RFA No. 2107 of 1996 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 2107 of 1996 (O&M) Date of decision: August 19, 2010 Smt. Perro Bai and others .. Appellants v. The Land Acquisition Collector and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. S.C. Nagpal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. H. S. Bakshi, Advocate for Punjab Mandi Board. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 2107 to 2110 of 1996, 173 to 177 of 1997, 3288 and 4180 of 1998, as common questions of law and facts are involved. The land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned court below for the acquired land, whereas in the appeals filed by Punjab Mandi Karan Board (for short, `the Board'), the prayer is for reduction in the amount of compensation awarded to the land owners by the learned court below. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 2107 of 1996. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 10.11.1989, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Punjab acquired 26 acres, 2 kanals and 14 marlas of land, situated in the revenue limits of village Ladhuka, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur for construction of New Grain Market in the area of village Ladhuka. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide its award dated 10.8.1992 awarded compensation @ ` 22,857/- per acre for Chahi/Nehri land and RFA No. 2107 of 1996 [2] 14,545/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 43,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the acquired land is merely at a distance of about three killas from Ferozepur-Fazilka National Highway. School, power house, rice sheller, service station, petrol pump, godowns and other commercial establishments are located in the vicinity. The acquired land had great future potential for being used for commercial purposes as it was located on road leading from the abadi of village Ladhuka to Ladhuka Mandi, crossing Ferozepur-Fazilka road in between. Even agriculture income of land was not less than ` 25,000/- per acre. As the land in question was located towards the abadi of the village, even the residential area was also expanding in that direction. The sale deeds produced on record by the land owners, namely, Ex. A4 to Ex. A8 have not been considered by the learned court below. The genuineness of those sale deeds could not be doubted, as the same were registered well before the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 in the present case. Even if the area dealt with in the aforesaid sale deeds was not very big, still this court can very well place reliance thereupon after applying reasonable cut, which in the given circumstances should not be more than 30%, considering the strategic location and also future potential. The land pertaining to the aforesaid sale deeds was located just in the vicinity of the acquired land and these were comparable pieces of land otherwise also. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Board submitted that Chandra Committee's report, which was made the basis for assessment of compensation by the learned court below was not relied upon by this court in number of cases, though none of them was cited at the time of hearing. The entire land on the date of acquisition was Banjar Qadim. Merely because the land was acquired for development as Grain Market does not show that it had any commercial potential. Various sale deeds produced by the State on record justifying the award of the Collector, were wrongly rejected. The establishments such as school, power house, rice sheller, service station, petrol pump, godowns, which are sought to be claimed by the land owners to be quite close to the acquired land are in fact located at far off place on the main highway. The submission was that the value, as assessed by the learned court below, deserves to be set aside and the award of the Collector deserves to be upheld. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant RFA No. 2107 of 1996 [3] referred record. The award of the learned court below deserves to be set aside merely on the ground that reliance was placed upon the minimum rates fixed by the Collector for registration of sale deeds, which is not a good piece of evidence to be relied upon for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land as has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan District Badaun through its Secretary v. Bipin Kumar and another, 2004 (1) SCC 283, wherein while relying upon its earlier judgment in Jawajee Nagatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, A.P. And others, 1994(4) SCC 595, Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that reliance by the reference court on the value fixed by the District Magistrate for payment of stamp duty for registration of sale deed is clearly erroneous. The relevant part is extracted below: “It has been held by this court in the case of Jawajee Nagatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, A.P. and others, 1994(4) SCC 595 that the market value under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot be fixed on the basis of a basic valuation register maintained by the registering authority for collection of stamp duty. Therefore, the reliance by the Reference Court on the value of land fixed by the District Magistrate for stamp duty purposes is clearly erroneous. For the purpose of Land Acquisition Act the market value must be determined on the basis of sale deeds of comparable lands.” Accordingly, the basis on which the learned court below assessed the value of the acquired land cannot stand judicial scrutiny. Now coming to the assessment of fair value of the acquired land, a perusal of site plan (Ex. A3) on record shows that the acquired land is located about five acres away from a cross section of Ferzoepur-Fazilka road as crossed by a road leading from village Ladhuka to Ladhuka Mandi. The commercial establishments, as are sought to be claimed by the land owners, have been shown either on the road leading from Ferozepur to Fazilka or towards the direction of Ladhuka Mandi from the main road. The distance of Mandi from the main road and of the village abadi on the other side thereof has not been shown. The land pertaining to the sale deeds produced by the land owners though has not been shown as such by mentioning exhibit numbers thereof, but has been shown to be located quite close to the crossing of Ferozepur-Fazilka road or on road leading therefrom to Ladhuka Mandi. The land pertaining to two of the sale deeds is on main Ferozepur-Fazilka road, whereas the land pertaining to three sale deeds is located on the road leading from Ferozepur-Fazilka road to Ladhuka Mandi road, RFA No. 2107 of 1996 [4] which evidently was a developed area. The average sale consideration paid therein has been shown to be ` 3,00,000/- per acre. However, the fact remains that the area dealt with therein is merely ranging from 200 square feet to 600 square feet only. The acquired land is a big chunk of 26 acres 2 kanals and 14 marlas. Reliance on sale deeds pertaining to land of merely 200 to 600 square feet would not be safe to determine the fair value of a big chunk of land. However, still even if this chunk of land is located on the road leading towards Ladhuka village, the value of that side cannot be that low, as has been determined by the Collector. Considering the evidence available on record and applying a thumb rule, the value of the acquired land is assessed @ ` 50,000/- per acre. The land owners shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available to them under the Act. The contention raised by learned counsel for the Board that the entire land in fact was Banjar Qadim has no legs to stand. Once the Collector himself had awarded compensation for the acquired land considering the same to Nehri/Chahi and Gair Mumkin, there was no question of raising the plea before this court by the Board that in fact the land was Banjar Qadim. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the land owners are allowed to the extent mentioned above and the appeals filed by the Board are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge August 19, 2010 mk (Refer to Reporter)