RFA No. 3458 of 2008 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 3458 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 29.9.2010 Jangir Kaur and others ... Appellants vs State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate, for the landowners. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Raman B. Garg, Advocate, for HSAMB. Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate, for respondent no. 2 in RFA Nos. 40 to 485, 1789 of 2009. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 3458 to 3470 of 2008, 480 to 483, 582, 1789, 2065 to 2069, 2113 to 2126 of 2009, as the same arise out of common acquisition. The land owners are before this Court seeking enhancement in compensation for the acquired land whereas by filing appeals the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (for short, “the Board”) is seeking reduction thereof. Briefly, the facts of the case are that land measuring 40 acres 5 kanals 10 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Kallanwali, District Sirsa, was acquired by the State of Haryana vide notification dated 10.9.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for construction of Additional New Grain Market. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 1,25,000/- per acre for nehri, ` 1,00,000/- per acre for chahi, and ` 75,000/-per acre for barani land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the claimants filed objections, which were referred to learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 27.2.2008 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 5,00,000/- per acre for the land falling on Kalanwali to Dabwali and Kalanwali to Odhan Road upto the depth of 200 feet and ` 4,00,000/- per acre for the remaining land. It is this award which is impugned in the present set of appeals. RFA No. 3458 of 2008 (2) Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the acquired land is strategically located which the landowners have proved by producing on record site plan, Ex. P-1. The acquired land is situated within the municipal limits of Kalanwali town. It was surrounded by residential colonies. There are many educational, industrial and commercial institutions, namely, Bal Bhawan, Jagdambey Cotton and Ginning Mills, Bishan Mal High School, Karan Gas Agency, Hero Honda Show Room, Bharat Petrol Pump, SR Cooton Factory, Sri Trading Company, Murlidhar Kanda Dharamshala Shops, which shows that the acquired land had great future potential for its use as residential, commercial and institutional purposes. The land is situated in the fast developing area of the town and all infrastructural facilities were available there. The valuation of the land as assessed by the court below is not as per law. Learned counsel for the landowners further submitted that the learned court below has not considered the evidence produced on record by the landowners. Ex. P-2 to Ex. P-4 vide which the minimum rates fixed by the Collector in the area for the years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05, have been totally ignored. It clearly established the rising trend in the prices in the area. The sale-deeds, Ex. P-7, Ex. P-8 and Ex. P-9 registered out of the acquired land though about 10 years back clearly show that the value even at that time was quite high. Considering the strategical location of the land, the same was in fact required to be assessed at least @ ` 150/- per square yard and not as assessed by the learned court below. The learned court below has further committed an error in carving out two belts upto the depth of 200 feet on two roads on which the land in question is located. In fact, there was another small road going through the land in the middle on which a lot of people had purchased small plots. As chunk of land was divided by that road and even the internal portion also had the approach. Further considering the fact that it was quite close to the already developed area of Kalanwali, there was no reason for its dividing into two belts. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Board submitted that the site plan, Ex. P-1, should not be relied upon as the same has been prepared by a draftsman who had not consulted the revenue record. In the site plan produced on record there is nothing to show the location of the land viz-a-viz any of the sale- deeds and in the absence of such an evidence, it would become a case of no evidence. Circulars issued by the Collector for fixing minimum rates for registration of sale-deed is not a relevant piece of evidence but still the value shown therein at the entries sought to be relied upon by the learned court below for the assessment of fair market value of the land of landowners is not relevant as it RFA No. 3458 of 2008 (3) would be entry at serial no. 39. The value of the land is required to be assessed considering the fact that for what purpose it was being used and not for what purpose it was acquired. The sale-deeds, Ex. R-1 and Ex. R-2, produced on record by the State clearly established that the award of the Collector was just and fair. On a query by the court as to whether the land in sale-deeds, Ex. R-1 and Ex. R-2, is located on any of the site plan, the answer was in the negative. In view of the aforesaid evidence, the contention of the learned counsel for the Board was that the award of the learned court below to be set aside and that of the Collector be restored. In response to the contention of the learned counsel for the Board, learned counsel for the landowners submitted that site plan, Ex. P-1, produced on record by the landowners has not been prepared by a draftsman but by a qualified architect. The site plan is to the scale. Nothing could be taken out in his cross- examination by the State which could make his evidence unrebutted. The entries sought to be referred to by the counsel for the Board in the letter fixing minimum rates by the Collector is relevant for the purpose of valuation of land which located in the village and not in the municipal area. The land pertaining to sale-deeds, Ex. R-1 and Ex. R-2, firstly not being in the municipal area and secondly not having pointed out on any of the site plans cannot possibly be relied upon. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. As far as the location of the land is concerned, the same is very well evident from the site plan, Ex. P-1, produced on record by the landowners. I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the Board that the same should be relied upon. The site plan has been prepared by an architect which is as per scale. Nothing in his oral evidence has been pointed out which could put dent in his testimony. A perusal of the site plan shows the strategic location of the land. It is also evident from the site plan that besides there being two roads on two sides, on third side there is a katcha road abutting the acquired land and in the middle also a passage has been shown which clearly established the land is abutting roads on three sides. Even the middle of the land also had approach and it was not that the approach was from two sides only. It was located quite close to the already developed area and crossing of four roads near the city. Even Bal Bhawan has been shown quite close opposite the acquired land. Even beyond the acquired land, a lot of industrial establishments and schools has been shown. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the assessment of the value of the acquired land @ ` 5,00,000/- per acre by the court below cannot be RFA No. 3458 of 2008 (4) faulted with. However, the method of belting system adopted by the learned court below in the facts and circumstances of the case deserves to be set aside and the entire land is required to be assessed at a uniform rate of ` 5,00,000/- per acre. The landowners shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available under the Act. The award of the learned court below is modified to the extent mentioned above. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a recent judgment in Civil Appeal No. 6515 of 2009 Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation vs 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 proper 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 and/or their legal representatives to open saving 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.” The appeals are disposed of accordingly. 29.9.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge