RFA No.5569 of 2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.5569 of 2001 Date of decision: 16.11.2011 Yad Ram and others ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and another ......Respondent(s) RFA No.5570 of 2001 Rajinder and another ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.5571 of 2001 Jagmal and others ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and another ......Respondent(s) RFA No.5572 of 2001 Banarsi Dass and others ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and another ......Respondent(s) ' RFA No.5573 of 2001 Balwant Rai and others ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and another ......Respondent(s) RFA No.5569 of 2001 2 RFA No.5574 of 2001 Lala Ram son of Sh. Data Ram ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.5796 of 2001 Gram Panchayat, Manakpur-II ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana ......Respondent(s) RFA No.5797 of 2001 Dharamvir and others ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and another ......Respondent(s) RFA No.116 of 2002 Krishna Devi and others ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and another ......Respondent(s) RFA No.246 of 2002 Mohinder Pal and another ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and another ......Respondent(s) RFA No.5569 of 2001 3 RFA No.247 of 2002 Phool Chand and others ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and another ......Respondent(s) RFA No.251 of 2002 Ram Parsad and others ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and another ......Respondent(s) RFA No.252 of 2002 Smt. Shanti Devi ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and another ......Respondent(s) RFA No.253 of 2002 Jyoti Sarup ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and another ......Respondent(s) RFA No.254 of 2002 Phool Chand ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and another ......Respondent(s) RFA No.617 of 2002 Puran Chand and another ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and another ......Respondent(s) RFA No.5569 of 2001 4 RFA No.884 of 2002 Ajmer Singh and others ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and another ......Respondent(s) RFA No.885 of 2002 Janesh Kumar and others ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1274 of 2002 Shiv Charan and another ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and another ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1843 of 2002 Lachhman son of Shri Duni Chand ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and another ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1859 of 2002 Ranjeet Kaur alias Surjeet Kaur ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and another ......Respondent(s) RFA No.4070 of 2002 Champa Devi and others ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.5569 of 2001 5 CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr.C.B. Goel, Advocate with Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate, Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate, Mr. Manish Saini, Advocate for Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate, for the appellant(s). Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This judgment shall dispose of 22 regular first appeals i.e. RFA Nos.5569 to 5574 of 2001, 5796 of 2001, 5797 of 2001, 116, 246, 247, 251 to 254, 617, 884, 885, 1274, 1843, 1859, 4070 of 2002 filed on behalf of the claimant/landowners as common question of law and facts is involved in all these appeals arising out of same acquisition proceedings which have culminated into one common award of Reference Court dated 7.9.2001 which is under challenge on the ground that market value of the acquired land in question has been assessed at a lower rate. Pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the 'Act') published on 8.9.1993 which was followed by a declaration acquiring land measuring 134 acres 5 kanals 10 marlas situated in the Revenue Estate of village Manakpur, Hadbast No.386 Tehsil Jagadhri District Yamunanagar for a public purpose namely Establishment of Industrial Area at Jagadhri by the Haryana Industries Department. The Land Acquisition Collector vide award No.1 dated 8.10.1997, assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of ` 1,75,000/- per acre. Feeling aggrieved from the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the appellants filed reference applications under Section 18 of the Act praying therein that the same be referred to the competent Court for determination of the market value of the land in question. In the claim RFA No.5569 of 2001 6 petition before the Reference Court, the appellants had alleged that while passing the impugned award, the Land Acquisition Collector has ignored the potentiality, quality, location etc. of the land in question. According to them, the land in question is situated on the main Jagadhri-Chhachhrauli road just adjacent to the Jagadhri City which is an industrial town and its expansion is towards the land in question. Before the Reference Court, it was the further case of the appellants that keeping in view the location of the land in question, they were offered very good price for their lands by the Industrialists. Otherwise also, the land in question is very fertile and thus, keeping in view the quality, situation, surrounding circumstances and potentiality of the land in question, the market value of the land in question was not less than ` 8,00,000/- per acre. Upon notice, the respondents filed written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits, the averments made in the claim petitions were controverted by making the averments that the award was made as per law and taking into consideration the situation, quality and the market value of the land and that compensation was rightly assessed which was quite adequate and sufficient. All other averments were controverted and prayer for dismissal of the reference applications was made. All the reference petitions were consolidated vide order dated 16.2.1999 by the Reference Court and the LAC No.33 of 1998 titled as “Ram Parsad etc. versus State of Haryana and another, was ordered to be treated as main case. To substantiate their case, the parties led evidence. In support of their respective claim on behalf of the appellants, the following sale deeds were relied upon: RFA No.5569 of 2001 7 ___________________________________________________________ “Sr. Exhibit Date of Revenue Area Consider Price no. no. sale-deed Estate sold -ation per acre __ ___ ________ _____ ____ _____ ______ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 __________________________________________________________ 1. Ex.P1 24-2-93 V.Chaneta 7K-3M Rs. 3,57,500/- Rs.4,08,511/- 2. Ex.P4 23-3-93 V.Udham 12 K Rs.5,70,000/- Rs.3,80,000/- garh 3. Ex.P5 10-12-93 V.Udham 4K-0M Rs.1,80,000/- Rs.3,60,000/- garh 4. Ex.P6 2-2-93 V.Udham 242 Rs.36,300/- Rs.7,26,000/- garh sq.yards 5. Ex.P7 25-3-92 -do- 200 Rs.30,000/- Rs.7,26,000/- sq.yards 6. Ex.P8 3-1-92 -do- 48.48 Rs.10,000/- Rs.9,87,360/- sq.yards 7. Ex.P9 19-6-92 -do- 209 Rs.31,500/- Rs.7,29,436/- sq.yards 8. Ex.P12 24-2-93 V.Chaneta 7K-3M Rs.3,57,500/- Rs.4,08,571/- 9. Ex.P14 28-9-98 V.Chaneta 5K-14M Rs.4,80,000/- Rs.7,39,259/- 10. Ex.P13 29-9-98 V. Manakpur 5K-8M Rs.4,99,000/- Rs.7,39,359/- 11. Ex.P10 Agreement -do- 10K-12M Rs.4,59,375/- Rs.3,50,000/-” dated 30-3-93 On the other hand, the State relied upon the following sale instances: ___________________________________________________________ “Sr. Exhibit Date of Revenue Area Consider Price no. no. sale-deed Estate sold -ation per acre __ __ ____ _____ ___ ___ ____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ________________________________________________________________ 1. Ex.R1 21-6-91 V.Manak 6K-9M Rs.1,38,000/- Rs.1,71,161-60Ps. 2. Ex.R2 22-6-91 -do- 7K-10M Rs.1,14,000/- Rs.1,16,923/- 3. Ex.R3 23-1-93 -do- 4K-0M Rs.82,500/- Rs.1,65,000/- 4. Ex.R4 3-7-92 -do- 2K-14M Rs.57,000/- Rs.1,72,000/-” The Reference Court after considering the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, assessed the market value of the land in question at ` 1,85,000/- per acre vide impugned award. The RFA No.5569 of 2001 8 relevant paragraph of the award of the Reference Court reads thus: “Now considering the price of the sale-deeds Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4 in view of the law laid down in Inder Singh's case (supra) after adding 12% increase for the relevant period regarding sale-deed Ex.R-1, the price per acre comes to approximately Rs.2,17,351/- and likewise after adding 12% increase from the date of transaction till date of notification, the price per acre of the transaction vide Ex.R-2 comes to Rs.1,48,511/- approximately and likewise, on similar calculation average price per acre for Ex.R-3 comes to Rs.1,76,500/- and regarding Ex.R- 4, the price per acre after adding 12% increase for the relevant period, the price comes to Rs.1,96,180/- approximately. When average of all these deeds are to be taken in consideration, then the average price per acre comes to Rs.1,84,648/- approximately.” Challenging the impugned award, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the sale instances relied upon by the appellants reflects much higher average price of the land in question at the relevant date and the same has been ignored by the Reference Court illegally. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the sale instances Ex.P-1, Ex.P-4 to Ex.P9, Ex.P12 and Ex.P14 are the transactions regarding the land situated in the revenue Estate of village Chaneta and Udhamgarh, which are adjoining villages to V. Manakpur, where the acquired land is situated. According to the learned counsel for the appellants for assessing market value of the land, such transactions of the adjoining villages and are comparable can also be a guiding factor. No doubt the transactions of adjoining villages can also be good guide when the instances from the village where the acquired land is situated are not RFA No.5569 of 2001 9 available, whereas, in the instant case, the respondents have placed on record the sale transactions of village Manakpur itself and in fact Ex.R1 to R-4 are out of the acquired land itself. Moreover, there is no evidence on record on the basis of which the sale instances placed on record by the appellants with regard to village Chaneta and Udhamgarh can be said to be comparable sale instances for determining the market value of the acquired land in question. Not only this, a finding has been recorded by the Reference Court that the sale deeds of these villages cannot be considered to be guiding factors for assessing the market value of the land in question as village Chaneta and Udhamgarh are near the municipal limits of Jagadhri and the prices are bound to be high on account of land being located adjacent to the urban area. Admittedly, the land of village Udhamgarh falls first while going from Jagadhri to Manakpur and village Manakpur is situated in between Jagadhri and Chhachhrauli far away from Jagadhri. The location of the sale instances of village Udhamgarh and Chaneta was also located on the Aks-shajra (Ex.P2). With the help of the learned counsel for the parties and after noticing the khasra numbers of the aforesaid sale instances, it was found that the land underneath all these sale instances was almost adjacent to the urban area of Jagadhri town and far away from the acquired land. In view of the aforesaid evidence on record and in the absence of any other evidence to controvert the aforesaid findings, no error can be found in the judgment of the Reference Court for not relying upon the sale instances of other villages produced by the appellants. Ex.P-13 dated 29.9.1998 which pertains to village Manakpur was rightly discarded being post dated. Counsel for the appellants also could not dispute the fact that agreement dated 30.3.1993 (Ex.P-10) could not be relied upon as the same remained unproved. Thus, the sale instances relied upon by the RFA No.5569 of 2001 10 appellants cannot be made the basis for determination of compensation. On the other hand, sale instances Ex.R-1 to R-4 pertains to the acquired land itself and are also comparable. The sale instance Ex.R-1 dated 21.6.1991 reflect that the price of land at Rs.1,71,162/- per acre. It can also not be disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State that keeping in view the potentiality of the land and that there was a rising trend in the prices of the land in the vicinity of the acquired land, the claimants are entitled to an increase at the rate of 12% per annum for the period (i.e. from 21.6.1991 the date of sale deed Ex.R-1 upto 8.9.1993 the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act) and after calculating the increase, the price per acre comes to approximately Rs.2,17,351/-. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.5475 of 2007 (Chindha Fakira Patil (D) through L.Rs versus The Special Land Acqusition Officer, Jalgaon) decided on 1.11.2011, has authoritatively laid down that for determining the market value of the acquired land, the sale instance which is comparable and fetches the highest price can be taken into consideration and the market value of the land can be determined on the basis of such a single sale instance instead of determining the market value on the basis of average price of all the relevant sale instances. The relevant observations reads thus: “In our view, the approach adopted by the High court was clearly erroneous. There is no basis for the assumption that the purchaser of the land must have offered higher price for special reasons. Exhibit 28 was proved by Shri Arjun Sukheo Patil, who had appeared as witness on behalf of the appellants. It was open to the counsel for the respondent to cross-examine the witness and elicit the special reasons, if any, for sale of land allegedly at a higher price. However, the fact of the matter is that no such question was put to the witness. RFA No.5569 of 2001 11 As a matter of fact, it is neither the pleaded case of the respondent nor it has been argued before us that the sale deed Exhibit 28 had not been proved or that the price mentioned therein was not the highest price paid for Jirayat land in the area. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the High Court was not right in interfering with the fixation of market value by the Reference Court for Jirayat land at the rate of Rs.3 lacs and for Bagayat land at the rate of Rs.6 lacs per hectare. The mere fact that average sale price of the transactions relied upon by the respondent was substantially less could not be made a ground for discarding Exhibit 28. Similarly, in M.Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur v. Collector (1969) 1 MLJ 45 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed: “After all when the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to say that he should be given the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. It is not disputed that the transaction represented by Ext.R-19 was a few months prior to the notification under Section 4 that it was a bona fide transaction and that it was entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller. The land comprised in the sale deed is 11 grounds and was sold at '1961 per ground. The land covered by Ext. R-27 was also sold before the notification but after the land comprised in Ext. R-19 was sold. It is true that this land was sold at '1096 per ground. This, however, is apparently because of two circumstances. One is that betterment levy at '500 per ground had to be paid by the vendee and the other that the land comprised in it is very much more extensive, that is about 93 grounds or so. Whatever that may be, it seems to us to be only fair that where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of RFA No.5569 of 2001 12 the Government, that representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. In any case we see no reason why an average of two sale deeds should have been taken in this case.” Further in State of Punjab v. Hans Raj (1994) 5 SCC 734, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “Having given our anxious consideration to the respective contentions, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge of the High Court committed a grave error in working out average price paid under the sale transactions to determine the market value of the acquired land on that basis. As the method of averaging the prices fetched by sale of acquired land. One should not have, ordinarily recourse to such method. It is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bona fide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighbourhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place between a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value.” Keeping in view the aforesaid principle and the fact that Ex.R-1 which is comparable and is to be taken into consideration for determining the market value of the land in question and the fact that the aforesaid sale instance pertains to an area measuring 6 kanals 9 marlas, which is quite a big piece of land and as admitted by learned counsel for the respondent, no cut is to be applied on the sale price on the calculated on the basis of the said instance. Thus, keeping in view the market value of the land on the relevant date after giving yearly increase of 12% per annum from the RFA No.5569 of 2001 13 date of sale instance, the market value is fixed at Rs.2,17,351/- which is rounded off to Rs.2,17,500/-. Thus, these appeals are allowed to the extent aforesaid and the market value of the land in question is fixed at Rs.2,17,500/- per acre on the relevant date i.e. notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Needless to say, the appellants would also be entitled to the statutory benefits on the said compensation. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases. November 16, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE