R.F.A. No. 181 of 2003 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 181 of 2003 (O&M) Date of decision: March 23 ,2011 Roshan Lal (deceased) through LRs and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 181 to 183, 1580 and 2177 of 2003 and 660 of 2006, as common questions of law and facts are involved. The land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. The present set of appeals pertain to acquisition of land in the reveue estates of villages Patti Taraf Afgan and Risalu, District Panipat. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 15.9.1995, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana sought to acquire 19 kanals and 19 marlas of land of village Patti Taraf Afgan and 22 kanals and 13 marlas of land pertaining to the revenue estate of village Risalu, District Panipat for sewerage disposal under Yamuna Action Plan. The same was followed by R.F.A. No. 181 of 2003 [2] notification dated 13.10.1995, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value @ ` 3,00,000/- per acre for the acquired land in village Patti Taraf Afgan and @ ` 2,50,000/- per acre for the land in village Risalu. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below upheld the award of the Collector. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that small portions of land measuring 49 kanals and 12 marlas pertaining to village Siwah, 19 kanals and 19 marlas of village Patti Taraf Afgan and 22 kanals and 13 marlas of village Risalu were acquired by the State for the purpose of sewerage disposal under Yamuna Action Plan. As far as valuation of the land pertaining to revenue estate of village Patti Taraf Afgan is concerned, learned counsel for the land owners submitted that they had produced on record two sale deeds (Ex. P6 and Ex. P7), registered on 26.9.1995 and 29.9.1995 pertaining to 11 marlas and 4 marlas of land respectively. The average sale consideration paid therein was ` 963.63 and ` 887.10 per square yard. The submission was that even if the aforesaid sale deeds were registered after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the same can still be relied upon and a reasonable cut can be imposed. It can be even for the reason that the transactions were for small plots. However, on the asking of the court, as to whether there is any site plan produced on record by the land owners to show the location of the aforesaid plots, the answer was in negative. The next contention raised by learned counsel for the land owners that the land pertaining to village Patti Taraf Afgan, Malik Ugra Kheri and Ugra Kheri was acquired prior to this vide notification dated 2.3.1993 and this Court in R.F.A. No. 4778 of 2001- Daljeet Singh v. State of Haryana and another, decided on 3.2.2010, determined the amount of compensation therein @ ` 206/- per square yard. Considering that there is a gap of 30 months in the two acquisitions, increase @ 12% per annum be awarded thereon and the land owners be granted compensation @ ` 267.80 per square yard. Another submission made by learned counsel for the land R.F.A. No. 181 of 2003 [3] owners was that prior to the acquisition in question, vide notification dated 11.5.1994, land of village Siwah was acquired for the purpose of construction of sewerage treatment plant. This court in R.F.A. No. 3153 of 2002—Baru Ram and others v. State of Haryana and another, decided on 23.3.2010, had determined the value of the acquired land therein at ` 12,22,550/- per acre. If the time gap of one year and four months is taken into consideration, the value of the land in the present case would come out to ` 14,18,158/- per acre, i.e., @ ` 293/- per square yard. As regards location of the land, he submitted that the revenue estate of village Patti Taraf Afgan is located adjoining to the city of Panipat, then comes village Risalu and thereafter is the revenue estate of village Siwah. This was even evident from the award of the Collector, where he had determined the value of the acquired land @ ` 3,00,000/- per acre for village Patti Taraf Afgan and @ ` 2,50,000/- per acre for village Risalu and the value of the land pertaining to village Siwah was less than that. For the land pertaining to village Risalu, it was submitted that there is no independent evidence on record as such, however, considering its location, as referred to above, it is even better located than pertaining to the land of village Siwah. The land owners herein should be awarded compensation if not more than, at least at the same rate. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that as far as value of land pertaining to village Patti Taraf Afgan is concerned, there is site plan (Ex. R6) produced by the State on record. In fact it was an acquisition of small strip of land by the State and not a big chunk of land as such. Reliance on sale deeds (Ex. P6 and Ex. P7) is totally misplaced for the reason that those were registered after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and further the same being for small plots and also most important thing being that location thereof has not been pointed out on any site plan on record. He further submitted that the State had produced four sale deeds on record, out of which sale deeds (Ex. R2 and Ex. R3) are relevant. The land pertaining to sale deed (Ex. R3), registered on 29.3.1996, vide which 5 kanals and 2 marlas of land was dealt with, is located just adjoining to the acquired land in village Patti Taraf Afgan. The R.F.A. No. 181 of 2003 [4] consideration paid therein was ` 1,28,750/-, i.e., ` 2,00,000/- per acre. As far as sale deed (Ex. R2), registered on 18.7.1995, is concerned, 3 kanals and 4 marlas of land was sold for ` 80,000/-, i.e., ` 2,00,000/- per acre. The aforesaid sale deeds clearly justify the award of the Collector. The contention of learned counsel for the land owners that the sale deeds produced by the State being below the award of the Collector were required to be rejected is totally misconceived, as determination of compensation and award thereof are two different concepts. The court can always determine compensation which can be less than the award of the Collector. However, on account of statutory bar, the court cannot grant less than what has already been awarded by the Collector. The consideration of the sale deeds produced by the State even if below the award of the Collector is not ruled out as such. He further submitted that reliance on the judgment of this court in Daljeet Singh's case (supra) pertaining to acquisition of land of villages Taraf Afgan, Malik Ugra Kheri and Ugra Kheri is also totally misplaced in the facts and circumstances of the case, as there is no site plan produced on record by the land owners to show the exact location of the two portions of land. The onus to prove that the compensation as awarded by the Collector was not just and fair is always on the land owners. As far as land pertaining to village Risalu is concerned, it was submitted that the land owners sought to claim that they had not led any evidence on record, however, this is not correct. A perusal of paragraph 12 of the award shows that one sale deed (Ex. P1) was produced on record, vide which the land was sold at an average price of ` 6,00,000/- per acre. There is no site plan produced on record to show the exact location thereof. As against that, though the State had produced three sale deeds on record, however, in the absence of any site plan to show the exact location of the land pertaining thereto on record, much reliance cannot be placed thereon. However, the fact remains that when the sale deed pertaining to the land of same village being on record showing the value at 6,00,000/- per acre, it would not be reasonable to award compensation to the land owners herein at a rate more than that. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. R.F.A. No. 181 of 2003 [5] As far as reliance on sale deeds (Ex. P6 and Ex. P7) produced by the land owners in support of the plea for enhancement in compensation for the land pertaining to village Patti Taraf Afgan is concerned, the same is merely to be noticed and rejected considering the fact that location pertaining to those small plots has not been pointed out on any site plan produced on record by the land owners. In addition to that, reliance was sought to be placed upon a judgment of this Court in Daljeet Singh's case (supra) determining the value of the land acquired vide notification dated 2.3.1993, which included land pertaining to village Patti Taraf Afgan, where the compensation was assessed @ ` 206/- per square yard. Even the location pertaining to that land is also not available on any site plan. In fact, the land owners have not produced any site plan on record. The location of land pertaining to village Patti Taraf Afgan is available on site plan (Ex. R6) produced on record by the State, in which the land pertaining to the sale deeds produced by the State has also been shown. From the aforesaid site plan, it is evident that land pertaining to village Risalu is located beyond the land of village Patti Taraf Afgan, if one goes on GT road from Panipat to Delhi. As far as village Risalu is concerned, though at the time of arguments, learned counsel for the land owners sought to rely upon Ex. P1 stated to be a sale deed, whereby land of same village was sold at an average price of ` 6,00,000/- per acre, however, it could not be pointed out on record, as the only evidence led on record by the land owners was in the form of seven documents. Ex. P1 is a notice dated 24.11.1996 sent by one of the land owners-Lehna Singh to Secretary, PWD Health Department, State of Haryana. Ex. P2 and Ex. P3 are stated to be postal receipts. Ex. P4 is copy of jamabandi for the year 1993-94. Ex. P5 is award of the learned Reference Court pertaining to acquisition of land vide notification dated 2.3.1993 and Ex. P6 and Ex. P7 are the sale deeds pertaining to land of village Patti Taraf Afgan. The judgment sought to be relied upon by learned counsel for the land owners in Baru Ram's case (supra) is not relevant considering the fact that it relates to valuation of land pertaining to revenue estates of Siwah and Taraf Rajputan Binjol. It has been noticed in the aforesaid judgment that the land pertaining to both the aforesaid revenue estates is surrounded R.F.A. No. 181 of 2003 [6] by National Fertilizer Ltd. and other industrial units. The land pertaining to Siwah abuts the GT road leading from Panipat to Delhi, whereas the land pertaining to village Binjol is located on road leading from Panipat to Rohtak. It has further been noticed therein that the land pertaining to both the awards was within the municipal limits of Panipat. It was under those circumstances that compensation for the acquired land was assessed. This court was apparently misled regarding location of land in the aforesaid case as Sector 29 is located on left side of G.T. Road if we go from Panipat to Delhi, whereas the court in Baru Ram's case (supra) noticed the same be surrounding the acquired land of village Siwah and Taraf Rajputan Binjol, which is on right side of GT road. As against that, the State had produced on record sale deeds (Ex. R2 and Ex. R3), which were registered on 18.7.1995 and 29.3.1996 respectively and the land pertaining thereto has been shown on site plan (Ex. R6), which is adjoining to the acquired land. The average sale consideration paid in both the sale deeds is ` 2,00,000/- per acre. The amount of compensation as awarded by the Collector in the present case for the land pertaining to village Patti Taraf Afgan is ` 3,00,000/- per acre, whereas for village Risalu, the same is ` 2,50,000/- per acre. The onus to prove that the compensation as assessed by the Collector was not adequate is always on the land owners, who is in the position of a plaintiff. Reference for the purpose can be made to Para 28 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangunthala (Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar (L.A.) and Ors. 2010(2) Recent Apex Judgments 286. “28. It is settled that the burden of establishing/proving the market value of the lands is always on the claimants. In Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 1991(1) R.R.R. 427 : AIR 1990 SC 2192, this Court held that it is the duty of the Court to determine just and fair market value. It was further held that the claimants should produce necessary evidence on the value of land since the burden of proof is on them to establish the higher compensation claimed. While R.F.A. No. 181 of 2003 [7] agreeing with the judgment in Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd (Supra), this Court in the case of Special Deputy Collector & Another v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao & Others, (1997) 6 SCC 41, held that in a claim for enhancement of compensation the burden of proof was on the claimants that land was capable of fetching higher compensation. Further in the case of Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad Development Authority and another, 2004(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 3 : (2004) 10 SCC 745, it was held that the burden of proving that the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector is inadequate lies upon the claimant and he is in the position of a plaintiff.” If the evidence led by the land owners in the present case is considered, none of them can be said to be relevant for the reason that there is no material on record on the basis of which this court could compare the location of the land pertaining thereto vis-a-vis the acquired land. Placing reliance upon the award merely on the ground that it pertains to the same revenue estate would not be reasonable considering the fact that even in single revenue estate, on account of location, the value of the land can differ. As against this, there are two sale deeds produced on record by the State which are pertaining to the land located adjoining to the acquired land showing average sale consideration at ` 2,00,000/- per acre. One of the sale deeds was registered even after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The award of the Collector is already more than the amount of sale consideration shown in the aforesaid sale deeds. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge March 23, 2011 mk R.F.A. No. 181 of 2003 [8]