from Village 4 RFA No.884 of 1995 Lagerpur. Devraj Sharma, RW-2 had prepared Akshajra Ex.R6 relating to Village Deverkhana and acquired land has been shown in yellow, green and pink colours. He produced Ex.R7 Akshajra relating to Village Dariyapur and stated that no sale in Village Lagerpur took place during the relevant period. 9. After considering the evidence produced on record of the case and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the reference Court found that the sale instances (Ex.P1 to Ex.P3) produced by the appellants pertains to small area of land and are also of a different village and the same cannot be made basis for determination of compensation for a big chunk of land. The reference Court further found that the sale instances produced by the State i.e. Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 were also of no help to determine the market value of the land in question as the average sale price of all the sale instances comes to a lesser amount than the amount already offered by the Land Acquisition Collector and in view of the aforesaid findings, the reference applications filed by the claimants were dismissed. 10. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid award of the reference Court, the land owners have filed the instant appeals seeking enhancement of compensation. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award and the record of the case with the help of the counsels representing them. 5 RFA No.884 of 1995 12. Shri Deepak Balyan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants could not dispute the fact that sale instances Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 relates to a different village i.e. Village Badsa which is at a distance of 4 kms from Village Lagerpur. It may also be noticed that the sale instance Ex.P3 is post notification whereas sale instances Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are of small pieces of land. On the other hand, Shri Ashish Gupta, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State very fairly stated that the sale instances relied upon by the State i.e. Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 are of no help to determine the market value of the land in question. 13. Thus, practically, there is no evidence in the shape of sale instances on record, on the basis of which market value of the land can be assessed on the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. However, it is not in dispute that land of Village Badli which is near Village Lagerpur was also acquired vide notification dated 20.11.1988 for the same purpose i.e. for construction of GWS Channel and in the appeals pertaining to that village, this Court vide its judgment dated 16.7.2010 in RFA No.1749 of 1995 (Bhim Singh & others v. State of Haryana and another) and other connected appeals, has determined the market value of the land @ `96,000/- per acre for Nehri, `65,000/- per acre for Barani and `48,000/- per acre for Bhund and Gair Mumkin kinds of land. In the case of ONGC Ltd. v. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel & others (2005) 6 SCC 454, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in the absence of any 6 RFA No.884 of 1995 direct evidence in the shape of sale instances, the Court may take recourse to other methods i.e. judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisition of land made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages. The relevant para of the said judgment reads thus:- “11. While determining the amount of compensation payable in respect of the lands acquired by the State, indisputably, the market value therefor has to be ascertained. Although, there exist different modes for arriving at market value for the land acquired; the best method, however, as is well-known would be the amount which a willing purchaser of the land would pay to the owner of the land as may be evidenced by deeds of sale. In absence of any direct evidence on the said point, the court may take recourse to other methods; viz. judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisitions of lands made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages. Such a judgment and award in absence of any other evidence like deed of sale, report of expert and other relevant evidence, however, would have only evidentiary value.” 14. It may also be noticed at this stage, that principle of granting enhancement of compensation on the basis of escalation of prices on yearly basis has been recognized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. According to the said judgments, in view of the facts and circumstances of a case, an increase varying from 7.5% per annum to 20% per annum can be granted in an appropriate case after relying upon the base value of such earlier acquisition 7 RFA No.884 of 1995 for determining the market value of the acquired land on the basis of judicial pronouncements. It may also be relevant to refer to the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Udho Dass v. State of Haryana and others (2010) 12 SCC 51 which read thus:- “18. Concededly, the Act also provides for the payment of the solatium, interest and an additional amount but we are of the opinion, and it is common knowledge, that even these payments do not keep pace with the astronomical rise in prices in many parts of India, and most certainly in North India, in the land price and cannot fully compensate for the acquisition of the land and the payment of the compensation in driblets. The 12% per annum increase which Courts have often found to be adequate in compensation matters hardly does justice to those land owners whose land have been acquired as judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the increase is not 10 or 12 or 15% per year but is often upto 100% a year for land which has the potential of being urbanized and commercialized such as in the present case. Be that as it may, we must assume that the landowners were entitled to the compensation fixed by the High Court on the date of the award of the Collector and had this amount been made available to the landowners on that date, it would have been possible for them to rehabilitate their holdings in some other place. This exercise has been defeated for the simple reason that the payment of compensation has been spread over almost two decades.” 8 RFA No.884 of 1995 15. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid well settled principles of law and the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the fact that the acquired land is near Delhi border and that the land of Village Badli which was acquired vide notification dated 20.11.1988 for the same purpose and there being no difference in the kind of land, the aforesaid compensation as granted by this Court in RFA No.1749 of 1995 can be made basis for determining the compensation for the acquired land in question and further increase can be given keeping in view the market value determined by the Court in the aforesaid case. The land in Village Badli which was acquired on 20.11.1988 for the same purpose was assessed at `96,000/- per acre for Nehri kind of land and land in the instant appeals was acquired on 22.6.1990. The appellants are, thus, entitled to an increase for the said intervening period i.e. 19 months. 16. Since the acquired land is on an important road connecting Bahadurgarh, Jhajhar and Gurgaon which is bordering Delhi and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case if the appellants are held entitled to the benefit of enhancement of compensation @ 12% per annum on such value, the market value of the land in question will come to about `1,15,000/- per acre of Nehri kind of land. Since there is always a guess work, it will be safe to grant an overall increase of `10,000/- per acre for each kind of land. 9 RFA No.884 of 1995 17. Thus, these appeals are allowed and the appellants are held entitled for a sum of `10,000/- per acre over and above the compensation determined by the reference Court. 18. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of each connected case. November 04, 2011 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE 10