RFA No.50 of 1989 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.50 of 1989 Date of decision:24.3.2008 Ishwar Devi (now represented through LRs) ......Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another ......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Ashok Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sanjiv Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. 1. The present regular first appeal has arisen from the order of the Court of Sh. I.P. Vasishth, District Judge dated 21.9.1988 accepting the reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act whereby the claimants are held entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.55,000/- per killa along with statutory benefits instead of Rs.40,000/- per killa as assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector. 2. Not satisfied with the said judgement of the District Judge, Ambala the claimant/land owner has filed the present appeal for further enhancement of the compensation of the acquired land. 3. Vide notification dated 18.12.1984 published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) an area measuring 14 Kanals 13 marlas of land belonging to the appellants situated in revenue estate of Village Saha Tehsil & District, Ambala was sought to be acquired by the State of Haryana for public purpose i.e. RFA No.50 of 1989 2 construction of warehouse by the Haryana Warehousing Corporation. After proper enquiry, an award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector on 21.3.1985 and compensation at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per acre (killa) was awarded to the claimants-appellants. In addition to this, an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards compensation for the standing mango trees along with compulsory acquisition and other dues as permissible under the Act were also awarded to the claimants. However, dissatisfied with the award dated 21.3.1985 passed by the Collector , the land owners filed application claiming reference under Section 18 of the Act. According to the appellants, the acquired land had great potential of being converted into and used for commercial and residential purposes because of its favourable location at a place quite close to the State Highway. It was averred that there was all round development in the near vicinity of the acquired land and that keeping in view the market trend it could easily fetch any price upto Rs.40,000/- per marla and as such, the amount awarded was wholly inadequate. 4. The claim of the land owners was contested by the State. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: “1. What was the market price of the acquired land at the time of Notification under Section 4 of the land Acquisition Act ? 2. Relief.” 5. In support of their claim before the District Judge, Ambala , the claimants produced Thakur Singh, PW-1, Roshan Lal, PW-2, Amir Chand, PW-3, Surjit Singh, PW-4, PW-5 Om Parkash and also adduced in the evidence three sale deeds dated 7.5.1984 (Ex.P-1), dated 14.3.1983 (Ex.P2) and 16.8.1984 (Ex.P3) for proving the potentiality and market value RFA No.50 of 1989 3 of the land. The respondent-State produced Patwari Surinder Kumar RW- 1, Office of the Directorate of Agriculture, Panchkula, to support the case of the State and also proved sale instances Ex.R2 to R-17 relied upon by the State. The respondents also produced on record Ex.R-18 which shows the average sale price of land based on a number of mutations effected at different stages of time. 6. After appreciating the evidence on record, the District Judge came to the conclusion that all the sale transactions pressed into service by the respondents-State are absolutely unworthy of reliance because these transactions relate to different tracts located at a very long distance from the acquired land and actually some of them pertain to the land situated in the remote/interior areas. The District Judge also discarded Ex.P-1 to P-3 produced by the claimants on the ground that the witnesses proving these sale instances have admitted that they have paid a little higher amount for purchase of the land because of its close proximity to their land. The District Judge also observed that the sale instance Ex.P-2 dated 14.3.1983 pertaining to an area of 17 marla sold out for a consideration of Rs.20,000/- gives an insight into the growing development and commercial activities in the close proximity of the acquired land much prior to the relevant Notification dated 18.12.1984. The District Judge also came to the conclusion that from the statements of village Sarpanch Om Parkash PW-5 and Surjit Lal PW-4 attorney of the claimant it can safely be inferred that the acquired land had a considerably great potential value because of its favourable location abutting the main link road leading to the village “Abadi” and easy access to the State Highway at a distance of only one killa. The District Judge fixed the price of the land at Rs.55,000/- per killa instead of Rs.40,000/- per killa as awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. The claimants were also held entitled to the RFA No.50 of 1989 4 statutory benefits as envisaged under Sections 23(1-A), 23(b) and 28 of the Act. 7. Mr. Ashok Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the District Judge fell in error in not relying upon the sale instances Ex.P-1 to P-3 which are the most relevant sale instances as per law and according to which the average sale price of the land in question of the acquired land comes to Rs.2,25,000/- per acre. Mr. Ashok Gupta has further argued that the Reference Court has observed that sale instance Ex.P-2 gives an insight into the growing development and commercial activities in the close proximity of the acquired land and therefore, the said sale deed is a true indicator of the market value of the land in question and the same cannot be discarded simply on the ground that the vendee has stated that he paid the higher amount because he wanted to support his business of Dhaba on that land. It has been further argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the average market value of the land on the basis of this sale instance (i.e. Ex. P-2) comes to Rs.1,88,000/- per acre. Counsel for the appellant has further argued that the total land acquired is 14 kanals 13 marlas and the sale instances produced by the appellants are of about 1 kanal or more than that and therefore, these sale instances are the true indicator of the market value of the acquired land and the appellants are entitled to a higher compensation 8. Mr. H.S. Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Sanjiv Kaushik, Advocate appearing for the respondents has urged that the compensation determined by the District Judge was already excessive and no enhancement was called for and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. RFA No.50 of 1989 5 10. There is no dispute regarding location of the acquired land which is only one killa away from the State Highway and abuts on the pucca road leading to the Abadi and is in the vicinity of Saha Chowk. It is clearly established on the record from the statements of PW-4 and PW-5 that business and commercial activities are going on in the area for quite some time and the acquired land has a considerably good potential value because of its favourable location abutting the main link road leading to the village Abadi and easy access to the State Highway which is at a distance of only one killa. In fact, the potential value of the land in question has not been disputed by the respondent-State. 11. The term “market value” has not been defined in the Act. However, on the basis of many decisions of this Court and the Apex Court, the meaning of the term “market value” is the price which willing vendor might be expected to obtain in the market from the willing purchaser. In Raghubans Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1967 SC 465, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the market value on the basis of which compensation is payable under Section 23 of the Act means the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for a property having due regard to its existing condition, with all its existing advantages, and its potential possibilities when laid out in its most advantageous manner, excluding any advantages due to the carrying out of the scheme for the purposes for which the property is compulsorily acquired. In the present case, the vendees have clearly stated that they have paid the amount for purchase of the land under sale instances Exs.P-1 to P-3 because of its close proximity to their land. From these statements, it is clear that the said purchasers were willing to purchase the land for the price which they have paid because of their willingness to pay the said price. It is the price of a commodity/good as paid only by a willing purchaser who has some RFA No.50 of 1989 6 utility of that good/commodity for him. However, there is no other evidence on record to say that the said vendees were not genuine buyers. In the case of Suresh Kumar v. Town Improvement trust Bhopal, (1989 LACC 263 SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court relying upon AIR 1939 Privy Council 98 held that the compensation must be determined by reference to the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to receive from the willing purchaser. While considering the market value disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy it must alike be disregarded. Neither must be considered as acting under any compulsion. The value of the land is not to be estimated as its value to the purchaser. But similarly this does not mean that the fact that some particular purchaser might desire the land more than others is to be disregarded. The wish of a particular purchaser, though not his compulsion may always be taken into consideration for what it is worth. 12. In the case in hand a perusal of the sale instances Exs.P-1 to Ex. P-3 relied upon by the claimants shows that the average sale price of these sale instances comes to Rs.2,25,000/- per acre. Further, these sale instances also show that there was a rising trend in the prices of the land in the vicinity of the acquired land. In my view, the District Judge has erred in law while ignoring these sale instances. These sale instances are relevant as per law and are true indicator of the market value of the acquired land. In fact, the District Judge has given a finding that the sale instance Ex.P-2 gives an insight of the development activities in the vicinity of the acquired land, therefore, the sale instances produced by the appellant are true indicator of the fact that there is a rising trend in the prices of land in the vicinity of the acquired land and secondly that these sale instances give a somewhat true picture of the market value of the land. It is well settled that there is no fool proof formula on the basis of which the market value can RFA No.50 of 1989 7 be assessed and the Court has to rely upon some guess work, keeping in view the totality of the circumstances especially rising trend of the prices in the vicinity of the acquired land and that little higher price has been paid by the vendees of sale instances Exs.P-1 to P-3. The market value of the land in question is determined at Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. Learned Advocate General has failed to point out any material on record of the case on the basis of which it can be held that the appellants are not entitled to higher compensation. 13. In these circumstances, the claimants-appellants deserve a better deal and higher compensation for the acquired land. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, the appellants are entitled to the market value at Rs.1,50,000/- per acre along with statutory benefits. Thus, the compensation is accordingly enhanced from Rs.55,000/- per acre to Rs.1,50,000/- per acre along with statutory benefits. Thus, the appeal is allowed with proportionate costs. 24.3.2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE