RFA No.1296 of 1994 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.1296 of 1994 Date of Decision: 16.12.2009 Harwant Singh .……Appellant Versus State of Haryana ……Respondent Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Ishwar Lal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ashish Gupta, AAG, Haryana. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Harwant Singh-landowner has filed this appeal assailing judgment dated 03.12.1993 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala whereby market price of acquired land of the appellant measuring 540 Square yards (18 marlas) comprised of Khasra No.2//24/2/2/3 situated in village Patti Mehar Hadbast No.58, Tehsil and Distt. Ambala, which alongwith other land was acquired for public purpose namely for development and utilisation of land as residential and commercial area in Sector-8 at Ambala, has been determined to be Rs.100/- per square yard, besides compensation of Rs.75000/- granted to the appellant for structures existing in his acquired land, in petition filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act) by the appellant. Haryana Government vide notification No.LAC (P)-NTLA- 83/1531 dated 04.03.1983 issued under Section 4 of the Act followed RFA No.1296 of 1994 -2- by notifications No. LAC (P)-NTLA-86/532 and LAC (P)-NTLA- 86/533 both dated 27.02.1986 under Section 6 of the Act acquired land measuring 133.68 acres (including above mentioned land of the appellant) situated in Village Patti Mehar, Hadbast No.58, Tehsil and Distt. Ambala, for the above mentioned public purpose. Land Acquisition Collector determined the market price of the acquired land at the rates of Rs.40000/- per acre for chahi land, Rs.32000/- per acre for Barani land and Rs.16000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land vide award No.13 dated 23.02.1988. The appellant being not satisfied with the said award, filed petition under Section 18 of the Act, which has been disposed of by the Reference Court vide impugned judgment dated 03.12.1993. Feeling still aggrieved, landowner has preferred the instant appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the acquired land of the appellant is located on Ambala-Hissar Road and, therefore, the same was required to be valued at Rs.400/- per square yard as per judgment (EX. P-2) dated 30.10.1988, passed by Sh. V. P. Aggarwal, the then Additional District Judge, Ambala in case 'Bhagwan Dass versus State of Haryana'. The contention cannot be accepted. There is not even a shred of material on record to substantiate this contention. It was not pleaded by the appellant in his petition under Section 18 of the Act that his acquired land is located on Ambala-Hissar Road. It was also not so stated by the appellant while appearing in the witness-box as PW-2. Even in the grounds of appeal, the appellant has not pleaded that his acquired RFA No.1296 of 1994 -3- land was located on Ambala-Hissar Road. Consequently, the contention raised by the appellant is completely devoid of merit. On the other hand, perusal of judgment Ex.P-2 reveals that market price at the rate of Rs.400/- per square yard vide that judgment was awarded for land of killa No.25 (Rectangle No.1) only whereas in respect of remaining acquired land arising out of the same acquisition, market value was determined to be Rs.100/- per square yard only. The land of the appellant herein is not located in Rectangle No.1 Killa No.25 and is rather located in Rectangle No.2 Killa No.24/2/2/3. Consequently, the appellant is not entitled to compensation for his acquired land at the rate of Rs.400/- per square yard. On the contrary, vide judgment Ex.P-2, market value of the acquired land arising out of the same acquisition was assessed to be Rs.100/- per square yard only. In the instant case, also the reference Court accordingly awarded compensation to the appellant at the rate of Rs.100/- per square yard. However, this Court vide judgment dated 08.04.1994 in RFA No.755 of 1992 titled as 'Satish Kumar versus State of Haryana', pertaining to the same acquisition, determined the market value of acquired land at the rate of Rs.112/- per square yard. Bunch of appeals arising out of the same acquisition was disposed of by the said judgment by discussing in detail the evidence relating to market value of the acquired land. The instant appeal is covered by the said judgment in the case of Satish Kumar (supra). No evidence of any other comparable sale instance or precedent has been led by the appellant in the instant case. Consequently, in the instant case, market value of acquired land of RFA No.1296 of 1994 -4- the appellant has to be determined to be Rs.112/- per square yard following the judgment of this Court in the case of Satish Kumar (supra). Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that compensation for building of the appellant existing in the acquired land has been determined to be Rs.75000/- only by the Reference Court, which is inadequate. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that G. L. Sharma PW-1, expert witness examined by the appellant, assessed the value of the building of the appellant to be Rs.1,51,850/- vide report Ex.P-1. However, learned State counsel contended that S.C. Mehta RW-1, expert witness examined by the State, assessed the value of the building of the appellant to be Rs.53,988/- vide Plan Ex.R-1 and estimate Ex.R-2. I have carefully considered the aforesaid evidence. Perusal of the lower Court file reveals that G. L. Sharma PW-1 examined by the appellant had given another report regarding valuation of appellant's building, in addition to the report Ex.P-1. The said other report existing at Pages 31 to 35 of the Lower Court reveals that vide said report, G. L. Sharma assessed the value of the appellant's building at Rs.1,90,018/- whereas vide report Ex.P-1, the value was assessed to be Rs.1,51,850/- only. Consequently, the assessment made by G. L. Sharma cannot be relied on. Moreover, the reference Court has determined the value of the appellant's building to be Rs.75000/- i.e almost 40% more than the value of the building assessed by the expert witness of the State. Learned State counsel has also pointed out that G. L. RFA No.1296 of 1994 -5- Sharma PW-1 in his report (Annexure P-1) determined the value of the building to be Rs.1,51,850/- which also included land acquisition charges at the rate 30 % and interest at the rate of 12 % per annum w.e.f. 04.03.1983 (the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act) till 23.02.1988, the date of award by Land Acquisition Collector. It is pointed out by learned State counsel that in fact G. L. Sharma vide his abstract of costs annexed with his report (EX. P-1) determined the value of the building including electricity fitting charges and hand pump to be Rs.79,920/- and, thereafter added 30% thereof as acquisition charges and 12% per annum for the aforesaid period, to arrive at the figure of Rs.1,51,849.23. Perusal of report Ex.P-1 submitted by G. L. Sharma expert witness of the appellant himself reveals that value of the building including hand pump and electricity fittings was determined to be Rs.79,921.65 only even by expert witness of the appellant himself. In this view of the matter, the compensation of Rs.75,000/- awarded by reference Court for building to the appellant cannot be said to be inadequate or insufficient. On the other hand, keeping in view the reports of both the experts, the compensation awarded by the Reference Court for the building can be said to be somewhat excessive, but not inadequate. Consequently, the appellant is not entitled to any further enhancement of compensation for his building existing in the acquired land. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant appeal is allowed partly and market value of the acquired land of the appellant is determined to be Rs.112/- per square yard which the appellant shall be entitled to, along with statutory benefits in RFA No.1296 of 1994 -6- accordance with provisions of Section 23(1-A), Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Compensation for the building of the appellant existing in the acquired land as determined by the reference Court does not deserve to be enhanced further and is accordingly affirmed. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 16.12.2009 A. Kaundal