RFA No. 2085 of 1984 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 2085 of 1984 Date of decision: 10.07.2009 Smt. Savitri and others ....Appellants Versus The State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. M.L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Gursimran Sidhu, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. H.S. Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana, with Mr. Deepak Girotra, AAG, for the respondent. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This regular first appeal is directed against the award dated 23.8.1984 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, on a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Land Acquisition Collector had fixed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.9,000/- per acre. In addition, the appellants were held entitled to solatium @ 15% on the compensation and interest @ 6% per annum from the date till actual realisation. RFA No. 2085 of 1984 -2- The State of Haryana by Government notification dated 1.1.1973 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, initiated the acquisition of land for public purpose, namely, for development of Mandi Township at village Rewari had bast No. 25 Tehsil Rewari, District Mahendergarh. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 17.3.1978 granted compensation @ 9,000/- per acre, along with other statutory benefits then in force. Being dissatisfied with the award of the learned Land Acquisition Collector, the appellant-land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The reference was forwarded to the learned District Judge. The appellant-land owners claimed enhanced compensation @ Rs.20,000/- per acre along with solatium and interest. The reference was contested by defending the compensation awarded by the learned Land Acquisition Collector. The learned reference Court, on the basis of evidence, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.11,000/- per acre. The appellants were further held entitled to solatium @ 15% on enhanced compensation and interest @ 6% per annum. The award was passed by the learned Additional District Judge on 23.8.1984. Mr. M.L. Sarin, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, has challenged the award primarily on the ground, that the market value assessed is much less and that the claimants are entitled to enhancement thereof. In support of the claim, he has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in RFA No. 63 of 1978 (Nathu Ram Vs. State of Haryana) decided on 19.12.1980. This Court in the said case RFA No. 2085 of 1984 -3- was pleased to assess the market value of the land @ Rs.15/- per square yard for one category of land and Rs.10/- per square yard for second category of land along with other statutory benefits then applicable, depending on distance from the road. The learned senior counsel points out, that the acquisition in consideration in RFA No. 63 of 1978 was for establishment of Mandi Township, including residential and factory areas in Rewari. The present acquisition also being for the same purpose, the appellants are also entitled to fixation of market value @ Rs.15/- per square yard as on 29.12.1970 i.e. date of issuance of notification under Section 4, in view of law laid down in the case of Nathu Ram Vs. State of Haryana (supra), with addition of 12% for each year, in view of rise in price. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellants, that the appellants are entitled to market value of Rs.18/- and there can be no categorisation qua the payment of compensation, as the acquired land was surrounded by roads in three sides. In support of the contention, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gulzara Singh & Ors., etc Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 1993 LACC 612, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down as under: - “Thus we have the evidence that the lands are possessed of potential value for being used for building purposes. In fact, the acquisition itself is for construction of Mandi Township. The principle of belting is perfectly legal and unexceptionable as the lands abutting the main road upto a specified depth, depending on factual material on record, would fetch higher market rate than the lands situated in interior RFA No. 2085 of 1984 -4- area. However, on facts of this case the belting is not warranted for the reason that as seen on three sides there exist roads and abutting the village. As per the plan as found by the High Court there exists a road cutting across the acquired lands. Therefore, there is not only access on three sides but also to interior lands. Thus in our view belting and fixation of differential rates of value is not justified.” It is further the contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellants, that though the appellants are not entitled to 12% interest on the compensation awarded, however, keeping in view that the award was passed by the learned Additional District Judge on 23.8.1984, the appellants would be entitled to solatium @ 30% along with statutory interest of 9% for the first year, and 15% for the subsequent period, in view of the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, which came into force w.e.f. 30.4.1984 i.e. prior to pronouncement of award of the learned Additional District Judge. Mr. H.S. Hooda, learned Advocate General, Haryana, opposes this appeal on the contention, that the appellants cannot be held entitled to fixation of market value @ Rs.15/- per square yard, as they had sought reference by claiming enhancement of market value to Rs.20,000/- per acre from that of Rs.9,000/- per acre as assessed by the learned Land Acquisition Collector. Therefore, at best landowners can be entitled to enhancement as prayed and nothing beyond. Mr. M.L. Sarin, learned senior counsel for the appellants, on the other hand contends, that this plea of the learned Advocate General, Haryana, cannot be accepted as the Court is bound to assess the market value of the land, for the purposes of assessment of compensation RFA No. 2085 of 1984 -5- payable, which cannot be restricted to the relief claimed under Section 18 of the Act. The contention of the learned senior counsel is, that before the learned Land Acquisition Collector landowners had claimed compensation @ Rs.400/- per square yard, which was not accepted and they were granted Rs.9,000/- per acre, therefore, in this appeal the market value as proved can always be granted. It is also contended that relief claimed in reference is merely superfluous and cannot bind landowners. In support reliance is placed on judgment of this Court in Rewati and others Vs. The State of Haryana, 1989 LACC 586, wherein this Court has been pleased to lay down as under: - “In view of the discussion made above, following principles of law can well be formulated: (i) No request can be made to the Collector at the time of seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act for the grant of a particular amount of compensation and if such a request is made, the same will have to be treated as surplusage. (ii) The Collector can only make reference under Section 18 of the Act for determination of compensation to the Civil Court. Even if he is agreeable, he cannot grant compensation asked for by a landowner. (iii) It is only the Civil Court and Civil Court alone which has got the power to determine the compensation in reference under Section 18 of the Act. The landowner under the unamended provisions of Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act could have been bound down to the grant of that much claim which he made in reply to notice under Section 9 of the Land RFA No. 2085 of 1984 -6- Acquisition Act. Under the amended provisions of Section 25 of the Act, the landowner cannot be bound down to any claim while giving reply to the notice under Section 9 of the Act. (iv) On the analogy of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhag Singh's case (supra) no technical view should be taken by Civil Court in the land acquisition matters. (v) Wherever two views are possible, taking of technical view, as far as possible, should be avoided until and unless such a view is in direct conflict with the express provision of the statue. This principle applies with greater force in land acquisition cases where the land is acquired against the wishes of a landowner.” On consideration, the market value of the acquired land is assessed at Rs.18/- per square yard i.e. by giving increase of 12% per annum on market value fixed for land by this Court in RFA No. 63 of 1978. The appellants are also entitled to solatium @ 30% of the enhanced compensation along with interest @ 9% for the first year and 15% for the subsequent period till realisation. However, appellants are not entitled to additional 12% interest as the said amendment is not applicable to this case. Appeal allowed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge July 10, 2009 R.S.