R.F.A. No. 917 of 1996 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 917 of 1996 (O&M) Date of decision: August 23, 2010 Rakesh Kumar .. Appellant v. Punjab State and another .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Pradip Bhandari, Advocate for the land owners. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 917 to 921, 1311, 1313 and 1314 of 1996, 2025 to 2029 and 2419 to 2421, 2423 and 2424 of 2003, as common questions of law and facts are involved. In the appeals filed by the land owners, they are seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land, whereas in the appeals filed by the State, the prayer is for reduction of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned court below. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 917 of 1996. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 18.3.1991, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Punjab acquired 13.10 acres of land, situated in the revenue estate of village Chohal HB No. 494, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur for construction of Chohal Dam. The same was followed by notification dated 26.3.1991, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') awarded compensation @ ` 42.65 per marla for Gairmumkin Pahar, Banjar Kadeem/ Jhangi Darkhtan; ` 199/- per marla for barani; ` 1,000/- per marla for Gair Mumkin abadi and ` 37.65 per marla for Gairmumkin choe kind of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 2,000/- per marla, R.F.A. No. 917 of 1996 [2] irrespective of the land. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that value of the land, as has been assessed by the learned court below even requires further enhancement considering the fact that it was a prime land, which was, in fact, a picnic spot. A hotel had already come up at the place and was operational since April, 1989, whereas the acquisition was carried out in March, 1991. To state that reliance on sale deed (Ex. R1) is not fair is totally misplaced considering the fact that the State itself produced the sale deed in the evidence led by them. They cannot be allow to blow hot and cold in the same breath. It has come on record that there was abadi in khasra No. 687, a part of the land of which was acquired. The hotel was also existing in the same khasra number. JCT Mill was merely 3-4 kilometers therefrom. The learned court below had failed to award appreciation in the consideration paid in sale deed (Ex. R1), the same having been registered on 28.12.1989. The notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 18.3.1991 and there being a difference of one year and three months. For the intervening period increase @ 15% per annum should have been granted. He further submitted that part of the land of the land owners, which was not acquired had, in fact, become unapproachable as the State had put fencing and the gate around the reservoir, which included the left over land of the land owners. A Local Commissioner was appointed for the purpose, whose report (Ex. AW15/TT in Land Reference No. 212 of 1994) was not controverted by the State. Even a site plan was also produced on record, i.e., (Ex. AW15/VV). The submission was that damages granted by the learned court below merely to the extent of 30% for the unacquired land are quite on lower side. In fact, the land having became useless and made unapproachable by the State, they should have been awarded compensation to the extent of 100%. Another argument raised by learned counsel for the land owners in one of the appeals was regarding claim for compensation for loss of business. The submission was that prior to even acquisition of land, the appellant therein was restrained from raising construction on account of which he suffered loss. Further reliance was placed upon sale deeds (Ex. PW10/A, Ex. PW11/A and Ex. PW12/A in Land Reference No. 212 of 1994), which were registered on 15.6.1989. The submission was that much prior to the acquisition of land, the value of the land in the area was much more, as is depicted in the aforesaid sale deeds. The same were registered more than one year prior to the date of acquisition. Assessment of compensation be made after considering the aforesaid sale deeds. Another argument was sought to be made with regard to the R.F.A. No. 917 of 1996 [3] valuation of trees standing on the acquired land. The submission was that the value, as assessed by the learned court below, deserves further increase in terms of the evidence led by the land owners. The life of a tree and the yield therefrom was required to be considered before assessing the compensation, which has not been done by the learned court below. In response to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the land owners, learned counsel for the State submitted that reliance on sale deeds (Ex.PW10/A, Ex. PW11/A and Ex. PW12/A) is not just and fair. The same were not even considered by the learned court below. It is for the reason that the appellant in R.F.A. No. 2025 of 2003 having come to know about the acquisition, when a notice was issued to him on 28.3.1989 for stopping the construction, got all the sale deeds registered just to create evidence to claim higher compensation. As far as report of Local Commissioner with regard to claim of severance is concerned, learned counsel for the State could not dispute the fact that at the time of inspection by the Local Commissioner, many officials on behalf of the department were present at the spot and further no objection was raised to the aforesaid report before the court below. Regarding claim for loss of business or valuation of trees is concerned, it was submitted that the same is not tenable considering the fact that to claim loss of business, reliance is sought to be placed for something which allegedly took place prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and as regards trees, it was submitted that the learned court below has already accepted the number of trees, as claimed by the land owners and the valuation thereof has also been assessed in terms of price fixed at the time of auction, hence, the same does not call for any interference. It was further submitted that the learned court below had committed an illegality in placing reliance upon sale deed (Ex. R1), which was merely for four marlas of land sold at an average price of ` 4,000/- per marla. Though it was registered one year prior to the date of acquisition, however, still in fact the people in the area had come to know about the acquisition and the same was registered to jack up the prices. The cut applied by the learned court below for assessing the large chunk of land merely at 50% is not reasonable. He further submitted that categorisation of land, as was made by the Collector has been done away by the learned court below without there being any basis. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. As far as claim regarding valuation of the land is concerned, in my opinion, the same does not call for any interference by this court. It does not lie in R.F.A. No. 917 of 1996 [4] the mouth of the State to argue that reliance on sale deed (Ex. R1) is not fair. In fact, the same was produced by the State itself, meaning thereby that even the State found the same to be relevant for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land. It was registered one year and three months prior to the date of acquisition. The average price paid therein was ` 4,000/- per marla. Considering the fact that it was for a small piece of land measuring four marlas, the learned court below applied a cut of 50%. If an increase @ 10% per annum is granted to the land owners on the value as shown in sale deed (Ex. R1) for the time gap of one year and three months, the cut, which has been applied by the learned court below, would come about to 55% which, in my opinion, is quite reasonable. In any case, for any marginal adjustment, this court would not like to interfere about 20 years after the acquisition. Reliance on sale deeds (Ex. PW10/A, Ex. PW11/A and Ex. PW12/A) is totally misplaced, as this court does not find them to be genuine transactions, as the vendor therein was appellant in RFA No. 2025 of 2003, to whom a notice had been issued for stopping the construction as some acquisition proceedings were proposed. Meaning thereby, he was in knowledge of the process of acquisition and the sale deeds must have been got registered by him just to create evidence for claiming higher compensation. Even the value depicted therein also shows that the difference in the value mentioned therein and the sale deed (Ex. R1) is quite large. Accordingly, as far as assessment of compensation for the acquired land is concerned, the same is upheld. As far as claim of damages on account of severance is concerned, in my opinion, considering the uncontroverted evidence in the form of a report of the Local Commissioner and also the site plan, produced on record by him, in view of which it is evident that the left over land of the land owners had been made totally inaccessible by putting the fencing and the gate, the land owners are certainly entitled to more compensation on that account. The same having been granted by the learned court below merely @ 30% is quite on lower side, especially when the aforesaid facts are not in dispute. In view of the uncontroverted evidence on record, in my opinion, the land owners should be paid at least 50% of the value, as assessed for the acquired land, for the unacquired portion thereof. As far as claim for loss of business is concerned, there is nothing on record that after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, any loss had been suffered. If there was any alleged restrain by any authority from raising the construction, the person concerned may have other remedy but may not be R.F.A. No. 917 of 1996 [5] under the Act. As far as valuation of trees is concerned, even on that account, in my opinion, the land owners do not deserve to be granted any further compensation. The number of trees have been taken in terms of the report produced by RW1- Vijay Kumar Patwari, where number of trees were shown as 1841 as against 233 initially assessed. The valuation thereof has also been assessed in terms of the minimum auction price fixed by the State for the purpose. There being no material on record to show that the trees put to auction were sold at a higher price, this court would not like to enter into that arena to make its own assessment, considering the fact that the minimum price at the time of auction is also fixed on the basis of certain formula. Accordingly, the claim on that account is dismissed. In view of my above discussions, except for claim of damages on account of severance which the land owners shall be entitled to @ 50% for the unacquired portion of land, the award of the learned court below is upheld. The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge August 23, 2010 mk