R.F.A. No. 1690 of 1996 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 1690 of 1996 (O&M) Date of decision: September 20,2010 Dilbagh Rai (deceased) through LRs and others .. Appellant v. State of Punjab and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. M. S. Khaira, Senior Advocate with Mr. D. S. Randhawa, Mr. Rakesh Chopra, Mr. R. K. Gupta and Mr. P. K. Gupta, Advocates for the land owners. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ... Rajesh Bindal J. 1. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 1690, 1949 to 1953, 1973, 2003 to 2005 and 2101 of 1996, as common questions of law and facts are involved. 2. The land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned court below for the acquired land. 3. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 1690 of 1996. 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 14.3.1989, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), land measuring 32 acres, 5 kanals and 18 marlas, situated in village Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib was acquired by the State of Punjab for construction of New Mandi Township at Bassi Pathana. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), vide award dated 23.12.1991, assessed the market value of small portion of the acquired land falling on road @ ` 6,72,000/- per acre and for remaining land @ ` 2,00,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the R.F.A. No. 1690 of 1996 [2] award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below upheld the award of the Collector qua the land falling on the road and assessed the market value of the remaining land @ ` 3,00,000/- per acre. 5. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the value of the land, as assessed by the learned court below is not just and fair considering the location thereof. Substantial part of the land was falling within the municipal limits of Bassi Pathana, which is an old historical town. There were lot of commercial activities in the vicinity. It was surrounded by roads. In fact, the beginning of the acquisition boundary is from tri-section of the road, on which one side is Morinda, other side is Sirhind and on third side the road leads to Kharar. Railway Station was located at less than half kilometer from the acquired land. Bus stand was located just close to the acquired land. On the one side, city of Bassi Pathana was abutting the acquired boundary, where lot of commercial establishments, houses and even industries were there. Even the Collector also was aware of this fact and it is only for this reason that he had awarded compensation @ ` 6,72,000/- per acre for the land abutting the road, but only for a small portion on which shops had been constructed. The value and potential of the land on which shops could be constructed had been assessed merely @ ` 2,00,000/- per acre without there being any justification for the same. For any super structure on the acquired land, the land owners had to be granted further compensation. The learned court below merely enhanced the compensation from ` 2,00,000/- per acre to ` 3,00,000/- per acre for the land other than for which it was assessed @ ` 6,72,000/- per acre. Considering its strategic location and future potential, appropriate compensation has not been assessed. 6. Sale deeds (Ex. P6 to Ex. P9) produced on record by the land owners had not been considered at all. The same clearly depicted that the land was being sold in the area in the form of small plots and not in acres. The average value of the consideration paid in the aforesaid four sale deeds was ` 9,20,000/- per acre. If increase for a period of three years for the time gap is granted, the same would come out to ` 12,92,500/- per acre. On the same a cut of merely 10% could be applied for the reason that the land had been acquired for the establishment of Grain Market, which was a commercial purpose and the same would have generated income. Reliance for the purpose was placed upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Gurbax Singh (Dead) by LRS and another, (2008) 11 SCC 65. R.F.A. No. 1690 of 1996 [3] 7. Relying upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3677 of 2010 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 9751 of 2008) –Udho Dass v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 21.4.2010, it was submitted that future potential of the land has to be considered, which is not normally shown in the sale deeds produced on record. Considering the fact that the entire land was within the municipal limits and also the area in the vicinity had been developed, belting method was not required to be applied and the entire chunk of land, which was not quite big, should have been assessed at the same rate, as even the land in the interior had approach through internal roads already existing. 8. In RFA No. 1690 of 1996, in addition to the aforesaid arguments regarding valuation of the land, the contention raised by learned counsel for the land owners is that there was a double storeyed house existing on the acquired land on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The land owners had produced on record its site plan and valuation report (Ex. A32 and Ex. A33 respectively). Statements of the appellant as well as the valuer were also recorded. There is nothing in their statements even in their cross-examination which could put a dent in the claim made by the land owners. 9. However, it was admitted by the learned counsel that for the trees and tubewell existing on the acquired land, the compensation was assessed by the Collector but no enhancement was granted by the learned court below. There were number of fruit bearing trees existing on the acquired land. The valuation thereof is invariably done as per Dr. Nijjar's formula, which is as per the price index in the year 1985. The acquisition in the present case being in the year 1989, the land owners are entitled to increase in terms of the price index. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that there was nothing wrong in the award of the Collector. Higher amount of compensation was assessed genuinely only for the portion of the land, which was being put to commercial use for the reason that shops were existing thereon. It is only small portion of the land which abuts the road, otherwise the remaining land is behind that. The value of the entire land cannot be assessed at the same rate as the land, which is not abutting the main road, does not fetch the same price. The land pertaining to the sale deeds produced on record has not been pointed out on any of the site plan produced on record. These were otherwise also three years prior to the date of acquisition. All the sale deeds were pertaining to small plots measuring between 3 marlas to 10 marlas, which may be some where in the abadi or meant for commercial use located on road. The same cannot possibly be considered as comparable pieces of land for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the R.F.A. No. 1690 of 1996 [4] acquired land. The land beyond the road was admittedly being used for agriculture purposes and even the part of the acquired land as well. Placing reliance upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Haridwar Development Authority, Haridwar v. Raghubir Singh etc., 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 301, the submission was that belting system, as has been done by the Collector and also accepted by the learned court below, does not call for any interference and so the amount of compensation as assessed. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. Claim regarding land 12. As far as location of the land is concerned, the same is well evident from the site plan produced on record by the land owners as Ex. P1. A part of it is located on Mordina-Sirhind road, which is joined by road leading from Kharar to Bassi Pathana. Railway Station is at a distance of about 500 meters from the acquired boundary. On one side of the acquired land, as shown in another site plan (Ex. A3), is jail and old abadi of city. Certain commercial establishments, cold storage, rice sheller have been shown quite close to the acquired land and some commercial establishments have been depicted on the road leading from the main road from Morinda to Sirhind. Small portion of a strip of land has been acquired from the road leading towards Sanghol, Khamano from Sirhind-Morinda road. The acquired land does not abut that link road in its entirety but only a passage has been taken to approach the acquired land from that side. Substantial part of the land is shown to be falling within the municipal limits, though a part thereof is beyond the municipal limits, even though it is a compact block of land. 13. Coming to the assessment of fair value of the acquired land, though learned counsel for the land owners submitted that sale deeds (Ex. P6 to Ex. P9) be considered as such after averaging the sale consideration paid therein and awarding increase @ 12% per annum thereon cumulatively. After applying a cut of 10%, the value of the acquired land would come out to ` 11,63,300/- per acre. In my opinion, the aforesaid sale deeds cannot be relied upon for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land for the reason that location thereof has not been pointed out on any of the site plan produced on record. These are pertaining to small plots measuring between 3 marlas to 10 marlas, as is evident from a perusal of the sale deeds. However, still the fact remains that even the Collector had awarded compensation @ ` 6,72,000/- per acre for small portion of land out of large portion of land abutting the main road leading from Sirhind to Morinda. This court does not find any justification thereof. The entire land, which R.F.A. No. 1690 of 1996 [5] is abutting the main road should have been assessed at the same rate. Merely because there was some construction on some portion of the land, the same cannot be differentiated as such. The land had the potential for being used for commercial and industrial purposes. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the entire land located on Sirhind -Morinda road upto the depth of one acre therefrom be assessed @ ` 6,72,000/- per acre. The same would be the position of the small strip of land located on link road leading to Sanghol, Khamano from Sirhind- Morinda road. For this portion as well upto a depth of one acre from the road, the value shall be ` 6,72,000/- per acre. 14. As far as rest of the land is concerned, in my opinion, the same cannot be assessed at the rate at which the value of the land abutting the main road has been assessed. Infrastructural facilities, which are available on the road, are to be provided by any person who will buys or sells the land located behind the land which is abutting the main road. Still considering the fact that the land is located quite close to the city where the area on the main road had already been developed, even the land in the rear also deserves to be awarded higher compensation as compared to what has been assessed by the learned court below. A sum of 4,50,000/- per acre would be the reasonable amount of compensation for rest of the land situated beyond one acre of land for which higher compensation has been assessed. 15. The land owners shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available to them under the Act on the enhanced compensation. Claim regarding super structure 16. As far as claim regarding super structure and tubewells existing on the acquired land is concerned, though the land owners had made exhorbitant claims as against the assessment of compensation therefor made by the Collector, however, this court in similar cases had been granting 25% increase on the value, as assessed by the Collector, by applying a thumb rule. The same is followed in the present case and it is directed that whatever had been assessed by the Collector for the super structure/tubewells existing on the acquired land, the land owners shall be entitled to increase of 25% thereon along with all the statutory benefits available under the Act. Claim regarding house 17. As far as contention of learned counsel for the appellants in R.F.A. No. 1690 of 1996 is concerned, in my opinion, on the basis of evidence produced by the land owners on record, this court is not in a position to opine that the appellants herein are entitled to any compensation for the house allegedly existing R.F.A. No. 1690 of 1996 [6] on the acquired land on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. It is merely the oral evidence of the claimants and the expert produced by them. Though it is claimed that the land is situated within the municipal limits and the house had been constructed prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, but still no material has been produced on record to show that any building plan was got sanctioned from the Municipal Committee or there was any water or electricity connection in the premises. In the absence thereof, it will not be possible to record a finding that there existed construction on the acquired land for which the land owners are entitled to compensation. Accordingly, the claim qua that is rejected. Claim regarding fruit bearing trees 18. As far as claim regarding compensation for fruit bearing trees is concerned, the Collector has awarded the same as per the calculation made by the Horticulture Department. It has been experienced by this court in number of cases that assessment is ordinarily made as per Dr. Nijjar's formula as per price index in the year 1985. This Court had been granting enhancement thereon in terms of the increase in the price index from 1985 till the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The price index in the year 1985 was 124, which increased to 162.5 in the year 1989. There being increase of 31%, the land owners are held entitled to increase of compensation to the extent of 31% on the value of fruit bearing trees, as assessed by the Collector. The land owners shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available to them under the Act. 19. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6515 of 2009 – Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation v. Pran Sukh and others, decided on 17.8.2010, to ensure that the landowners are not fleeced by the middleman in the process of disbursement of enhanced compensation, issued certain directions. I deem it appropriate to issue the same directions in the present set of appeals as well. The same are as under: “With a view to ensure that the land owners are not fleeced by the middleman, we deem it appropriate to issue following further directions: (i) The Land Acquisition Collector shall depute officers subordinate to him not below the rank of Naib Tehsildar, who shall get in touch with all the land owners and/or their legal representatives and inform them about their entitlement and right to receive enhanced compensation. (ii) The concerned officers shall also instruct the land owners R.F.A. No. 1690 of 1996 [7] and/or their legal representatives to open savings bank account in case they already do not have such account. (iii) The bank account numbers of the land owners should be given to the Land Acquisition Collector within three months. (iv) The Land Acquisition Collector shall deposit the cheques of compensation in the bank accounts of the land owners.” 20. In R.F.A.No. 1690 of 1996, application has been filed by legal representatives of Pardeep Kumar bearing C. M. Nos. 9053-54-CI of 2010 stating therein that Pardeep Kumar was also one of the legal representatives of Manmohan Lal Thapar. He expired on 15.1.2005 during the pendency of appeal before this court. It was submitted that the earlier application was filed by his brother, namely, Ashwani Kumar stating therein that deceased-Manmohan Lal Thapar left behind Saraswati Devi (widow), Vijay Lakshmi and Kiran Bala (daughters) and Ashwani Kumar (son). The name of Pardeep Kumar was deliberately not mentioned. Even the other legal representatives, as mentioned in the application, filed their affidavits in support of the application filed by Ashwani Kumar. The prayer in the application is to implead legal representatives of Pardeep Kumar son of Mohan Lal Thapar also as legal representative of deceased- Manmohan Lal Thapar. 20. Notice of the application was issued to the appellants in the appeal. Mr. P. K. Gupta, Advocate, who had filed the appeal as well as the application for impleading the legal representatives of deceased-Manmohan Lal Thapar, submitted that prayer for impleading the legal representatives had been made on the basis of Will executed by the deceased- Mohan Lal Thapar in favour of Ashwani Kumar and there was nothing as such wrong in it. However, he was unable to explain as to why the name of Pardeep Kumar was not mentioned as one of the legal representatives before claiming the right on the basis of Will. 21. Prima facie, it shows that a wrong affidavit was filed in support of the application for impleading the legal representatives. While accepting the prayer made by legal representatives of Pardeep Kumar for being impleaded as one of the legal representatives of deceased-Manmohan Lal Thapar, let notice be issued to Saraswati Devi, Vijay Lakshmi, Kiran Bala and Ashwani Kumar for showing cause as to why they be not prosecuted for filing wrong affidavit before this court. 22. Mr. P. K. Gupta, Advocate, who appeared for them in the appeal accepts notice. Let that matter be now listed for further proceedings on R.F.A. No. 1690 of 1996 [8] 15.11.2010. 24. The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge September 20,2010 mk (Refer to Reporter)