CWP No. 2642 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 2642 of 2007 Date of Decision: April 24, 2008 Bhoop Singh …Petitioner Versus The Collector, District Sirsa and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl. AG, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. P.K. Ganga, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 2.1.2007 (P-15), passed by the Collector, District Sirsa-respondent No. 1 while deciding the appeal against the order dated 17.8.2006 (P-6) passed by the Divisional Canal Officer, Nehrana Water Services Division, Sirsa-respondent No. 2, determining compensation of the acquired land. A further prayer has been made for directing the official respondents to restore order dated 17.8.2006 passed by respondent No. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed an CWP No. 2642 of 2007 2 application under the provisions of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) for sanction of a water course fully described in the petition. On receipt of the application a scheme under Section 17 of the Act was prepared and published under Section 18(1) of the Act for inviting objections. Case was heard on 5.2.2003 and site was inspected on 27.3.2003. After inspecting the site and perusing the report of Ziledar Nehrana and Sub Divisional Canal Officer, Baruwali, W/S Sub Division, Sirsa, respondent No. 2 sanctioned the water course BC in Rect.//Killa No. 24//3, 4 and 5 Northern side East to West into two karam width, vide order dated 28.3.2003 (P-1). A condition was stipulated that the petitioner would pay compensation which was to be decided separately in lieu of the land made available to him for use of water course BC. The affected person, namely, Shri Balbir Singh son of Shri Shish Pal, resident of village Chaharwala, filed an appeal under Section 20(3) of the Act before the Superintending Canal Officer, Bhakra Water Service Circle, Sirsa, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.8.2003, upholding the order passed by respondent No. 2 (P-2). Still further an appeal was preferred by Shri Balbir Singh before the Chief Canal Officer/BWS Unit Irrigation Department, Panchkula, and the matter was remanded back to the Superintending Canal Officer, vide order dated 23.2.2004 (P-3), who again rejected the appeal vide order dated 21.7.2005 (P-4). Ultimately, the water course was sanctioned for irrigation of the land of the petitioner. For acquisition of the land, respondent No. 2 invoked Section 21 of the Act and after considering objections, the District Land Acquisition Collector passed an award on 4.3.2003 (P-5). On the basis of the award, respondent No. CWP No. 2642 of 2007 3 2 passed an order dated 17.8.2006 (P-6) assessing the amount of compensation as under:- “ Total amount Rs. 27970.30 is to be deposited by the applicant in the Govt. chest and out of this amount Rs. 16875/- cost of land as latest one year market value and Rs. 5062.50 as compulsory acquisition cost i.e. 30% of land value Total 21937.50 will be paid to the land owner and rest as Rs. 6032.80 will remain with Govt. chest as 27-1/2% departmental charges for the land coming under the water course. The land falling in Rect. No. 24 Killa No. 3-4-5 Northern side (East to West) into two karam width measuring 40x2=0K-9M area in each Killa Total 1 Kanal 7 Marla will be transferred in the name of Shri Bhoop Singh son of Shri Bahadur Singh son of Shri Udmi Ram, resident of village Chaharwala, Tehsil and District Sirsa by changing in civil record by sanctioning of mutation by the revenue officers. Decision be conveyed to all concerned.” The petitioner deposited an amount of compensation, vide receipt dated 28.9.2006 (P-7). Thereafter further proceedings such as Nishandehi (demarcation), handing over of possession at the spot etc. had taken place on various dates as is evident from documents Annexures P-8 to P-14. The mutation of the land has been entered in the name of the petitioner by replacing the names of Phool Singh, Shish Pal, Ganga Jal and Ramji lal-respondent No. 3, all sons of Hira son of Moola. Dissatisfied with the order dated 17.8.2006 (P-6), Shri CWP No. 2642 of 2007 4 Ramji Lal-respondent No. 3 filed an appeal under Section 21(5) of the Act before the Collector-respondent No. 1, praying that less amount of compensation has been assessed by respondent No. 2 @ Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre whereas the Collector’s rate of the land in village Chaharwala is Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre and the market rate of the land is much more i.e. Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre. After hearing the parties, respondent No. 1 passed an order dated 2.1.2007 (P-15) on the basis of the policy of the Government dated 28.4.2005, increased the compensation of the land from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/-. The concluding part of the order dated 2.1.2007 reads thus:- “ I have carefully perused the case file and have heard the arguments of both the learned counsels for the parties. This court has only the powers to entertain and hear only the point of compensation of the land which has been acquired. Vide the order under appeal, the rate of the acquired land has been determined at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre whereas as per letter No. 2025-R-5- 2005/4299 dated 28.4.2005 of the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Revenue Department, floor rates of the land so acquired are to be determined as under:- (i) The urbanisable area of Gurgaon will have a minimum floor rate of Rs. 15.00 lacs per acre. (ii) Rest of Haryana Sub region of NCR including Panchkula and area of Chandigarh periphery in the Haryana State will have a minimum floor rate of Rs. CWP No. 2642 of 2007 5 12.50 lacs per acre. (iii) For the rest of the State minimum floor rate will be Rs. 5.00 lacs per acre. (iv) These rates do not include the solatium and interest payable under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Thus, as per the policy of the Government, the appellant becomes entitled to get the cost of the compensation of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 5.00 lacs per acre. Hence the present appeal is hereby accepted and the rate of compensation of the acquired land is hereby increased to Rs. 5.00 lacs from Rs. 1.00 lac.” The aforementioned order dated 2.1.2007 (P-15) is the subject matter of challenge in the instant petition. Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that compensation @ Rs. Five lacs per acre assessed by the District Collector, Sirsa in his order dated 2.1.2007 (Annexure P.15) is excessive and the order dated 17.8.2006 passed by the Divisional Canal Officer ( Annexure P.6) is based on good reasons and deserves to be restored. Learned counsel has further argued that assessment made in pursuance to instructions dated 28.4.2005 (Annexure P.16) issued by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Haryana would be erroneous as the relevant date for making assessment of the land is of 2003 as the provisions of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act would apply. The learned counsel has maintained that the instructions dated 28.4.2005 issued by the Financial CWP No. 2642 of 2007 6 Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government Haryana determining the floor rates would not apply to the facts of the present case as it did not deal with the rates of land prevalent in the year 2003. Mr. Gupta has further submitted that respondents have failed to take into account vital evidence indicting the value of the land around the year 2003 which is evident from the award dated 4.3.2003 ( Annexure P.5). The rate of Chahi Land according to the award is Rs. One lac and other benefits were to be granted as per the various provisions Section 23(1A) of the 1894 Act. Mr. Ashish Kapoor and Mr. P.K.Ganga learned counsel for the respondents have argued that the order passed by the District Collector does not suffer from any legal infirmity because the rates of land for the whole State of Haryana has been given in the instructions dated 28.4.2005 ( Annexure P.16). They have submitted that these instruction cannot be considered to be irrelevant and there is no reason to freeze the price of the land belonging to the petitioner in the year 2003 particularly when the decision to sanction the water course attained finality only on 21.7.2005 ( Annexure P.5). Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in this petition. The petitioner who applied for sanction of water course has also requested the respondents to acquire the land for that purpose. The total land acquired for the water course is 1 kanal 7 marlas which belonged to the petitioner. The decision to sanction the water course attained finality on 21.7.2005 ( Annexure P.5) when the Superintending Canal Officer passed order dismissing the appeal against the order of CWP No. 2642 of 2007 7 the Canal Officer under Section 20(1) of the Act. Firstly it is doubtful whether the rate of the land could be freezed as prevalent in the year 2003. If that be so then the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Haryana on 28.4.2005 (Annexure P.16) would not be rendered irrelevant. Even otherwise the rates given in the instructions are the minimum rates and it is not possible to conclude that there was wide difference between the price of the land in the year 2003 and April, 2005. The instructions in any case are relevant. We are further of the view that the land belonging to respondent no.3 has been compulsorily acquired for the benefit of the petitioner and the petitioner could have purchased the land by private negotiation instead of applying through the official machinery. The rate of Rs. five lacs per acre as market value of the land in question is by no stretch of imagination excessive and deserves to be upheld. The reliance of the petitioner on a Division Bench judgement of this Court in Chamkaur Singh and another v. State of Punjab and another 1991 PLJ 249 does not come to his rescue because that judgement is based on the provisions of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 where the sale deed of agricultural land was in question and the Collector's rate were made the basis for assessing the sale deed for the purposes of stamp duty as well as registration charges. The Division Bench took the view that there is no provision even under the Registration Act permitting the Collector to issue instructions disclosing the market rate of various types of land. However, the situation is entirely different in the present case because the CWP No. 2642 of 2007 8 instructions dated 28.4.2005 ( Annexure P.16) have been made the basis. These instructions have been issued by the Government and not by the Collector and the minimum rate of land has been fixed for whole State of Haryana. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel. For the reasons afore-mentioned this petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) April 24, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor/okg