Civil Writ Petition No.134 of 1989 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.134 of 1989(O & M) Date of Decision: 25.02.2011 Kanwaljit Singh Grewal & ors. ....petitioners Versus The Land Acquisition Tribunal, Patiala & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUAMR GARG Present: Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate Mr.Vishal Garg, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.A.S.Tung, Advocate for the respondents *** JASBIR SINGH, J.(ORAL): This order will dispose of two Civil Writ Petitions bearing No.134 of 1989 and 3517 of 2001 involving same questions of law and facts. For the purpose of dictation, facts are being taken from CWP No.134 of 1989. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to modify an Award dated 12.05.1987 awarding compensation to the petitioners, for their acquired land, @ ` 115/- per sq.yard, and to grant them the compensation as claimed by them. Record reveals that respondent No.2 acquired land of the petitioners measuring 57K-10M, situated in the revenue estate of Taraf Karabara, Ludhiana, for execution of a Development-cum-Housing Accommodation Scheme in Ludhiana. Notification under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Civil Writ Petition No.134 of 1989 2 Improvement Act, 1922(in short “the Act”) issued on 26.03.1975 followed by another notification under Section 42 of the Act on 23.03.1978. The Land Acquisition Collector, Ludhiana passed an Award on 18.06.1979 granting the compensation for Block 'A' @ `45.26/- per sq.yard and for Block 'B' @ `36.26/- per sq.yard. The petitioners were also awarded the solatium @ 15% over and above the amount of compensation assessed. Not satisfied with the compensation awarded, the petitioners moved an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(in short “the Act”). The matter went to the Land Acquisition Tribunal(respondent No.1) and vide an Award dated 12.05.1987, respondent No.1 abolished the belting system and granted the compensation @ ` 115/- per sq.yard, uniformly, for the entire land which was acquired under the Act along with other statutory benefits available to the land owners under Section 23(1)(A) of the Amended 1894 Act. Petitioners being not satisfied with the compensation awarded filed this writ petition. At the time of arguments, it was vehemently contended that after admitting the genuineness of the agreements to sell dated 13.11.1974 and 08.12.1974(Annexure P2 and P-3 respectively), it was not open to respondent No.1 to grant compensation less than the one showed in the second agreement to sell, dated 08.12.1974 i.e.@ ` 150/- per sq.yard. For enhancement of the compensation amount, reliance was also placed upon the grant of compensation @ ` 235/- per sq.yard for the scheme which was carved out by the Improvement Trust in the adjoining village Noor Bhaini. Still further, to claim the enhancement, reliance was placed upon some letter received from a NRI residing in a foreign country proposing to purchase land @ ` 250/- per sq.yard situated on the road and @ ` 200/- for the rest of the land on the backside. By referring to above said documents, prayer has been Civil Writ Petition No.134 of 1989 3 made to enhance the compensation as prayed by the petitioners. The prayer has been opposed by Mr.A.S.Tung, Advocate, learned counsel for respondent No.1, making reference to the contents of the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell relied upon by the petitioners, argued that vide the second agreement, wide discretion was given to the purchaser(society) to sell the land in pieces without any limitation whatsoever, to it or its nominees, whereas as per the first agreement, land was to be purchased by the Society in one go. It is his contention that if land is sold in small pieces, then naturally it will fetch more price whereas when it is sold in bulk as a consolidate tak it is bound to fetch the lesser price. Counsel further states that at a distance of about 500 sq.yards only, another scheme was carved out by respondent No.1 to develop that area as a commercial centre known as 13 acre scheme which is situated on the Ferozepur Road for which compensation was granted @ ` 107/- per sq.yard and the matter has become final up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. To show that, final reference was made to an order passed in CWP No.11492 of 1988 on 16.01.2009. Counsel further argued that reliance cannot be placed upon the alleged letter proposing to purchase land at a higher price because it was not proved on record. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are not going to interfere at the instance of the petitioners. To discard reliance by the petitioners upon second agreement to sell dated 08.12.1974, the Tribunal below observed as under: “Ex.A7 was executed on 13.11.1974 while the date of Ex.A8 is 08.12.1974 i.e.the subsequent agreement was executed just 25 days after the first one. Presumably during this short interval of less than one month, the land could not have registered appreciation in value equal to the difference in the rates of the two agreements. It may Civil Writ Petition No.134 of 1989 4 be mentioned at the cost of repetition the rate at which the land was agreed to be sold through the first agreement was `115/- per sq.yard and in the second agreement the rate was raised to `150/- per sq.yard. This hike in the rate is explainable by the stipulation in the subsequent agreement that the vendees could purchase the land not only through instalments but at any time at their sweet will. In a way, the vendees were given carte blenche to purchase the land at any time in future. This clause as a matter of fact was quite vague and in case any dispute had cropped up between the parties, it must have led to vitiation of the agreements. In any case, the steep rise in the rate from `115/- to `150/- was clearly attributable to the free discretion given to the purchasers to purchase the land in any number of instalments and at any point of time. Against this background, the rate incorporated in Ex.A8 with no stretch of reasoning can be regarded as truly representing the market rate in present Ex.A8 in a way was an agreement for the sale of land in future with the added condition that free hand was given to the vendees to ask for the completion of the sale at any time according to their sweet will. For all these reasons, I discard Ex.A8 for evaluating the acquired land on the date of notification. However, as regards the rate entered in Ex.A7 the same truly and in an authentic manner reflected the true market value of the acquired land on the date it saw the light of the day. The buyers had agreed to purchase whole of the acquired land en-block and as such in case of adoption of this rate as truly representing Civil Writ Petition No.134 of 1989 5 the market price, the same shall have to be applied to whole of the land as a flat rate.” We are satisfied with the reasoning given. We have perused the contents of those agreements. Vide subsequent agreement dated 08.12.1974, the intending purchaser was permitted to purchase the land in piecemeal manner and it was also open to the purchaser to get the sale deed(s) executed either in its own name or in the name of its nominees. Such a condition was not in existence in an agreement to sell dated 08.12.1974. Vide that agreement entire land was to be purchased in one block that too in the name of the Society/intending purchaser. As per common knowledge whenever land is sold in pieces, it is bound to fetch a higher price. In view of the above, no reliance can be placed upon the second agreement dated 08.12.1974 and it was rightly so done by the Tribunal. Further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners be granted compensation equivalent to the one granted for the adjoining scheme situated in village Noor Bhaini, that contention was also rightly discarded by the Tribunal below by observing as under: “We do not have any definite material on the file to ascertain the exact distance between the land covered by Exs.A12 and A13 on one hand and the lands covered by the reference in hand. One thing is clear from the awards of the Tribunal that the land covered by them was having strategical location from commercial point of view. It was because of the suitable location of the land that the same was selected for the construction of a shopping complex. The boundaries given in the awards indicate that on one side of the acquired land was Preet Palace Cinema which Civil Writ Petition No.134 of 1989 6 is quite close to Railway Station and is towards the old city from Model Town. Thus the location of the land covered by these awards clearly spells out the singular potential inhering in that land. The land forming subject matter of the reference in hand no doubt possesses potential value but we have to make distinction that it is being acquired for setting up a residential colony. There is a world of difference in the prices of land which are suitable for development as residential colony on one hand and the lands which are fit for the setting up of a commercial complex or a shopping centre on the other. In this view of the matter, the rates awarded by the Tribunal vide hisawards Exs.A12 and A13 cannot reasonably be made applicable for compensating the claimants in the instant case. Before this Court also, no evidence has been placed on record to show similarity between the two schemes, rather, it was very vaguely stated that the boundary line of both the revenue estates adjoins, each other. Be that as it may, once it is not available on record that both the schemes adjoin each other, it is possible to place reliance upon the compensation awarded in the scheme situated in village Noor Bhaini. As against this, counsel for the respondent has brought to our notice an instance of compensation granted with regard to 13 acre scheme floated by respondent No.1 which is situated on Ferozepur (National Highway) Pakhowal Link Road(whereas the land in dispute in this case is situated on the Pakhowal Link Road). The 13 acre scheme was to develop the area as a commercial centre, whereas, the present acquisition is for the housing purposes. It has also been stressed that distance between both the schemes is about 500 to 700 yards. No evidence was Civil Writ Petition No.134 of 1989 7 led and this argument was not raised before respondent No.1. Otherwise also, the potential value of 13 acre scheme, as per situation of the land is much more as compared to the land of the petitioners. Furthermore, no reliance can be placed upon the letter proposing to acquire the land at a higher price because it was not proved on record as per law. In view of the facts mentioned above, no case is made out for enhancement of the compensation. These writ petitions stand dismissed. (JASBIR SINGH) JUDGE (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 25.02.2011 neenu