IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH RFA No.2913 of 1994 Date of decision: 23.8.2011 Bhoop Singh .....Appellant(s) vs. State of Haryana ....Respondent(s) RFA No.2914 of 1994 Smt. Bharto Devi .....Appellant(s) vs. State of Haryana ....Respondent(s) RFA No.2920 of 1994 Kharaiti Lal .....Appellant(s) vs. State of Haryana ....Respondent(s) RFA No.2921 of 1994 Parmanand Tuli (Deceased) through Legal Representatives .....Appellant(s) vs. State of Haryana ....Respondent(s) RFA No.2938 of 1994 Rattan Singh .....Appellant(s) vs. State of Haryana ....Respondent(s) RFA No.2939 of 1994 Maha Singh .....Appellant(s) vs. State of Haryana ....Respondent(s) RFA No.2940 of 1994 Jai Singh .....Appellant(s) vs. State of Haryana ....Respondent(s) RFA No.208 of 1995 Gopi Ram .....Appellant(s) vs. State of Haryana & anr. ....Respondent(s) RFA No.209 of 1995 Bhim Singh .....Appellant(s) vs. State of Haryana & anr. ....Respondent(s) RFA No.210 of 1995 Hazari Lal .....Appellant(s) vs. State of Haryana & anr. ....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr.Shailendra Jain Advocate, Mr. Som Nath Sain, Advocate, for the appellant(s). Mr.Asish Gupta, Addl.A.G.Haryana, for the State. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) This judgment shall dispose of 10 regular first appeals i.e. RFA Nos.2913, 2914, 2920, 2921, 2938 to 2940 of 1994 and 208 to 210 of 1995 as the same have arisen out one common award dated 3.10.1994 of the Reference Court. Vide notification dated 14.6.1977 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (for short “the Act”), Government of Haryana intended to acquire land measuring 46 acres 3 kanals and 5 marlas situated at Rohtak for a public purpose, namely, for setting up buffalo stud farm at Rohtak. The aforesaid notification was followed by declaration under section 6 of the Act of even date. However, while issuing the aforesaid declaration the Project officer, Rohtak, requested that the land measuring 21 acres, 3 kanals and 5 marlas wold be suffice and the remaining land was surplus and needed to be withdrawn from acquisition. Thus a notification under section 48 of the Act, was published in Haryana Government Gazette dated 26.12.1977, denotifying the surplus land. The Land Acquisition Collector pronounced his award for the land measuring 21 acres 3 marlas kanals and 5 marlas, which was partly nehri, chapi, bhood, baraniu, banjar kadeem and gair mumkin. The Collector determined the market value at ` 10,317/- per acre and further allowed 10% increase. The awarded compensation comes to ` 2.34 paise. There was no building and structure on the land. He also announced the award of the fruit trees etc. The landowners were further held entitled to get 15% of acquisition charges. Dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, landowners/appellants filed reference application under section 18 of the Act claiming market value of the acquired land ranging from ` 15/- to ` 20/- per sq.yard. Enhanced compensation was also claimed in respect of fruit trees and tubewell etc. However, the claim of the landowners was contested by the State submitting that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was just and proper. After considering the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the reference applications were dismissed holding that the market value proved on the record in respect of the acquired land was less than the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. Still not satisfied the claimants are before this Court and are seeking enhancement in the compensation. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently argued that it has been established on record that acquired land has great potentiality for urban and residential growth as the same is adjacent to a Milk Plant which is already in existence. Not only this, counsel for the appellant has further argued that while determining the market value, the learned Reference Court has ignored the material evidence i.e. sale instances Ex.P-5 and P-6 which are dated 16.11.1976 and 4.8.1975 and according to which value of the acquired land comes to ` 24/- per sq.yard and ` 7.20P per sq. yard respectively. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anjali Molu Dessai versus State of Goa and another 2011 (3) RCR (Civil) 696 to submit that in a case where the other evidence is not forthcoming even the sale instances pertaining to small pieces of land can be relied upon to determine the market value of the acquired land after applying a suitable cut. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has further argued that in the present case, the market value should have been determined after applying a cut of not more than 25% on the aforesaid sale instances. It is further argued by Sh. S.N. Sain, Advocate that after determining the market value by applying a cut of 25% on the basis of aforesaid sale instances, the value of the acquired land on the date of notification i.e. 14.6.1977 can be reached by giving a suitable increase on principle of yearly escalation of price, as held in various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In support of his case, counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The General Manager, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Versus Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & anr. 2008(4) RCR (Civil) 487: “Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors – situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps. On the other hand, in urban and semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalation in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5% per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same.” Further reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Udho Dass versus State of Haryana 2010 (94) AIC 58, wherein it has been held as under: “It is common knowledge, that even these payments do not keep pace with the astronomical rise in prices in many parts of India, and most certainly in North India, in the land price and cannot fully compensate for the acquisition of the land and the payment of the compensation in driblets. The 12% per annum increase which Courts have often found to be adequate in compensation matter hardly does justice to those land owners whose land have been acquired as judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the increase is not 10 or 12 or 15% per year but is often upto 100% a year for land which has the potential of being urbanized and commercialized such as in the present case. Be that as it may, we must assume that the landowners were entitled to the compensation fixed by the High Court on the date of the award of the Collector and had this amount been made available to the landowners on that date, it would have been possible for them to rehabilitate their holdings in some other place. This exercise has been defeated for the simple reason that the payment of compensation has been spread over almost two decades. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that a landowner is entitled to say that if the compensation proceedings continued over a period of almost 20 years as in the present case, the potential of the land acquired from him must also be adjudged keeping in view the development in the area spread over the period of 20 years if the evidence so permits and cannot be limited to the near future alone. We, therefore, feel that in the circumstances, the appellants herein were fully entitled to say that the potential of the acquired land had not been fully recognized by the High Court or by the Reference Court. We must add a word of caution here and emphasize that this broad principle would be applicable where the possession of the land has been taken pursuant to proceedings under an acquiring Act and not to those cases where land is already in possession of the Government and is subsequently acquired.” On the other hand, Sh. Ashish Gupta, duly assisted by Sh. Surinder Singh Dalal, Advocate, who is appearing on behalf of the Dairy Development Federation (beneficiary of the acquisition), has vehemently opposed the prayer and has submitted that there is no reliable evidence on the basis of which enhanced compensation can be granted to the appellant and in any case a cut of 50% should be applied on the market value of sale instance Ex.P-6. According to him, the market value has been rightly determined and the same has been further upheld by the Reference Court and thus, prayed for dismissal of the appeals. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award and the evidence on record. It is not in dispute that the acquired land is adjoining the already existing milk plant. In fact, the land has been acquired for buffalo stud farm and for the benefit of Dairy Development Federation and the said purpose is ancillary to the already existing milk plant. From the evidence on record, it has also been proved that village Abadi was extending towards the acquired land. However, from the perusal of site plan Ex.P-1, it is clearly proved that the sale instance Ex.P-5 is not relevant for the purpose of determining the market value of the acquired land as it is at a far away place than the acquired land and has no comparability at all. However, it could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent that the land measuring 416.2/3 sq. yards sold vide sale deed dated 4.8.1975 (Ex.P-6) for a sum of ` 3,000/- comprised in Khasra No.7705 is just opposite the acquired land. Thus, the said sale instance is the best piece of evidence to rely upon, for determining the market value of the land in question. It is also well settled that in a case of acquisition of large tract of land, the determination of the price can be made on the basis of sale instances pertaining to the small pieces of land in the absence of any other evidence and such sale instances pertaining to the small pieces of land which are otherwise comparable can be relied upon after making a suitable cut. It could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent that the said sale instance (Ex.P6) is comparable and the same is in the vicinity of the acquired land. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that after making a cut of 33% on the price pertaining to the sale instance Ex.P-6, the market value of the land can be fixed at ` 4.80P per sq.yards on the date of execution of said sale deed and thereafter, keeping in view the principle as applied in the judgments of Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Udho Dass (supra), 12% increase per annum can be given to the appellant from the date of sale deed i.e. 4.8.1975 upto 14.6.1977 i.e. almost 22%. Thus, after calculating the aforesaid increase, the price of the acquired land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act comes to ` 5.86P, which is rounded off to ` 6/-. Thus, the market value of the acquired land is fixed at ` 6/- per sq. yard. The appellants shall be entitled to the compensation at the aforesaid rate. The appellants shall also be entitled to the benefits of solatium and interest as provided under Section 23(2) and 28 of the Act Allowed in the aforesaid terms. August 23, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH RFA No.2914 of 1994 Date of decision: 23.8.2011 Smt. Bharto Devi .....Appellant(s) vs. State of Haryana ....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: None for the appellant(s). Mr.Ashish Gupta, Addl.A.G.Haryana, for the State. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) For orders, see RFA No.2913 of 1994. August 23, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH RFA No.2920 of 1994 Date of decision: 23.8.2011 Khairati Lal .....Appellant(s) vs. State of Haryana ....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: None for the appellant(s). Mr.Ashish Gupta, Addl.A.G.Haryana, for the State. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) For orders, see RFA No.2913 of 1994. August 23, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH RFA No.2921 of 1994 Date of decision: 23.8.2011 Parmanand Tuli (Deceased) through Legal Representatives .....Appellant(s) vs. State of Haryana ....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: None for the appellant(s). Mr.Ashish Gupta, Addl.A.G.Haryana, for the State. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) For orders, see RFA No.2913 of 1994. August 23, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH RFA No.2938 of 1994 Date of decision: 23.8.2011 Rattan Singh .....Appellant(s) vs. State of Haryana ....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: None for the appellant(s). Mr. Ashish Gupta, Addl.A.G.Haryana, for the State. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) For orders, see RFA No.2913 of 1994. August 23, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH RFA No.2939 of 1994 Date of decision: 23.8.2011 Maha Singh .....Appellant(s) vs. State of Haryana ....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: None for the appellant(s). Mr.Ashish Gupta, Addl.A.G.Haryana, for the State. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) For orders, see RFA No.2913 of 1994. August 23, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH RFA No.2940 of 1994 Date of decision: 23.8.2011 Jai Singh .....Appellant(s) vs. State of Haryana ....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: None for the appellant(s). Mr.Ashish Gupta, Addl.A.G.Haryana, for the State. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) For orders, see RFA No.2913 of 1994. August 23, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH RFA No.208 of 1995 Date of decision: 23.8.2011 Gopi Ram .....Appellant(s) vs. State of Haryana and anr. ....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr. Som Nath Saini, Advocate for the appellant(s). Mr.Ashish Gupta, Addl.A.G.Haryana, for the State. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) For orders, see RFA No.2913 of 1994. August 23, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH RFA No.209 of 1995(O&M) Date of decision: 23.8.2011 Bhim Singh .....Appellant(s) vs. State of Haryana and anr. ....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr. Som Nath Saini, Advocate for the appellant(s). Mr.Ashish Gupta, Addl.A.G.Haryana, for the State. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) For orders, see RFA No.2913 of 1994. August 23, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH RFA No.210 of 1995 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.8.2011 Hazari Lal .....Appellant(s) vs. State of Haryana and anr. ....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr. Som Nath Saini, Advocate for the appellant(s). Mr.Ashish Gupta, Addl.A.G.Haryana, for the State. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) For orders, see RFA No.2913 of 1994. August 23, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE