RFA No.74 of 1992 1 In the Punjab and Haryana High Court,at Chandigarh. Decided on 29.05.2009 Karnail Singh -- Appellant vs State of Haryana through Land Acquisition Collector,PWD (B&R Branch),Ambala Cantt -- Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Hemant Sarin,Advocate, for the appellant Mr.Rajiv Kawatra, Sr.DAG,Haryana. Rakesh Kumar, Jain, J: By this order, I shall be disposing of 11 Regular First Appeals bearing Nos. 74 of 1992 to 84 of 1992,filed by the claimants, against the award of learned District Judge,Ambala, dated 4.10.1991, as identical questions of law and facts are involved therein. The facts, however, are extracted from RFA No.74 of 1992 (Karnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana). Vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,the Act), dated 9.1.1985, land situated in village Dhuklot, Tehsil and District Ambala, was acquired for the public purpose, namely, for the construction of Housing Board Colony, Ambala City. The RFA No.74 of 1992 2 proposed acquisition was followed by a notification of declaration dated 17.4.1985 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector,Vide his award No.3-DRO dated 6.5.1985 awarded the compensation at the following rates:- Sr.No.Nature of land Value 1.Chahi & Gair Mumkin Rs.120,000/- per acre 2.Banjar Rs.64,000/- per acre 3.Gair Mumkin Rs.32.000/- per acre However, no compensation was awarded for trees, wells, buildings and structures. Aggrieved against the compensation awarded, the claimants filed objections under Section 18 of the Act and claimed compensation ranging between Rs.300/- per square yard to Rs.500/- per square yard. In order to substantiate their claims, the claimants examined six witnesses,namely Mangat Ram (PW1), Joginder Singh (PW-2) Bikkar Singh (PW-3) Sham Lal (PW-4), Didar Singh Garg (PW-5) and Chaudhary Ram (PW-6). The respondent-State examined Gulshan Kumar, Junior Engineer, Housing Board,Ambala City as RW-1. PW-1 Mangat Ram stated that he had purchased 33 square yards of land opposite to the acquired land from one Joginder Singh for Rs.10,000/- on 30.3.1982 vide registered sale deed (Ex.P-1). PW-2 Joginder Singh, who had sold the said plot to Mangat Ram corroborated this fact. PW-3 Bikkar Singh one of the claimants stated that his other land out of the same patti adjoining the land in question was earlier acquired and the compensation in respect there of was enhanced by the learned RFA No.74 of 1992 3 District Judge,Ambala City @ Rs.30/- per square yard against which an appeal is pending before this Court. He tendered copy of judgment Ex.P-2 dated 5.12.1988 of the learned District Judge,Ambala City, wherein compensation was enhanced @ Rs.30/- per square yard in respect of the land measuring 25 acres in patti Suba Akbarpur and village Dhulkot which was notified on 5.4.1982. PW-4 Sham Lal stated that he had purchased the land @ Rs.208/- per square yard from PW-3 Bikkar Singh vide registered sale deed Ex.P-3 and then sold the said land for Rs.8000/- vide sale deed Ex.P-4. PW-5 Didar Singh Garg tendered the site plan Ex.P-5. PW-6 Chaudhry Ram stated that there were about 25 fruit bearing trees in his acquired land which was giving him a crop of Rs.12,000/- per year . The claimants also tendered in evidence copy of judgment dated 19.3.1991 Ex.P-6 passed by this Court. In rebuttal, State of Haryana examined RW-1 Gulshan Kumar, Junior Engineer, who stated that 200 kanals of land was acquired in 1982 and remaining areas of about 9 kanals had been acquired in 1985. He has stated that the acquired land was low level and a contract (Ex.R-1) was given to a contractor for raising level of the acquired land by doing the job work of earth filling. A separate contract (Ex.R-2) was also given for construction of the retaining wall to retain the earth filling. The respondent also tendered in evidence certified copy of sale deeds Exs. R-3 to R-6 of the year 1983. The learned reference Court found that the land was acquired for construction of Housing Board Colony near Baldev Nagar Camp,Ambala City in two stages, firstly 25 acres of land was acquired by notification issued on 5.4.1982 in respect of which the Collector had RFA No.74 of 1992 4 awarded the compensation ranging from Rs. 8000/- to Rs.40,000/- per acre for different categories of land which was further enhanced by the learned District Judge, Ambala City at the uniform rate of Rs.30/- per square yard and was further enhanced at a uniform rate of Rs.50/- per square yard vide order dated 19.3.1991 passed in RFA No.498 of 1989 ( Ex.P-6). The reference Court also discussed the evidence led by the respondents and found that it does not disclose any where, if the contract for earth filling work was given only in respect of the land acquired in the year 1985. Thus, keeping the base price of the acquired land as Rs.50/- per square yard in the year 1982 as determined by this Court, an additional increase of 12% per year was granted for the gap of two notification in determining the compensation @ Rs.68/- per square yard. Mr.Hemant Sarin, learned counsel appearing for the appellants /claimants has vehemently contended that the reference Court has committed a palpable error in not appreciating the various sale deeds produced on record by the claimants. He has also argued that the acquired land has a great potential value as it is within the boundary of the Municipal Committee and even if the sale instances pertain to small piece of land, still these could have been taken into consideration. In this regard, he has relied upon decision in the cases of Ravinder Narain and another vs. Union of India (2003-2) P.L.R.262 and Net Ram vs. Haryana State through Collector, Rohtak 2003 (4) R.C.R.(Civil) 714. As against this, learned counsel for the State has argued that the land in question was low level for which contract Ex.R-1 was given for its levelling and contract Ex.R-2 was given for the construction of retaining wall to retain the earth filling He has also submitted that at the time of RFA No.74 of 1992 5 first acquisition in the year 1982, this land was left over because of the reasons that it was having deep pits which required levelling, but later on in the year 1985, it was required and thus acquired . He further contended that the price of the land has already been determined by this Court in RFA No. 498 of 1987 and reference Court has already given 12% increase per year for the gap of two notification. Therefore, the order of the reference Court does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity which could invite for any interference by this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants has referred to three sale deeds which are tabulated as under:- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- Sr.No.Ex. Dated Area Amount 1. P-1 30.3.1982 33 square yards Rs.10,000/- 303 square yard 2. P-3 1.7.1981 24 square yards Rs. 5000/ 208 per square yard 3. P-4 30.6.1982 24 square yards Rs. 6000/- 250 per square yards - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that average of these sale deeds comes to Rs.253.66 per square yard as the value of 1982 and if 12% increase is given for gap of period of two notifications, it would come to Rs.314.53 per square yard. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the claimants has fairly admitted that the sale deeds Exs.P-1 and P-3 were also tendered as an evidence in the matter of acquisition which was initiated vide notification issued on 5.4.1982 and obviously the sale deed (Ex.P-4) RFA No.74 of 1992 6 which is dated 30.6.1982 was not there. The sale deed Ex.P-1 is equal to sale deed Ex. A-16 and sale deed Ex.P-3 is equal to sale deed Ex.A-15. In the first acquisition dated 5.4.1982, it was found from the site plan Ex.P-5 that both the sale deeds Exs. P-1 and P-3 are only 33 square yards and 24 square yard which are located on the Highway towards extreme west whereas the acquired land is situated on the extreme east on the site plan Ex.P-5. It is also not disputed that both the sale deeds Exs.P-1 and P-3 were duly considered by the High Court in the first acquisition and were discarded. Once both the sale deeds Exs. P-1 and P-3 which have been primarily relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants have been discarded by the High Court in the first acquisition of 1982, therefore, the same cannot be taken into consideration by this Court in the present acquisition as there is no sale instance subsequent to the sale instances Exs.P-1 and P-3. Moreover, I have found from the site plan Ex.P-5 that the sale instances Exs. P-1 and P-3 are not at all comparable with the acquired land because not only the sale instances Exs. P-1 and P-3 are of very small piece of land which are obviously meant for commercial purposes and are located on the road but also the acquired land is towards extreme other end near gandanala, if not adjoining it. Thus, I do not find any merit in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants for the purpose of considering sale deeds Exs. P-1 and P-3 for enhancing the compensation over and above the compensation awarded by the reference Court. No other point has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants before this Court. RFA No.74 of 1992 7 In view of the above discussion, the present appeals filed by the claimants are dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. May 29,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge Refer to Reporter-- Yes