RFA No.2779 of 1994 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. 1. RFA No.2779 of 1994 Shamsher Singh and others ...Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents 2. RFA No.2549 of 1994 Jai Pal Singh ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents 3. RFA No.2780 of 1994 Smt.Vishal Devi ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents 4. RFA No.2781 of 1994 Smt.Vishal Devi ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents 5. RFA No.2847 of 1994 Shiv Deep Singh and another ...Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents 6. RFA No.2848 of 1994 Rani Hukam Kaur ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents RFA No.2779 of 1994 2 7. RFA No.2849 of 1994 Smt.Shakuntla Devi ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents 8. RFA No.2816 of 1994 State of Haryana and others ...Appellants Versus Jai Pal Singh ...Respondent 9. RFA No.2817 of 1994 State of Haryana and others ...Appellants Versus Rani Hukam Kaur ...Respondent 10.RFA No.2818 of 1994 State of Haryana and others ...Appellants Versus Vishal Devi ...Respondent 11.RFA No.2819 of 1994 State of Haryana and others ...Appellants Versus Shiv Deep Singh and another ...Respondents 12.RFA No.1of 1995 State of Haryana and others ...Appellants Versus Shamsher Singh and others ...Respondents 13.RFA No.2 of 1995 State of Haryana and others ...Appellants Versus Smt.Shakuntla Devi ...Respondent RFA No.2779 of 1994 3 14.RFA No.3 of 1995 State of Haryana and others ...Appellants Versus Smt.Vishal Devi ...Respondent Date of Decision: 29.7.2009 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.H.S.Gill, Senior Advocate with Mr.R.K.Dhiman & Mr.Adarsh Jain, Advocates for the appellants. Ms.Mamta Singal Talwar, AAG, Haryana. A.N.Jindal, J. This judgment of mine shall dispose of aforementioned 14 appeals (i.e. RFA Nos.2779, 2549, 2780, 2781, 2847, 2848 and 2849 of 1994 filed by the landowners for increasing and RFA Nos.2816 to 2819 of 1994 and RFA Nos.1 to 3 of 1995 filed by the State of Haryana for decreasing the market value of the acquired land). These appeals and cross appeals having arisen out of the judgment dated 9.6.1994 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rewari whereby the appellants were awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.90/- per square yard for the land situated in villages Dharuhera and Malpura are decided together. Land measuring 32.91 acres was acquired by the Haryana Government vide Notification No.LAC(G) 90/159 dated 23.1.1990 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short “the Act”). Thereafter, Notification No.LAC(G)NTLA 91/251 dated 18.1.1991 under section 6 of the Act was promulgated. The land was RFA No.2779 of 1994 4 acquired for residential and commercial purposes for development of Sector 4-A at Dharuhera. After issuance of the notice under section 9 of the Act, the landowners agitated for adequate price of their land. The Collector vide Award No.18 dated 27.3.1992 ordered for payment of the compensation on the following rates:- Chahi land: Rs.1,50,000/- per acre Gairmumkin residential: Rs.1,00,000/- per acre Other gairmumkin land: Rs.60,000/- per acre It would be pertinent to mention here that no compensation was awarded for the buildings, structures, wells, tubewells and trees and it was stated that the supplementary award would be announced as and when assessment report under the remaining heads is received. On references being made by the landowners under section 18 of the Act, the Additional District Judge, Rewari awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.180/- per square yard upto the depth of one killa from National Highway and Rs.90/- per square yard in respect of the land situated at the back of the land consisted in first part i.e. beyond the depth of one killa from National Highway alongwith other statutory benefits. However, the landowners had submitted that the land was abutting main road of Sector 6 of HUDA at Dharuhera at a most strategic point and was adjacent to the abadi of village near Jungle Bubbler Tourist Complex, Govt. of Haryana, which was situated about 100 yards from the acquired land. HUDA had already acquired the land for shopping and commercial complex in Sector 6 at Dharuhera and the acquired land is exactly opposite the National Highway No.8 where the HUDA had already acquired RFA No.2779 of 1994 5 and developed industrial complex 12 years back and several other industries i.e. Hero Honda, Premier Drugs Limited, East India Syntex Ltd., Om Steel Tubes Ltd., Haryana Detergents Ltd. etc. had come up and operating there and these industries were situated within quite close radius of acquired land and the land in question was also being acquired for residential and industrial purposes due to its proximity to the Industrial Area. It was also averred that the acquired land was situated near Delhi-Jaipur Road and was surrounded by the abadi of Dharuhera, Industrial, commercial and residential complexes and was within one kilometer radius of RICO Bhiwadi (Rajasthan). The Haryana Government had already declared the acquired land within the controlled and development plan. As such, they sought the market value at the rate of Rs.5000/- per square yard. The claim petition was contested by the State of Haryana as well as HUDA stating that the market value of the acquired land had already been fixed after examining all the comparable sale instances and was adequate. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. What was the market value of the acquired land on the date of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP 2. Whether HUDA is necessary party, if so its effect?OPR 3. Relief. Both the parties led evidence. The claimants examined Shamsher Singh as PW1, Ramavtar Yadav Draftsman as PW2, Pardeep Kumar as PW3 and Piare Lal from the office of District Town Planner, Rewari as PW4. After tendering into evidence, sale RFA No.2779 of 1994 6 deeds as well as copies of the awards Exhibits P1 to P12, the claimants closed their evidence. To the contrary, the respondents produced Sispal Patwari as RW1 and tendered into evidence documents Exhibits R1 to R11. The Additional District Judge, Rewari, after practically analyzing the evidence led by both the parties, had fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate as referred to in the preceding paras. The prime question, which arises for consideration in these cases as raised by the claimants is:- “Whether the market value determined by the reference Court is correct and there is some error in determining the compensation? In order to appreciate the evidence minutely, we need to go into the statements of the witnesses. PW2 Ramavtar Yadav Draftsman, who had prepared the site plan Ex.P1 after visiting the spot, has deposed that a school and tourist complex were near to the acquired land. Sector 4-A adjoins to Sector 6 of Dharuhera and there was only road in between them. He also stated that Housing Board Colony and Sector 6 had come up in 1990 and banking institutions were also there before 1990. During cross-examination, he further disclosed that a Picture Hall and Bus-stand had come into operation before 1990. Bhiwadi complex was about three kilometers from National Highway No.8. Tourist complex, Dharuhera may be about one kilometer from Sector 4 by road. PW4 Piare Lal has produced the blue print of the Draft Development Plan Ex.P4/1. Blue print reveals that Sector 6 and Sector 4 are near to each other. PW1 RFA No.2779 of 1994 7 Shamsher Singh disclosed that Industrial Complex, Dharuhera was developed by the HUDA in 1977 and it was on the left side of GT Road. East India Syntex, DC, Multi-Tech, Sehgal Paper Mills and many other industries had come into operation before 1990. The land for Bus stand had been acquired in 1983. He also proved the award relating to the land acquired for bus stand, the market value of which was assessed at the rate of Rs.60/- per square yard by the then Additional District Judge, Rewari and was increased to Rs.65/- per square yard by the High Court. He has further explained that the land in Sector 6 was acquired in 1985 and its market value was assessed at the rate of Rs.60/- per square yard by the Courts. He also reiterated about all the developments as stated by PW1 Shamsher Singh. PW3 Pardeep Kumar deposed that the Industrial Estate was set up in Dharuhera in 1976 or 1977 by HUDA. Industrial Area was demarcated on the left side of the GT Road and there was residential area towards road side. There was a school and Tourist Complex situated near the acquired land. The land for Bus stand was acquired in the year 1983 while the roads had been developed in Sector 6 in 1990. He gave market value of the land at the rate of Rs.5000/- per square yard. In addition to the aforesaid oral evidence, the appellants proved the site plan Ex.P1, copies of the awards Ex.P2 to P4 and sale deeds Ex.P5 to P10. Details of the awards and the sale deeds are reproduced below:- S.No.Award Court which passed Land acquired for Rate awarded & Ex.No.dated the award 1 2 3 4 5_____ 1. Ex.P2 9.1.1991 Sh.S.B.Ahuja Residential-cum- Rs.60/- per District Judge, Narnaul commercial area. square yard RFA No.2779 of 1994 8 2. Ex.P3 7.10.1991 Sh.D.D.Yadav Residential-cum- Rs.60/- per Addl.Distt.Judge -Commercial area square yard. Rewari. 3. Ex.P4 22.3.1993 Sh.D.D.Yadav Residential-cum- Rs.90/- per Addl.Distt.Judge -Commercial area square yard. Rewari. Sr.No.Ex.No.Sale-Deed No. Qnty.of Amount of Rate per Remarks & Dates Land sold consideration sq.yard 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.__ 1. Ex.P5 1569/5.7.89 9Marlas or Rs.1,55,100/- Rs.550/- 282 Sq.yard. 2.Ex.P6 3164/9.10.89 2K. 18M Rs.1,50,000/- Rs.86/- 3.Ex.P7 4199/8.12.89 6K. 7M Rs.10,00,000/- Rs.260/- 4.Ex.P8 4657/22.1.90 25K 16M Rs.14,07,050/- Rs.90/- 5.Ex.P9 4962/8.3.90 7M. Rs.1,35,000/- Rs.642/- 6.Ex.P10 1342/7.9.90 1K 7M Rs.1,80,000/- Rs.240/- A perusal of the awards Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 would reveal that the courts of Shri S.B.Ahuja, District Judge, Narnaul and Shri D.D.Yadav, Addl. District Judge, Rewari had fixed the market value of the acquired land in 1985 for Sector 6 Part I at Dharuhera at Rs.60/- per square yard. Copy of award Ex.P4 dated 22.3.1993 would reveal that the court of Shri D.D.Yadav, Addl.District Judge, Rewari had fixed the market value of the land acquired on 23.1.1990 for Sector 6 Part II through this very notification of the same date at Rs.90/- per square yard. The Additional District Judge, Rewari while fixing the market value at the rate of Rs.90/- per square yard, had taken into consideration the market value of the land acquired in 1985 and had allowed the interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Besides the aforesaid evidence, the claimants have also RFA No.2779 of 1994 9 placed reliance upon the judgment delivered in LPA No.387 of 2001 in RFA No.1488 of 1994 Pawan Kumar and another Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and others on 15.5.2006 relating to the land of villages Rewari and Dhaliawas, which was acquired vide notification of even date i.e. 23.1.1990 and it was urged that the land of villages Dharuhera and Malpura adjoin the revenue estate of villages Rewari and Dhaliawas. It has been the consistent view of the Apex Court as well as of the various High Courts that there cannot be hard and fast rule universally applicable to all cases relating to determination of compensation for the acquired land. Essentially, it depends upon the quality, nature and location of every piece of land. The potentiality purpose, availability and situation are the other factors to be taken into consideration. It would also be worthwhile to notice that an award is not a judgment but it is an offer by the Land Acquisition Officer to the vendors. The Court without going into the merits and de-merits commenting and criticizing the award passed by the Collector should minutely appreciate the evidence led in taking into the shape of comparable circumstances and other oral as well as documentary evidence depicting the location, quality, potentiality and nature of the land and then decide its market value. It has been observed in case Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan District Badaun through its Secretary Vs. Bipin Kumar and anr.etc. 2004 (1) RCR (Civil) 720 that for assessing the market value of the acquired land, comparable sales method is acceptable method. It was also observed in case Union of India vs.Pramod Gupta (D) by LRs & Ors. 2005 (4) RCR (Civil) 235 as under:- RFA No.2779 of 1994 10 “The best method, as is well-known, would be the amount which a willing purchaser would pay to the owner of the land. In absence of any direct evidence, the court, however, may take recourse to various other known methods. Evidences admissible therefor inter alia would be judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisitions of lands made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages. Such a judgment and award in absence of any other evidence like deed of sale, report of expert and other relevant evidence would have only evidentiary value.” The Apex Court in case Faridabad Gas Power Project, NTPC Ltd., etc. Versus Om Parkash & Ors., etc. 2009 (4) R.A.J. 7 observed as under:- “This Court reiterated that one of the modes of computing the market value would be with reference to judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisitions of similar land subject to such increase or decrease thereupon as may be applicable having regard to the accepted principles laid down therefor. The extent of the land, the nature thereof, advantages and disadvantages occurring therein amongst others would be relevant factors for determining the actual market value of the property. This Court also reiterated that for the purpose of determining the market value of the acquired lands on the basis of the comparable sales method, the land sought to be compared must be similar in potentiality RFA No.2779 of 1994 11 and nature. It also took note of the fact that the market value of agricultural lands is lower than that of the land suitable for commercial purposes.” The Apex Court in Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai through his heirs and Legal Representatives and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat 1989 (2) RRR 243 observed as under:- “The market value of a piece of property for purposes of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act is stated to be the price at which the property changes hands from a willing seller to a willing, but not too anxious a buyer, dealing at arm's length. Prices fetched for similar lands with similar advantages and potentialities under bona fide transactions of sale at or about the time of the preliminary notification are that usual and indeed the best evidence of market value.” Again while stressing that if similar and adjoining land acquired under same notifications or notifications of even date and the prices so assessed of such land though by different awards would be best instances to fix the market value of the land. It was observed in case Union of India v. Harinder Pal Singh, 2005(4) RCR (Civil) 638 as under:- “In the absence of any contemporaneous document, the market value of the acquired lands of village Kala Ghana Pur which were acquired at the same time as the lands in the other five villages was considered to be correct for determination of the market value of the acquired land.” RFA No.2779 of 1994 12 Now coming to the market value of the acquired land. The evidence led by the parties transpired that the acquired land was situated at a distance of 600 meters (Delhi-Jaipur) National Highway No.8 quite opposite to Sector 6 developed by HUDA, Dharuhera. It is quite near the Housing Board quarters, Bus stand, Tourist Complex, Sector 4 Urban Estate as also the abadi of Dharuhera. Witness Jai Pal has stated that Industrial Township of Dharuhera was set up by the HUDA in 1977 which is to West of Haryana Tourist Complex and other important industries had already been set up. A secondary school is existing for 50 years and the land for bus stand was acquired in 1983 for which compensation was assessed at Rs.65/- per square yard. The abadi of Industrial Estate is also adjoining to Sector 6 Part II set up by the Government of Rajasthan. Piare Lal PW4 had produced the draft development plan of Dharuhera Ex.PW4/1 published in Haryana Government Gazette dated 16.6.1981 which shows that the estates of Dharuhera and Malpura adjoin Rewari and Dhaliawas. Both the notifications i.e. the Notification relating to village Dhaliawas and Rewari so as relating to villages Dharuhera and Malpura were issued on the same date i.e. on 23.1.1990. Vide another notification dated 23.1.1990, the land measuring 72.03 acres was acquired at villages Rewari and Dhaliawas of District Rewari for development of Sector 3, Part II HUDA, Rewari. References were decided by Additional District Judge, Rewari, against which, the appeals were preferred in the High Court. The High Court had decided RFA No.1488 of 1994 Pawan Kumar and another Versus Land Acquisition Collector and others vide judgment dated 25.5.2000 whereby the belting system was RFA No.2779 of 1994 13 made and compensation was assessed as under:- Category A within 100 meters from the municipal area on the National Highway:- Rs.7,04,367/-per acre Category B would relate to the other land falling beyond 100 meters from the National Highway No.8:- Rs.6,00,000/- per acre However, this judgment was again challenged vide LPA No.387 of 2001 which was decided on 15.5.2006, vide which, the Division Bench of our own High Court had ordered that belting system could not be applied. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to uniform rate of Rs.7,04,367/- per acre for both the categories. Nothing has been brought on record to indicate if this judgment had ever been challenged before the Apex Court. As referred to above, both the lands are situated on National Highway No.8 and have been used for similar purposes of residential and commercial establishments; both are across the road and both had the same potentiality. While further stressing, the counsel has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court delivered in case Bakshish Singh vs. Collector Land Acquisition 1982 CLJ 249 wherein it was observed as under:- “After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that there is no merit whatsoever in this appeal. The learned Single Judge placed reliance on an earlier decision of this Court in The Punjab State v. Baldev Singh, (R.F.A.No.136 of 1974), decided on 5th May, 1977, where in for the acquisition of the same date and for the same RFA No.2779 of 1994 14 purpose in the adjoining village Dhandari Kalan, the market value was allowed at the rate of Rs.28,000/- per acre, as also on instances Exhibits P.2, P.4 and P.9 for arriving at the figure of Rs.28,000/- per acre. Accordingly, no interference is called for in the well considered judgment of the learned Single Judge.” In the instant case also, when the Division Bench in Pawan Kumar's case (supra) had already considered the potentialities, location, quality and nature of the similarly situated and located land acquired for the purposes of being used and determined the market value after taking into consideration all the facts. I am impressed to place reliance over the aforesaid judgment to hold that the claimant-appellants are also entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.7,04,367/- per acre. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the claimant-appellants are partly allowed. No order as to costs. In view of the aforesaid detailed discussion and in the absence of any such evidence to lower down the market value of the acquired land, the appeals filed by the State are also found unmerited. In the wake of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals filed by the State are also dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) 29.7.2009 Judge AS