RFA No.388 of 1998 (5cases) 1 In the Punjab and Haryana High Court,at Chandigarh. RFA No. 388 of 1998 Decided on August 22,2008. Pala Singh and another ---Appellants. vs. State of Haryana and another --- Respondents Present: Mr.Ajay Jain,Advocate, for the appellants Mr. H.S.Hooda,Advocate General,Haryana, with Mr.Rajiv Kawatra, Sr.DAG,Haryana, for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Jain,J: This judgment shall dispose of RFA Nos.388, 387,389,390 and 130 of 1998, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. Vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,'the Act'), dated 07.9.1988 followed by notification 6 of the Act, dated 12.1.1989, land measuring 2136 Kanals 14 Marlas in village Agroha, was acquired for setting up Maharaja Agarsen Institute of Medical Research and Education, Agroha, Tehsil and District, Hisar. The S.D.O.(Civil)-cum- Land Acquisition Collector announced his award No. 1 dated 25.3.1989 for the year 1988-89. Out of total acquired land measuring 2136 Kanals 14 marlas, land measuring 628 kanals 18 marlas was Nehri, 508 Kanals 14 Marlas was Tal, 965 Kanals and 15 Marlas RFA No.388 of 1998 (5cases) 2 was Tibba and 33 Kanals 07 Marlas was Gairmumkin. The Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana, Department of Health on behalf of the State had notified a departmental Committee in terms of para 466 of the Land Administration Manual & Standing Order No.28 vide order dated 24.2.1989, to negotiate the total price which the land owners would be willing to charge for the land mentioned in the notification. The Committee recommended Rs. 60,000/- per acre for Nehri, Rs.40,000/- per acre for Tal, Rs.28,000/- per acre for Tibba and Rs.75,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin. The rates recommended by the negotiation committee were accepted by the Government of Haryana, through the Commissioner & Secretary to Govt. of Haryana vide order No. 21/2/88- 2HB-IV dated 14.3.1989. The rates sanctioned by the Government were total and final settlement of the value of the acquired land. Some of the land owners did not opt for acquisition at the negotiated rate. The total land under this category came to be 826 Kanals-11 Marlas for which the Collector awarded Rs. 40,000/-per acre for Nehri, Rs. 20,000/- per acre for Tal, Rs.14,000/- per acre for Tibba and Rs. 55,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin. Unsatisfied with the award, objections under Section 18 of the Act, were filed which were referred to the Civil Court where the claim statements were filed by the land owners in which it was alleged that value of the acquired land is not less than Rs.10,00,000/- per acre. The claim of the land owners was contested by the respondents-State and it was alleged that adequate compensation has been awarded by the Collector which does RFA No.388 of 1998 (5cases) 3 not call for any further enhancement. After appreciating the entire evidence led by the parties, Addl. District Judge, Hisar awarded compensation @ Rs.50,000/- per acre for Nehri, Rs. 40,000/- per acre for Tal, Rs.20,000/- per acre for Tiba and Rs. 75,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin, besides other statutory benefits as per the Act. The only argument raised by counsel for the appellants/claimants is that the Civil Court has committed a palpable error in not appreciating Ex.P-3 in its right perspective. It has been argued that Ex.P-3 is dated 21.4.1988 i.e. four months prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act,whereby one kanal of land was sold @ Rs.30,000/- per acre which comes to Rs. 2,40,000/- per acre. It was also argued that in the statement of PW-1 Amar Singh, it has come on record that acquired land abuts the National Highway No.10. In this back- ground,counsel for the appellants has claimed that the compensation should have been assessed on the basis of document Ex.P-3 even though by applying a appropriate cut. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents- State has argued that the Court below has rightly relied upon previous award Ex.P-2 on the basis of which compensation has been enhanced in the present case. It has further been argued that in the previous award Ex.P-2, the sale deed Ex.P-13 was tendered as Ex.P-3 which has been considered and it has been observed as under:- “The petitioners have produced Shanti Lal PW-3 who has stated that he had purchased 1 Kanal of land from Jai Dayal Singh for a sum of Rs.30,000/- which is situated near the Medical College vide sale deed, RFA No.388 of 1998 (5cases) 4 copy of which is Ex.P-13. On the basis of this sale deed, counsel for the petitioners have argued that as this witness had purchased one Kanals of land on 21.4.1988 at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre, compensation at this rate should be given to them. As this sale is of a plot of only one Kanal and as the witness had purchased plot for running a photographer shop, this sale deed cannot be made the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land. Further on, as from the award itself, it is clear that before formal compulsory acquisition of the land, the Government tried to pursue land owners to give land at negotiated prices, possibility cannot be ruled out that on hearing rumour with regard to the acquisition, this sale deed was manoeuvred in order to show inflated rate . In view of these circumstances, I hold that the petitioners cannot take any help from the statement of Shanti Lal PW-3”. It is further argued that even in the present case, Ex.P-3 has been duly considered and a finding has been recorded as under:- “The claimants have also produced on record the copy Ex.P-3 of the registered sale deed dated 21.4.1988 which was executed about four month prior to the issuance of notification dated 7.9.1988 and whereby an area measuring 1 kanal 0 Marla comprised in Killa No.120/9 Min was sold for Rs. 30,000/-. This solitary sale deed executed just four months prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act cannot, however, be considered to be conclusive to hold that the rate at which this land was sold was the rate prevailing in the locality in which this land is located”. Counsel for the respondents has further argued that there are two sale deeds on record i.e. Ex. R-2 dated 19.1.1988 vide which 8 Kanals of land in village Agroha which is a part of the acquired land has been sold RFA No.388 of 1998 (5cases) 5 for Rs. 23,000/- per acre and Ex. R-3 dated 12.11.1987 vide which 8 Kanals of land in village Agroha was sold for Rs. 30,000/-per acre, therefore, the sale instance of Ex. P-3 cannot be given comparable instance in the light of Exs. R-2 and R-3, which also pertain to the same land, which has been acquired and when as per Ex . R-2 dated 19.1.1988, the value of land at Agroha was Rs. 23,000/- per acre then it cannot be Rs.2,40,000/- on 21.4.1988. It is further argued that sale instance of one Kanal only cannot be made a comparable instance for determining the value of the acquired land which is measuring 2136 K 14 Marlas. In this regard, decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court has been referred to as K.S. Shivadevamma and others v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer and another, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2886, in which it has been held that the sale of small piece of land cannot form basis for determining the compensation for large extent of land”. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is no doubt proved that Ex.P-3 is a sale instance prior to the date of notification of the same village much-less the acquired land . At the same time, it is also undisputed that Exs. R-2 and R-3 are prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act of the same acquired land pertaining to the same village but there is a huge difference in the sale consideration between the two. Therefore, it could be possible that the Government had tried to persuade the land owners to give their lands at the negotiated price and sale Ex.P-3 is a manoeuvred in order to show inflated price. It is well established that the Land Acquisition Act, is neither a tool in the hands of the Government to deprive any person of the acquired land without payment RFA No.388 of 1998 (5cases) 6 of value nor a bonanza to a land owner whose land has been acquired permitting him to get a fanciful inflated price. The Act,therefore, provides a machinery to determine market value as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The Court also cannot loose sight of the fact that Ex.P- 3 pertains to a plot of only one Kanal that too has been purchased for running a photographer shop and the total acquired land is large area of 2136 K 14 Marlas,therefore, the sale deed Ex.P-3 cannot be said to be an example for determining the market value of the acquired land particularly in view of Exs. R-2 and R-3 on record. In fact, the Court below has rightly relied upon the earlier award Ex.P-2 pertaining to the same acquisition in which after discussing the entire evidence, compensation of the acquired land has been assessed @ Rs. 50,000/- per acre for Nehri, Rs.20,000/-per acre for Tibba and Rs.75,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any scope for further enhancement of compensation in these appeals,therefore, the same are hereby dismissed ,but without any order as to costs. August 22,2008 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge. Refer to Reporter: 'Yes'