RFA No.2335 of 2004(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... RFA No.2335 of 2004(O&M) Hari Kishan ... Appellant VERSUS The State of Haryana and others ... Respondents RFA No.2336 of 2004(O&M) Ram Kishan (deceased) through legal representatives ... Appellant VERSUS The State of Haryana and others ... Respondents RFA No.2550 of 2004(O&M) State of Haryana ... Appellant VERSUS Smt.Bohti widow etc. ... Respondents RFA No.2551 of 2004(O&M) State of Haryana and another ... Appellants VERSUS Ram Kishan ... Respondent RFA No.2552 of 2004(O&M) State of Haryana RFA No.2335 of 2004(O&M) [ 2 ] ... Appellant VERSUS Hari Kishan ... Respondents and RFA No.2593 of 2004(O&M) Bohti etc. through power of attorney Raj Kumar (deceased) represented by legal representatives ... Appellant VERSUS The State of Haryana and others ... Respondents Decided on : October 08, 2009 CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.S.P.Khatri Advocate for the appellant – land-owners. Ms.Mamta Singla Talwar, Assistant Advocate General for the State of Haryana. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This judgment of mine shall dispose of six connected appeals (RFA Nos.2335, 2336, 2550, 2551, 2552 and 2593 of 2004) against the award dated 14.9.2004 passed by Additional District Judge, Sonepat, whereby, the market value of the acquired land situated in the area of village Shadipur was assessed at the rate of Rs.120/- per square yard along with all statutory benefits. The land-owners vide their three appeals, have harped for enhancement of the compensation, submitting that the market RFA No.2335 of 2004(O&M) [ 3 ] value as assessed by the Lower Court was not adequate, whereas, the State of Haryana has the grievance of having it awarded on higher side. The factual background of the case is that the land of the appellant – land owners (herein referred as the appellants) was acquired vide notification No.K-IV/1184 dated 12.8.1997/19.8.1997 and the award by the Collector was passed on 14.8.1999, whereby, the market value was assessed at Rs.3 lacs per acre for Nehri as well as Chahi quality of acquired land. On reference by the appellants, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein referred as `the Act') it was submitted that the land in the vicinity has the market value of Rs.1,000/- per square yard. The land is situated in the most populated area of district Sonepat, where, industrial and commercial ventures have come up and the market value is not less than Rs.2000/- per square yard. In their reply, the State of Haryana submitted that the Government acquired the land measuring 9 Kanal 16 Marlas for the construction of the bye-pass on Sonepat-Rathdhana Road leading to Meerut-Sonepat road. All the essential factors provided under the Act, necessary for determining the market value of the land along with the rates fixed by the Collector in the area, so also the sales transactions during that particular period of near-by land of similar quality, were taken into consideration by the competent authority. The market value assessed by the Collector is quite fair, reasonable and adequate. On the pleadings of the parties, the Additional District Judge framed the following issues:- “1. What was the market value of the acquired land at the RFA No.2335 of 2004(O&M) [ 4 ] time of issuance of Notification No.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984? OPA 2. Relief.” Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. The Additional District Judge after scrutinising the entire evidence assessed the market value of the entire land at the rate of Rs.120/- per square yard along with all statutory benefits. Dissatisfied by the award, the private appellants as well as the State have filed the appeals. Before I set my hands to determine the market value of the land, I need to reproduce the evidence. Ram Lal (PW1), while stepping into the witness box, has proved the site plan (Ex.P1) and further stated that the area shown in the red colour was acquired land and the area shown in green and yellow colours was already acquired for Sector-12. He has not given the approximate price of the land at the time of its acquisition. Hari Kishan (PW2) has, besides proving the site plan (Ex.P1) and supporting the statement of Ram Lal (PW1) has proved the copy of the order (Ex.P2) regarding the award passed relating to the previous land, copy of the Jamabandi of the land owned by Ram Kishan (Ex.P3), copy of the land owned by him (Ex.P4). He also submitted that there is a school and a hospital and a residential colony. He has stated that the market value of the acquired land was Rs.600 to Rs.700/- per square yard at the time of acquisition, but denied if he purchased or sold any piece of land in the RFA No.2335 of 2004(O&M) [ 5 ] month of July at the said rate. He also admits that the amount depicted by him pertains to the year 1999. To the contrary, Tirath Ram Patwari while appearing as RW1 has proved the site plan and the sale-deeds on the basis of which the award was passed by the Collector. He also stated that the land in question was acquired for construction of Rathdhana-Meerut Road and that the acquired land was agricultural and not urban land. He further submitted that there is no school nearby the acquired land situated at village Shadipur; there is no telephone cord or connection near the land in question, it may be in the residential area of village Shadipur. He has further stated that there is no housing board colony near the acquired land. The only argument put forth on behalf of the land-owners is that the lands of villages Kabirpur and Shadipur are at a distance of ½ KM from each other and the pieces of land of village Kabirpur and Shadipur were acquired at the rate of Rs.120/- per square yards in the year 1990 and 1993 respectively, therefore, the market value of the land under the present acquisition in the year 1996 should have been assessed while accelerating the price at some reasonable proportion. To the contrary, the Assistant Advocate General has countered the argument stating that the present land is of different nature, existing at a different location near the drain, therefore, it being of lower quality and nature could not be taken at par with the land earlier acquired by the Haryana Government. I have heard the rival contentions and gone through the records. RFA No.2335 of 2004(O&M) [ 6 ] The main plank of the land-owners is over two awards Ex.P2 and P13. Ex.P2 is the award relating to the land situated within the area of village Shadipur, which was acquired vide notification dated 17.5.1990 for the purpose of development and utilisation of the land as residential and commercial area, whereas, the present land has been acquired for construction of a road. The land previously acquired was in the vicinity of the town, but the present piece of land is at a distance of ½ KM. The land now acquired for the road is adjoining the drain, which certainly could not be taken having the similar qualities and nature as the land earlier was acquired for residential and commercial purposes. Now, coming to the award Ex.P13, relating to the land situated at village Kabirpur acquired vide notification dated 17.5.1990, the said land was prime property located on the outskirts of the Sonepat town. ECE factory was situated there for the last more than four decades; industrial and commercial centers were located near the said piece of land. The award further reveals that the two sale-deeds proved on record by the claimants regarding the pieces of land nearby the acquired land, related to the year 1993 and 1995, i.e, much prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act and, thus, of no relevance. In that situation, the Additional District Judge, vide award dated 13.5.1999 had assessed the market value of the land situated within the area of village Kabirpur, at the rate of Rs.120/- per square yard. In the case in hand, the land-owners have not proved any such sale-deed showing the market value of the acquired land at a rate, more than Rs.120/- per square yard. Much stress could not be laid over the awards given by the RFA No.2335 of 2004(O&M) [ 7 ] Courts relating to the lands which had been acquired previously, being located at a different place, having different quality and acquired for a different purpose. While laying down certain parameters for assessing the market value of the land, a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in case State of Maharashtra vs. Prashram Jagannath Aute, 2008(3) RCR (Civil) 409 observed as under:- “(i) It is neither permissible nor proper for the Court to lay down any strait-jacket formula universally applicable to all land acquisition cases at any level of proceedings. (ii) The Court has to determine the amount of compensation/market value of the land at the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 in consonance with the statutory provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act.” The Full Bench relied upon the Apex Court decision delivered in case Chimanlal Hargoinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, 1988(3) SCC 751, wherein, the Apex Court stated the principles beyond ambiguity, regulating the discretion of awarding compensation by the Court as under:- “(1) .... (9)... (10) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations: (i)proximity from time angle, (ii)proximity from situation angle. (11) Having identified the instances which provide the index RFA No.2335 of 2004(O&M) [ 8 ] of market value the price reflected therein may be taken as the norm and the market value of the land under acquisition may be deduced by making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-a-vis land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. (12) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do. (13) The market value of the land under acquisition has thereafter to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it for minus factors. (14) The exercise indicated in Clauses (11) to (13) has to undertaken in a common sense manner as a prudent man of the world of business would do. We may illustrate some such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors: Plus Factors Minus Factors 1 Smallness of size 1 Largeness of area 2 proximity to a road 2 Situation in the interior at a distance 3 frontage on a road 3 Narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth. 4 Nearness to developed area 4 Lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up 5 Regular shape 5 Remoteness from developed locality 6 Level vis-a-vis land under acquisition 6 Some special disadvantageous factor which would deter a purchaser 7 Special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage. RFA No.2335 of 2004(O&M) [ 9 ] However, the Full Bench also observed as under:- “This brings up for final consideration the plots which we have described as interior plots in all the survey numbers and which do not have a frontage on the roads. A lower price will have to be provided for these plots, since the plot-holders will have to spend moneys for getting water and drainage connections which are given only upto the Municipal Roads. Then again, in our opinion, the interior plots would not be sold at all as long as any of the plots having a frontage on Pashan Road or Baner Road are sold, though once such plots have been disposed of the demand for interior plots would certainly pick up. Here again, it is impossible to be precise in fixing the value; but in our opinion the interior plots may fairly be valued at Rs.7,000/- per acre. As stated earlier, the sales of these plots would commence after all the plots having a frontage on Pashan Road and Baner Road are disposed of i.e, after 12 years, and we may say that those plots would be sold within a period of about 4 years.” Thus, after deliberating over the ratio decidendi as delivered by the Bombay High Court in Prashram Jagannath Aute case (supra), it may be observed that the land under reference situated over the drain having no such potentiality of converting into commercial or residential and having been used for construction of road and that the same was being used for agricultural purposes and also taking note of the fact that much amount has RFA No.2335 of 2004(O&M) [ 10 ] been spent for developing this undeveloped stretch of the land, the same could not be compared with the developed area nearby the vicinity of the town of Sonepat. In the absence of any evidence that the land was acquired, developed and converted into any residential or commercial area during the period from 1993 to 1996, it could not be observed by any stretch of imagination that the market value of the land has increased. The land for which the awards Ex.P2 and P13 had been passed, cannot be compared with the land under reference and, thus, no grounds to enhance the compensation are made out. On scrutiny of the entire evidence, since the present land along-side the drain was acquired for providing road to the people living in the vicinity, therefore, while taking note of all the factors, it would not be apposite to reduce the market value of the acquired land as assessed by the Reference Court. In view of the above discussion, finding no merit in the appeals, all the six appeals are dismissed. October 08, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE