RFA2515 of 1998 1 In the Punjab and Haryana High Court,at Chandigarh. RFA No. 2515 of 1998 Decided on December23,2008. State of Haryana and another --- Appellants vs. Badan Singh -- Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.H.S.Hooda,Advocate General,Haryana,with Mr.Rajiv Kawatra, Sr.D.A.G.Haryana,for the appellants in the appeals filed by the State and for the respondents in the appeals filed by the landowners/claimants. Mr.S.N.Chopra ,Advocate,for appellants in RFA Nos. 1303 to 1314 of 1998 Mr.P.S.Saini,Advocate for the appellants in RFA Nos.1521 to 1525,1561and 997of 1998.. Mr.Anil Kshetarpal,Advocate,for appellants in RFA Nos. 1268 to 1279,993,994,1244 and 1568 of 1998 None for other respondents/claimants. Rakesh Kumar Jain,J: This judgment shall dispose of 62 Regular First Appeals bearing Nos. 2515 of 1998, 3051of 1999 with X-Obj No 28-CI of 2000, 1525,1303 to 1314, 1521 to 1524, 1551 to 1576,1898,2512 to 2514, 2516 to 2521, 3936,993,994, 1270,1269,1244 and 1268 all of 1998, filed by the State of Haryana as well as by the claimants as common question of law and facts are involved therein. However, the facts are taken from RFA No.2515 of 1998. RFA2515 of 1998 2 Land measuring 56.08 acres was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act') dated 24.3.1992, for the public purpose, namely, for the development and utilization of land as commercial area for Sector 2 (Part-II), Kurukshetra. Follow up notification of declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act was published on 23.3.1993. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short,'the Collector') found 55.97 acres of land on the spot at the time of actual measurement and classified it in to three categories as per its nature and kind . The acquired land is thus reproduced in a tabulated form as under:- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sr. Name of Villages Chahi Gair Mumkin Banjar Kadim No. K- M K- M K- M 1. Pipli 359.06 9- 14 21- 08 2. Bir Pipli 22.01 1- 06 -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total: 381.07 11. 00 21. 08 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ After hearing the interested persons/landowners, the Collector treated Gair-Mumkin or Banjar Kadim land at par with the Chahi land. In their objections filed under Section 9 of the Act, the claimants demanded compensation between Rs.1000/- to Rs.6000/- per square yard on the ground that the acquired land was surrounded by National Highway on both the sides coupled with developed sectors of the Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short, HUDA). The Collector vide his award No.9 dated 22.3.1995 determined the compensation of the acquired land @ Rs.4,98,172.80. per acre being the rate of Chahi land. Separate compensation was awarded in respect of super structures/tubewell which were found existing over the acquired land, on the basis of the rates supplied by the Executive Engineer, HUDA Division, Karnal. Similarly, RFA2515 of 1998 3 compensation was also granted in respect of trees in terms of the assessment made by Sub Divisional Engineer Horticulture, Sub Division, HUDA, Karnal. Besides, the land owners were allowed to reap the crop and were granted other statutory benefits in terms of the provisions of amended Act. The compensation awarded by the Collector could not satisfy the landowners which led to the filing of objections under Section 18 of the Act, in which it was, inter-alia, alleged that market value of the acquired land was within the range of Rs.2000/- to Rs.6000/- per square yard. It was further alleged that inspite of the location of the acquired land which is situated on the G.T.Road surrounded by Youth Hostel, PWD Rest House, Parakeet Restaurant, Jawahar Ganj Market, Pipli bus stand, Food Grain Market, Godowns of F.C.I, New Grain Market, Petrol Pump, proposed site of Power House, Cold Storage, Rice-Shellers, Radio- Station, Railway Station, Telephone Exchange, S.P.Office, D.C.Office, S.D.M. Office, Mini Secretariat, Panchayat Bhavan, D.R.O. Office, D.P.R.O. Office, Treasury Office, the potentiality has not been duly assessed. It was also alleged that the acquired land has been included within the Municipal Limit of Kurukshetra vide Notification No. 25/11/82- 2C dated 1.10.1984 and has been declared a controlled area vide notification No. 530-VDP-69/483 dated 22.1.1969 and notification No. LAC (P)- NTLA, 73/2249 dated 29.6.1973. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were struck by the trial Court in reference petition No.91 of 1996 (Randhir Singh v. The State of Haryana):- RFA2515 of 1998 4 1. What was the market value of the acquired land at the time of Notification under Section 4 of the Act? OPP 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation in view of Section 48 of the Act ? OPP 3.Whether the compensation has not been given as per land acquired ? OPP 4.Relief: In reference petition Nos. 119 of 1996 to 204 of 1996 and 225 of 1996 to 228 of 1996, following issues were framed on 24.9.1996:- 1. What was the market value of the acquired land at the time of its acquisition ? OPP 2. Whether any tree or other structures were there on the acquired land and if so, whether the compensation awarded for the same was inadequate and is liable to be enhanced ? OPP 3. Relief: An additional issue was also framed on 2.12.1997 in Reference petition No.333 of 1997 titled as Anand Sarup Goyal etc. v. State of Haryana,which is as under:- Additional Issue No.1(a) “Whether the petition is time barred ? OPR” The landowners/claimants examined Krishan Singla, Registry Clerk Tehsil Office, Kurukshetra as PW-1 who proved certified copies of sale deeds Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-12, Dr. Baldev Parkash a vendee of sale deed Ex. P-3 as PW-2, Baldev Kumar Goyal, a vendee of Plot sold vide sale RFA2515 of 1998 5 deed Ex.P-7 as PW-3, Niyamat Rai vendor PW-4, deposed about sale deed Ex.P4 whereas Jagan Nath PW 5, a vendor of the sale deed Ex.P12, Prem Kumar Chawla, a vendee, PW-6 proved sale deed Ex. P10, another Baldev Kumar PW-7 vendee in sale deed Ex.P-1, Nazir Ahmed Lambardar of village Pipli as PW-8, who deposed about attesting of sale deeds Ex P-2, Ex.P6, Ex.P-7 and Ex.P8, Nand Kishore PW-9 vendee deposed about the sale deed No.108 6/1 dated 10.6.1994, Surender Kamboj Draftsman as PW-10, who proved site plans, Ex.P-13 and Ex.P-14, Kuldip Kumar Clerk,Municipal Committee, Thanesar as PW-11 also proved copies issued by the Committee as Ex.P-15 and Ex.P16, Sher Singh, Draftsman PW-12 deposed about notification Ex.P-16 and the resolution No. 1358 dated 27.12.1990 of the committee as Ex.P-17. He also deposed about public notice dated 25.1.1991 as Ex.P-18 and building scheme of area No.2 Ex.P- 19 site plan Ex.P-20 and copy of schedule of clauses Ex.,P-21, copy of resolution and public notices Ex.P-22 and Ex.P-23, boundaries of schedule of clauses Ex.P-24 and Ex. P-25 and site plan of scheme No.3 Ex.P-26 and other public notice Ex.P-27. Raghbir Singh Patwari Halqa Pipli as PW- 13 also deposed about the site plans of villages Pipli and Bir Pipli Ex.P- 13 and Ex.P-14. Smt. Chanderkanta Head Registration Clerk,D.C.Office, Kurukshetra PW-14 deposed about D.C.rate list Ex.P-28, Ex-29 and Ex.P- 30.Brg. Raj Mohan Singh PW-15 a vendee of a plot deposed about sale deed Ex.P-32 and that site plan Ex.P-31 was got sanctioned and the report of surveyor was Ex.P-33 and that the value of acquired land was not less than Rs.10 lacs to Rs.12.lacs per acre at the time of acquisition. Karan Singh PW-16 a vendee proved the sale deed Ex.P-34 and that of report of surveyor was Ex.P-35. Didar Singh an Architect PW-17 proved his report RFA2515 of 1998 6 Exs.P-33 and Ex.P-35, Chander Kanta HRC, D.C.office Kurukshetra PW-18 deposed about the sale deeds Ex.P-36 to Ex. P-42. Puran Chand Labourer PW-19 a vendee of a plot also proved sale deed Ex.P-39 that his plot was on G.T road and was of the value of Rs. 3000/- per square yard. Krishan Kumar PW-20 a vendor also deposed about sale deed Ex.P-40, Sher Chand PW-21 also a vendee petitioner also deposed about sale deed Ex.P-42. S.K.Aggarwal, Deputy Manager, State Bank of India, PW 22 proved photo copy of newspaper regarding building of Staff Training Centre at Kurukshetra or Karnal as Ex.P-46, photo copy of original application as Ex.P-47. Surinder Kumar Kamboj Draftsman PW-23 proved his site plan Ex.P-48, Sh. Yash Pal Clerk, HUDA,Kurukshetra PW24 proved form X- CC Ex.P49 pertaining to Ram Singh son of Natha Ram, resident of Kurukshetra and that the said plot was for commercial purposes, situated in Sector 7 measuring 2.75 X 8.25 mtr. for Rs.2,51,000/-. Sh. S.L.Chotani an Architect of Kurukshetra PW-25 deposed about his report Ex.P-50 of the construction. Krishna Singal, Registration Clerk,Thanesar as PW-26 deposed about sale deeds Ex.P-51 to Ex.P-54, Sh.Pawan Kumar PW-27 a vendor also deposed about the sale deed Ex.P-54 regarding a plot situated at Ladwa-Kurukshetra road. Sh. Niranjan Singh son of Tarlok Singh PW- 28, one of the petitioners deposed about the selling of his land vide sale deeds Ex.P-52 and Ex.P-53. Prem Kumar Singh PW-29 also a vendor of a plot proved sale deeds Ex.P-2, Maninder Singh JE office of C.C.P.N. C.R Panchkula, PW-30 proved photo copy of notification dated 2.1.1969 Ex. P-55 and copy of development plan Ex.P-56 and release order in favour of Ramesh Kumar Gupta Ex.P-57 and approval of building plan of Ramesh Gupta Ex.P-58, Harbans Lal a vendee PW 31 deposed about the sale deed RFA2515 of 1998 7 Ex.P-59, Dayal Chand PW-32 also deposed about the sale deed Ex.P-43, Rasid PW 33 deposed about the sale deed Ex.P-61 and Ex.62, Mohinder Singh PW-34, one of the petitioners stated that earlier notification under Section 4 of the Act about the acquired land was issued in the year 1972. He also deposed about the existence of other building around the acquired land and that the price of land at the time of acquisition was not less than Rs. 5000/- to Rs.6000/- per square yard. He also deposed about the sale deed Ex.P-51. Ishwer Singh PW-35 one of the petitioners, also deposed about his ownership of the plot measuring 26'x30' by virtue of decree Ex.P-63. He also deposed about the sale deed Ex.P-36. Ramesh Gupta PW-36 also one of the petitioners deposed about his land measuring 13 kanals and 13 marlas and that they have construction after getting site plan sanctioned in the year 1981. He also deposed about impounding of sale deed Exs.P-64 to P-69. Notification regarding acquired land was also proved as Ex.P-70, final notification as Ex.P-71, site plans Ex.P-72 and Ex.P-73, copy of jamabandi for the year 1992-93 is Ex.P-74, photographs of the acquired land Ex.P-75 to Ex.P-85 with negatives thereof Exs P-86 to P-96. Scheme of HUDA Ex.P97. Nanak Chand PW-37 son of vendor deposed about sale deed Ex. P-62. He also proved his power of attorney Ex.P-98. Prem Lata PW-38 Registry Clerk also deposed about the certified copies of sale deed Ex.P-99. Sh.S.P.Khetarpal, learned counsel for the petitioners also tendered copies of orders Ex.P-100 dated 22.3.1995, copy of award dated 1.9.1992 Ex.P101 and copy of award dated 15.11.1996 Ex.P-102. Prem Chand Mehta Retd Naib Tehsildar PW-39 proved site plan Ex.P 103 and index Ex.P 104. Kishan Singh PW-40 deposed about sale deed Ex.105 of a plot so sold by Nathu Ram to Kuldip Kaur. RFA2515 of 1998 8 On behalf of the respondents, they examined Braham Pal Patwari L.A.O. Office Panchkula as RW-1, who deposed about some sale deeds and site plans and judgments. The sale deeds produced by both the landowners as well as the State of Haryana, are tabulated as under:- Sr. No. and E.x no. No of Sale Deed/Date Area K.M Price (Rs.) Distance from acquired land Average Price per acre (Rs.) 1 (P-1) 66/7.4.93 0-1 20,000/- 300 mtr 32,00,000/- 2 (P-2) 4347/20.2.95 0-2-1/2 1,50,000/- Within land acq 96,00,000/- 3 (P-3) 385/25.4.91 0-1-1/4 50,000/- 300 mtr 64,00,000/- 4 (P-4) 8530/.1.6.92 0-4-1/2 1,61,000/- 200 mtr 57,25,000/- 5 (P-5) 1086/10.6.94 1-1-1/4 50,000/- 600 mtr 53,33,000/- 6 (P-6) 4454/22.2.91 0-2 30,000/- 100mtr 24,00,000/- 7 (P- 7 ) 2688/25.11.9 1 0-1 30,000/- 1110 mtr 48,00,000/- 8 (P-8) 3354/1.1.92. 0-2 40,000/- 1500 mtr 32,00,000/- 9 (P-9) 3599/15.1.92 0-1 42,000/- 1100 mtr 67,20,000/- 10 (P-10) 4583/6.3.92 0-2 50,000/- 1350 mtr 40,00,000/- 11 (P-11) 3419/16.3.94 0-1-1/2 32,000/- 34,13,333/- 12 (P-12) 1481/26.6.91 0-1 25,000/- Within land acq. 40,00,000/- 13 (P- 51) 1676/16.7.90 '1-15 1,75,000/- Do 8,00,000/- 14 (P -52) 2448/4.11.91 0-4 50,000/- Do 20,00,000/- 15 (P – 53) 1564/5.7.90 01/15 1,75,000/- Do 8,00,000/- 16 (P-54) 1856/31.7.91 0-4 90,000/- 1200 mtr 36,00,000/ Sr. No. and E.x no. No of Sale Deed/Date Area K.M Price (Rs.) Price Per Acre Distance from acquired land 1 (R-1) 173/1/10.4.9 1 4-0 1,80,000/- 3,60,000/- 1.5 K.M away from acquired land towards North 2 (R-2) 482/1/3.5.91 0-8 10,000/- 2,00,000/- Do 3(R-4) 915/1/29.5.9 1 '4-11 1,90,000/- 3,34,065/- Do towards South of acquired land RFA2515 of 1998 9 Sr. No. and E.x no. No of Sale Deed/Date Area K.M Price (Rs.) Price Per Acre Distance from acquired land 4 (R-5) 1693/1/11.7. 91 '1-04 25,000/- 1,66,666/- 2 K.M Away towards South of acquired land 5 (R-6) 1871/1/31.7. 91 1-00 15,000/- 1,20,000/- 2 KM away from acquired land The learned Reference Court, after taking into consideration the evidence led by both the parties, observed that as far as the sale consideration shown in the aforesaid sale deeds produced on record by the landowners are concerned, these sale deeds pertain to small piece of land out of which maximum area sold was 1 kanal15 marla. It was held that these sale deeds presumably are of the plots meant for commercial purposes and the sale consideration given in such transactions cannot be made 'price basis' for determination of market value even if 50% cut is applied. It was further observed that the market price on the average basis of the said sale deeds comes to about Rs.20 lacs but the said criteria is not tenable. The learned Reference Court thus relied upon judgment Ex.P-101dated 1.9.1992 rendered by learned Addl. District Judge, Kurukshetra in respect of land falling in Sector 11 situated in front of new Bus Stand on Pipli-Kurukshetra road whose exact position has been shown in the site plan Ex.P-14 for which Rs.4,84,000/- per acre (Rs.100/- per sq.yard) was awarded as compensation as on 21.4.1987 which was maintained by the High Court while dismissing the Regular First Appeal on 10.1.1994.Thus, taking into consideration the potentiality of the acquired land and keeping in view the fact that Rs. 4,84,000/- per acre ( Rs.100/-per square yard) was already fixed as market value of the RFA2515 of 1998 10 acquired land of Sector 11 as well as that D.C.rates fixed for the said area where the acquired land situates were Rs.200/- per sq. yard for residential and Rs.3000/- per sq. yard for commercial purposes and in the adjoining sectors falling towards west and south i.e. Sectors 5,7 and 4 which were purely residential and away from G.T.road, a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre as compensation was granted by means of judgment Ex. R-11 passed by the then learned Addl. District Judge, Kurukshetra and Ex.P-102 dated 15.11.1996 passed by Sh.S.S.Lamba, the then learned Addl.District Judge, Kurukshetra against the award of Land Acquisition Collector giving the compensation from Rs. One lac to Rs.2 and ½ lacs per acre of villages Palawal, Umri, Devidass Pura and Ratgal, the market value of the acquired land was determined @ Rs. 9,50,000/- per acre (Rs.196.28 per sq. yard). As a matter of fact, the learned Reference Court has enhanced the compensation almost double than what has been awarded by the Collector giving a rise of Rs.20/- per year for the gap of five year in between notification of Sector 11 dated 21.4.1987 to the notification issued in the present case on 24.3.1992. The increase of 20% per year has been given keeping in view of potentiality of the acquired land otherwise, normal rule is 10% as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer, BYDA, Bagalkot v. Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib 2002 SC 1558. Mr.P.S.Saini, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that learned Reference Court has committed a serious error of law by ignoring all the sale deeds observing that they pertain to small pieces of land which were presumably meant for commercial purposes. Thus, they cannot be made basis for determination of the market value RFA2515 of 1998 11 even if 50% cut is applied. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that even for the determination of market value of a large chunk of land sale instances of small pieces of land can also be considered and relied upon. Learned counsel for the appellants has then referred to sale deeds Exs. P1 to P-12 and Ex.P-51 to P-54 and contended that out of these 16 sale deeds, sale deeds Exs.P-1,P-3, P-6 ,P-7,P-8, P-9,P-10, P-12, P-52 and P-54 are within a period of one year from 1.4.1991 to 30.3.1992 and should be considered since notification in this case was issued on 24.3.1992. He further contended that the average amount of the aforesaid 10 sale deeds comes to Rs. 40,32,000/- per acre and since the sale instances are of small pieces of land, therefore, even if 25% is applied as deduction, the value of the land would come to Rs. 30,24,000/- per acre. He further submitted that the learned Reference Court has committed a palpable error of law in relying upon the previous award pertaining to Sector 11 which is far away from Sector 2 where value of the land has been determined for the year 1987. Thus, the entire thrust of the argument is that the sale deeds should be considered and compensation should be awarded acordingly. Mr.S.N.Chopra, learned counsel appearing for some of the landowners/claimants has submitted that when the land is acquired for commercial purposes, the value could not be assessed as that of an agricultural land. The learned counsel has submitted that the land in question was declared to be a controlled area on 2.1.1969 and was included in the Municipal Limits w.e.f. 1.10.1984. The acquired land has high potentiality as it is surrounded by P.W.D Rest House, Motel RFA2515 of 1998 12 Building and is also situated on the G.T. Road. The learned counsel has assailed the findings on issue No.2 on the ground that the land owners are entitled to compensation in view of Section 48 of the Act as the land in question remained under threat of acquisition since the year 1973 as there was a notification issued under Section 4 of the Act but the same had lapsed. As against this, Mr.H.S.Hooda, learned Advocate General, Haryana, vehemently contended that firstly the acquired land was a undeveloped vacant land which is touching the G.T. Road only to the extent of 4 acres and Pipli-Kurukshetra Road to the extent of 3 acres. It is further submitted that all the sale instances relied upon by the landowners are distantly located except for sale deeds Ex.P-12, P-51, P- 52 and P-53 as shown in the site plan Ex.P-103. The four sale deeds touching the acquired land, namely Ex. P-12 is only 0Kanal 1 Marla, Ex. P- 51 is 1Kanal 15 Marlas, Ex. P-52 is 0 Kanal 4 Marlas and Ex.P-53 is 1Kanal 15 Marlas. These sale instances are of very small pieces of land in comparison to the acquired land measuring 56.08 acres (55.97 acres actual). The sale instances Exs. P-12,P-51, P-52 and P-53 are either touching the National Highway or the State Highway and are obviously fetching high prices and cannot be relied upon for rest of the land which is beyond the National Highway or the State Highway. In this regard, Learned State Counsel has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in V. Hanumantha Reddy (Dead) by LR's vs. Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Officer 2003 (12) S.C.C.642. As regards potentiality, it is contended by learned Counsel for the State that there was no development activity when the land in RFA2515 of 1998 13 question was acquired and the future potentiality cannot be seen in view of the case law reported in Rajashekhar Sankappa Taradandi vs. Assistant Commissioner & Land Acquisition Officer 1996 (3) S.C.R 503. In the end, it is submitted that the acquired land was not reserved for commercial purposes but was being used for community utility. In the alternative, it was submitted that although the sale deeds relied upon by the landowners/claimants are not applicable in the present case, but even if it is presumed for the sake of argument though not admitted, that they are applicable and can be relied upon, in that situation, the deduction claimed is 86% in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K.S.Shivadevamma and others Vs.Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer and and another 1996 LACC 326. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. From the perusal of site plan Ex.P-103, only four sale deeds Exs. P12, P51, P-52 and P- 53 are found to be within the acquired land and rest of the sale deeds relied upon by the learned counsel for the claimants are far away having altogether different features. Now the question is whether these four sale deeds Exs. P-12, P 51, P-52 and P-53 reflect the true market value of the acquired land. Vide sale deed Ex.P- 12 dated 26.6.1991 only one marla of land (20 sq.yards) has been sold abutting Delhi-Karnal road for a sum of Rs.25,000/- which comes to Rs.40,00,000/- per acre. Sale deed Ex. P-52 dated 4.11.1991 is in respect of only 4 marlas of land sold for a value of Rs.50,000/- which comes to Rs. 20,00,000/- located on the Kurukshetra Pipli road. Sale deeds Exs.P- 51 and P-53 are dated 16.7.1990 and 05.7.1990 respectively in respect of RFA2515 of 1998 14 1 kanal 15 marlas of land each located almost on Kurukshetra-Pipli road adjoining to a shopping centre, for a consideration of Rs.1,75,000/- which comes to Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre each. In my view, there is a great variation in the value of sale deeds depending upon its size and location and these cannot be clubbed together for the purpose of taking average as suggested by the learned counsel for the appellants because plot having different features cannot be clubbed together for the purpose of taking average. Further-more, these four sale instances which are part of the acquired land cannot be set up as a guiding factor for determination of compensation since as per sale deed Ex.P-12, only one marla of land sold on 26.6.1991 fetches the value of Rs. 40,00,000/- per acre. The vendee of the land (Ex.P-12) namely Jagan Nath has appeared as PW-5 and categorically stated in the cross examination that plot (Ex.P-12) was purchased for the purpose of resale on premium as the plot was meant for commercial purposes. Whereas vide sale deed Ex.P-52 dated 4.11.1991 which is subsequent to Ex.P-12, 4 marlas of land has been sold at the price of Rs. 20,00,000/- per acre. Further more, in July 1990, 1 kanal 15 marlas of land has been sold vide sale deed Exs.P-51 and P-53 within the acquired land almost abutting Kurukshetra-Pipli road and is quite adjacent to the land sold vide Ex.P-52 for Rs.8,00,000/- per acre only. The value arising out of sale deeds Ex. P-51 and Ex. P-53 is less than the value determined by the reference Court. In view of the huge variation of the sale price of the plot of land, its size, location and potential, rest of the acquired land which is much inferior as only 4 acres of land is abutting National-Highway and only 3 acres of land is abutting State-Highway the sale deeds Ex.P-12, RFA2515 of 1998 15 Ex.P-51, Ex.P-52 and Ex.P-53 cannot be made the basis for determination of compensation in the present cases. Thus, I do not find any error in the order of the reference Court whereby for determining the compensation of the acquired land, reliance has been placed on judgment Ex. 101 dated 1.9.1992 and for gap of two notifications, Rs.20/- has been awarded per year. In respect of the claim made under Section 48 of