R.F.A. No. 4263 of 1998 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: July 26 ,2010 (1) RFA No. 4263 of 1998 (O&M) Makhan Singh and others .....Appellants Versus Collector Land Acquisition Industries Department and others .....Respondents (2) RFA No. 2177 of 1993 (O&M) Balbir Singh .....Appellant Versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents (3) RFA No. 2295 of 1993 (O&M) Harbans Singh (deceased) through LRs and others .....Appellants Versus Collector, Land Acquisition, Industries Department and others .....Respondents (4) RFA No. 2315 of 1993 (O&M) Charan Singh and another .....Appellants Versus Collector, Land Acquisition, Industries Department and another .....Respondents (5) RFA No. 2316 of 1993 (O&M) Hari Singh .....Appellant Versus Collector, Land Acquisition, Industries Department and others .....Respondents R.F.A. No. 4263 of 1998 [2] (6) RFA No. 475 of 1994 (O&M) Gurmej Kaur .....Appellant Versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents (7) RFA No. 476 of 1994 (O&M) Malkiat Singh .....Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents (8) RFA No. 617 of 1994 (O&M) Malkiat Singh .....Appellant Versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents (9) RFA No. 954 of 1994 (O&M) Gurbant Singh (deceased) through LRs .....Appellant Versus Collector, Land Acquisition, Industries Department and others .....Respondents (10) RFA No. 955 of 1994 (O&M) Karamjit Singh and others .....Appellants Versus Collector, Land Acquisition, Industries Department and others .....Respondents (11) RFA No. 996 of 1994 (O&M) Shri Guru Garanth Sahib .....Appellant Versus The Punjab State and others .....Respondents R.F.A. No. 4263 of 1998 [3] (12) RFA No. 1990 of 1994 (O&M) Puran Singh .....Appellant Versus The Collector Land Acquisition, Industries Department and others .....Respondents (13) RFA No. 2121 of 1994 (O&M) Puran Singh and others .....Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and others .....Respondents (14) RFA No. 2122 of 1994 (O&M) Basant Kaur (deceased) through LRs and others .....Appellants Versus The Collector, Land Acquisition, Industries Department and others .....Respondents (15) RFA No. 2188 of 1994 (O&M) Tarsem Singh and others .....Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and others .....Respondents (16) RFA No. 2189 of 1994 (O&M) Harnam Singh and others .....Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and others .....Respondents (17) RFA No. 2190 of 1994 (O&M) Tarsem Singh and others .....Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and others .....Respondents R.F.A. No. 4263 of 1998 [4] (18) RFA No. 2214 of 1994 (O&M) Jit Singh and others .....Appellants Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents (19) RFA No. 2853 of 1994 (O&M) Sohan Singh and others .....Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and others .....Respondents (20) RFA No. 2854 of 1994 (O&M) Ujaggar Singh .....Appellant Versus The State of Punjab and others .....Respondents (21) RFA No. 2855 of 1994 (O&M) Shri Puran Singh and others .....Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and others .....Respondents (22) RFA No. 1400 of 1996 (O&M) Swaran Singh and others .....Appellants Versus Collector, Land Acquisition, Industries Department and others .....Respondents R.F.A. No. 4263 of 1998 [5] (23) RFA No. 1431 of 1996 (O&M) Hardev Singh and another .....Appellants Versus Collector Land Acquisition Industries Department and others .....Respondents (24) RFA No. 1652 of 1996 (O&M) Gurmej Singh and others .....Appellants Versus Collector Land Acquisition, Industries Department and others .....Respondents (25) RFA No. 575 of 1997 (O&M) Chanan Singh .....Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and others .....Respondents (26) RFA No. 576 of 1997 (O&M) Jit Singh .....Appellant Versus Punjab State and others .....Respondents (27) RFA No. 579 of 1997 (O&M) Ravinder Kaur .....Appellant Versus Punjab State and others .....Respondents R.F.A. No. 4263 of 1998 [6] (28) RFA No. 646 of 1997 (O&M) Pritam Kaur .....Appellant Versus Punjab State and others .....Respondents (29) RFA No. 1112 of 1997 (O&M) Karnail Singh and others .....Appellants Versus The Collector Land Acquisition, Industries Department and others .....Respondents (30) RFA No. 1113 of 1997 (O&M) Banta Singh and another .....Appellants Versus The Collector Land Acquisition, Industries Department and others .....Respondents (31) RFA No. 2115 of 1997 (O&M) Harjit Singh and another .....Appellants Versus Punjab State and others .....Respondents (32) RFA No. 3259 of 1998 (O&M) Sucha Singh and another .....Appellants Versus Collector Land Acquisition Industries Department and others .....Respondents (33) RFA No. 3692 of 1998 (O&M) Swarna Singh (deceased) through LRs and another .....Appellants Versus Collector Land Acquisition Industries Department and others .....Respondents R.F.A. No. 4263 of 1998 [7] (34) RFA No. 3797 of 1998 (O&M) Mohan Singh .....Appellant Versus The State of Punjab and others .....Respondents (35) RFA No. 4161 of 1998 (O&M) Pritam Singh and others .....Appellants Versus Collector Land Acquisition Industries Department and others .....Respondents (36) RFA No. 4218 of 1998 (O&M) Joginder Singh and another .....Appellants Versus Collector, Land Acquisition Industries Department and others .....Respondents (37) RFA No. 4250 of 1998 (O&M) Makhan Singh and others .....Appellants Versus Collector Land Acquisition Industries Department and others .....Respondents (38) RFA No. 4262 of 1998 (O&M) Makhan Singh and others .....Appellants Versus Collector Land Acquisition Industries Department and others .....Respondents (39) RFA No. 4709 of 1998 (O&M) Tarlochan Singh and others .....Appellants Versus Collector Land Acquisition Industries Department and others .....Respondents R.F.A. No. 4263 of 1998 [8] (40) RFA No. 452 of 1999 (O&M) Union of India .....Appellant Versus Pritam Singh and others .....Respondents (41) RFA No. 453 of 1999 (O&M) Union of India .....Appellant Versus Resham Singh and others .....Respondents (42) RFA No. 454 of 1999 (O&M) Union of India .....Appellant Versus Makhan Singh and others .....Respondents (43) RFA No. 455 of 1999 (O&M) Union of India .....Appellant Versus Makhan Singh and others .....Respondents (44) RFA No. 456 of 1999 (O&M) Union of India .....Appellant Versus Makhan Singh and others .....Respondents (45) RFA No. 457 of 1999 (O&M) Union of India .....Appellant Versus Swaran Singh and others .....Respondents R.F.A. No. 4263 of 1998 [9] (46) RFA No. 458 of 1999 (O&M) Union of India .....Appellant Versus Harnam Singh and others .....Respondents (47) RFA No. 459 of 1999 (O&M) Union of India .....Appellant Versus Sucha Singh and others .....Respondents (48) RFA No. 460 of 1999 (O&M) Union of India .....Appellant Versus Joginder Singh and others .....Respondents (49) RFA No. 461 of 1999 (O&M) Union of India .....Appellant Versus Charan Singh @ Mohan Singh and others .....Respondents (50) RFA No. 462 of 1999 (O&M) Union of India .....Appellant Versus Tarlochan Singh and others .....Respondents (51) RFA No. 624 of 1999 (O&M) Union of India .....Appellant Versus Mohan Singh and others .....Respondents R.F.A. No. 4263 of 1998 [10] (52) RFA No. 625 of 1999 (O&M) Union of India .....Appellant Versus Resham Singh and others .....Respondents (53) RFA No. 626 of 1999 (O&M) Union of India .....Appellant Versus Amar Singh and others .....Respondents (54) RFA No. 627 of 1999 (O&M) Union of India .....Appellant Versus Amar Singh and others .....Respondents (55) RFA No. 628 of 1999 (O&M) Union of India .....Appellant Versus Swaran Kaur and others .....Respondents (56) RFA No. 808 of 1999 (O&M) Swaran Singh and another .....Appellants Versus Collector, Land Acquisition Industries Department and others .....Respondents R.F.A. No. 4263 of 1998 [11] (57) RFA No.2411 of 1999 (O&M) Resham Singh .....Appellant Versus Collector Land Acquisition Industries Department and others .....Respondents (58) RFA No. 1594 of 2002 (O&M) Union of India .....Appellant Versus Jit Singh and others .....Respondents (59) RFA No. 3114 of 2002 (O&M) Jit Singh .....Appellant Versus Union of India and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Naresh Kaushal, G. S. Nagra and Rajbir Singh, Advocates for the land owners. Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate for Union of India. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of above mentioned appeals, as common questions of law and facts are involved. In the appeals, filed by the land owners, they are seeking further enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned court below for the acquired land, whereas in the appeals filed by Union of India, the prayer is for reduction in the compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 24.9.1985, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Punjab acquired the land, situated in villages Manga Roda, R.F.A. No. 4263 of 1998 [12] Rawal Bechirag, Dhudianwala, Rasulpur, Saidowal and Saido Bholana, Tehsil and District Kapurthala, for setting up of Integral Coach Factory near Hussainpur Railway Station. The same was followed by notification dated 11.11.1985, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') divided the land into three categories and assessed compensation for various villages at the following rates: “Name of the village Kind of land Amount awarded by the Collector in ` ........................................................................................................................................................ Manga Roda Chahi 19,360/- per acre Barani & Gair Mumkin 13,493/- per acre Rawal Bechirag Chahi 22,691.90 per acre Barani 13,731.30 per acre Gair Mumkin 12,483/- per acre Dhudianwala Chahi 19,360/- per acre Barani & Gair Mumkin 13,494/- per acre Rasulpur Chahi 19,884/- per acre Barani & Gair Mumkin 10,667/- per acre Saidowal Chahi 26,830/- per acre Barani & Gair Mumkin 8,000/- per acre Saido Bholana Chahi 22,495/- per acre Barani 11,733.70 per acre Gair Mumkin 10,667/- per acre 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 pertaining to village Manga Roda @ ` 46,829/- per acre. It is also pertinent to mention here that in R.F.A. No. 2189 of 1994, pertaining to the same village, the learned court below dismissed the references filed by the land owners by upholding the award of the Collector. So far as other villages are concerned, the award of the Collector was upheld. Learned counsel for the land owners in RFA No. 4263 of 1998 pertaining to acquisition of land of village Manga Roda, submitted that the sale deeds as well as agreement to sell produced on record by them have not been given due weightage. The sale deeds were rejected merely by opining that the same pertained to small pieces of land, whereas principles for taking into consideration the sale deeds even of small plots are well settled and these can be relied upon by applying a reasonable cut. Sale deed (Ex. A5) was registered on 13.3.1986, much prior to the acquisition of land, whereby 4 kanals of land was sold at an average price of ` 98,000/- per acre. Vide sale deed (Ex. A6) registered on 31.5.1983, land measuring 3 kanals and 10 marlas was sold at an average price of ` 72,000/- per R.F.A. No. 4263 of 1998 [13] acre. Vide agreement to sell dated 30.1.1985 (Ex. A12), 96 kanals of land was agreed to be sold for a total consideration of ` 7,46,000/- at an average price of ` 93,250/- per acre. If the aforesaid evidence is given due weightage, the value of the land, as assessed by the learned court below deserves to be enhanced further. He further submitted that the value of the land in the area can very well be ascertained from the fact that in subsequent acquisition carried out merely 4 years thereafter, the Collector himself had assessed the value at ` 92,000/- per acre (Ex. A11). However, on a query by the court as to whether the land pertaining to the sale deeds relied upon by the land owners has been pointed out on any of the site plan produced by them on record, the answer was in negative. Learned counsel appearing for the land owners pertaining to land of village Rawal Bechirag submitted that the purpose for which the land in question was acquired was to set up an Integrated Rail Coach Factory. Once the object for which the land was to be used was common, there was no reason for classifying the same as Chahi, Barani or Gair Mumkin and the compensation for the entire acquired land should have been assessed at the same rate as after the acquisition, the entire land is being used for industrial or residential purposes. Sale deed (Ex. A9) dated 28.11.1984 for land measuring 6 marlas produced on record by the land owners has not been considered. However, it was not disputed by learned counsel for the land owners that there is no site plan on record showing the location of the land dealt with in the sale deed. No other additional argument was raised for the land pertaining to other village. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the impugned award of the learned court below deserves to be set aside for the reason that there was no evidence on record to justify any increase whatsoever. The learned court below has failed to take into consideration the evidence led by the State, which justified the award of the Collector. The sale deeds produced by the State were not considered. It was further submitted that reliance on an earlier award of the learned court below pertaining to the acquisition of land is totally misplaced, considering the fact that reliance therein was placed upon the award of the Collector, as was passed pertaining to the land of village Dhudianwala, which even on a perusal of the award of the Collector shows that the assessment made by him being arbitrary was not even accepted by the Financial Commissioner and further it has been specifically stated in that award that location of the land pertaining to village Dhudianwala is far better as compared to the other land. R.F.A. No. 4263 of 1998 [14] Learned counsel further pointed out that though the learned court below dismissed the land references seeking enhancement of compensation pertaining to land of villages Rawal Bechirag, Dhudianwala, Rasulpur, Saidowal and Saido Bholana, even for land pertaining to village Manga Roda also, some of the references were dismissed, whereas in some compensation has been enhanced. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. What can be opined from the material on record is that the land owners in the present case have failed to lead clinching evidence which could enable the Court to reach to a conclusion that fair value of the acquired land was in terms of the claim made by them. Though they had produced various sale deeds on record, which in my opinion, is not enough as the onus to prove that the compensation as assessed by the Collector was not adequate is always on the land owners, who is in the position of a plaintiff. Reference for the purpose can be made to Para 28 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangunthala (Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar (L.A.) and Ors. 2010(2) Recent Apex Judgments 286. “28. It is settled that the burden of establishing/proving the market value of the lands is always on the claimants. In Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 1991(1) R.R.R. 427 : AIR 1990 SC 2192, this Court held that it is the duty of the Court to determine just and fair market value. It was further held that the claimants should produce necessary evidence on the value of land since the burden of proof is on them to establish the higher compensation claimed. While agreeing with the judgment in Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd (Supra), this Court in the case of Special Deputy Collector & Another v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao & Others, (1997) 6 SCC 41, held that in a claim for enhancement of compensation the burden of proof was on the claimants that land was capable of fetching higher compensation. Further in the case of Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad Development Authority and another, 2004(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 3 : (2004) 10 SCC 745, it was held that the burden of proving that the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector is inadequate lies upon the claimant and he is in the position of a plaintiff.” R.F.A. No. 4263 of 1998 [15] In case titled as Thakur Kuldeep Singh (D) Thr. L.R. & Ors. Versus Union of India and Ors., 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 372, the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined as under:- “6. Sections 23 and 24 of the Act speak about the matters to be considered and to be neglected in determining compensation. Let us consider whether the appellants are entitled to higher compensation than that of the one fixed by the High Court or Union of India is justified in seeking reduction of the market value/compensation for the acquired land. While fixing compensation, it is the duty of the Land Acquisition Collector as well as the Court to take into consideration the nature of the land, its suitability, nature of the use to which the lands are sought to be acquired on the date of notification, income derived or derivable from or any other special distinctive feature which the land is possessed of, the sale transactions in respect of land covered by the same notification are all relevant factors to be taken into consideration in determining the market value. It is equally to consider the suitability of neighbourhood lands as are possessed of similar potentiality or any advantageous features or any special characteristics available. The Land Acquisition Collector as well as the Court should always keep in their mind that the object of assessment is to arrive at a reasonable and adequate market value of the land. While doing so, imagination should be eschewed and mechanical assessment of evidence should be avoided. More attention should be on the bona fide and genuine sale transactions as guiding star in evaluating the evidence. The relevant factor would be that of the hypothetical willing vendor would offer for the land and what a willing purchaser of normal human conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market conditions prevailing in the open market in the locality in which the acquired lands are situated as on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. In other words, the Judge who sits in the armchair of the willing buyer and seek an answer to the question whether in the given set of circumstances as a prudent buyer he would offer the same market value which the R.F.A. No. 4263 of 1998 [16] court proposed to fix for the acquired lands in the available market conditions. The market value so determined should be just, adequate and reasonable.” The land owners in the present case produced on record various sale deeds. However, at the time of arguments, reliance was sought to be placed on sale deeds (Ex. A5 and Ex. A6) dated 13.3.1986 and 31.5.1983 respectively and further an agreement to sell (Ex. A12). It is not in dispute that the land pertaining to the aforesaid sale deeds or the land, which was subject-matter of the alleged agreement to sell, has not been shown on any of the site plan produced on record by the parties. As far as sale deed (Ex. A5) is concerned, through the learned court below in the impugned award has mentioned its date as 13.3.1985, but a perusal of the record shows the same to be dated 13.3.1986. The same cannot possibly be considered to be relevant for the reason that notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 24.9.1985. As far as sale deed (Ex. A6) is concerned, the same is dated 31.3.1983 and dealing with 3 kanals 10 marlas of land. However, this court is unable to consider this as well a relevant piece of evidence for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land, as the location thereof is not pointed out on any site plan and further the same pertained to a different village. As far as agreement to sell dated 31.1.1985 (Ex. A12) is concerned, though lot of stress was sought to be laid thereon by learned counsel for the land owners stating that genuineness thereof cannot be doubted for the reason that it was entered into 8 months prior to the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, however, it was not disputed that neither the land pertaining thereto has been pointed out on any site plan nor the aforesaid agreement to sell was recorded with any Deed Writer and further at the time of leading evidence before the court below, the sale deed, which may have been executed in terms of that agreement, was not produced on record. In the absence thereof, such an agreement cannot be said to be a piece of evidence worth reliance and has to be discarded. Now coming to the issue of determination of compensation by the learned court below pertaining to land of village Manga Roda, where in some of the cases compensation has been enhanced. Though the court below discarded the evidence led by the parties considering the same to be not trust worthy, but still went on to increase the compensation by referring to award No. 2, as was announced by the Collector pertaining to the land of village Dhudianwala. A perusal of the reasoning adopted by the learned court below in award (Ex. PX) on R.F.A. No. 4263 of 1998 [17] record (which is subject-matter of appeal in R.F.A. No. 575 of 1997) shows lot of discrepancies therein. The material, which was already considered and rejected by the appropriate government by considering the award to be given by the Collector, was twisted and the compensation was enhanced. In my opinion, the material, which has been referred to and relied upon by the learned court below while assessing higher rate of compensation for the land pertaining to village Manga Roda in some of the cases does not inspire confidence. The land pertaining to none of the sale deed has been located on any of the site plans produced on record. Accordingly, the same deserves to be set aside. It being a case of practically no evidence, all the land references pertaining to acquisition of land of villages Manga Roda, Rawal Bechirag, Dhudianwala, Rasulpur, Saidowal and Saido Bholana, in fact, deserve dismissal. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the land owners seeking enhancement of compensation are dismissed, whereas the appeals filed by Union of India/Railways challenging the award pertaining to the land of village Manga Roda, where the compensation was enhanced, are accepted and award in those appeals is set aside. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge July ,2010 mk