R.F.A. No. 1438 of 2003 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: May 21, 2010 (1) R.F.A. No. 1438 of 2003 (O&M) Ved Parkash and others ..... Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents (2) R.F.A. No. 1677 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Ved Parkash and others ...... Respondents (3) R.F.A. No. 1833 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Shisha Singh @ Shishan Singh and others ...... Respondents (4) R.F.A. No. 1834 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Jharmal Singh and another ...... Respondents (5) R.F.A. No. 1835 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Jarnail Singh and others ...... Respondents (6) R.F.A. No. 1836 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Pal Kaur and others ...... Respondents (7) R.F.A. No. 1837 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Amandeep Dutta and others ...... Respondents R.F.A. No. 1438 of 2003 [2] (8) R.F.A. No. 1838 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Pritam Singh and others ...... Respondents (9) R.F.A. No. 1839 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Des Raj (since deceased) through LRs and others ...... Respondents (10) R.F.A. No. 1840 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Pritam Singh and others ...... Respondents (11) R.F.A. No. 1841 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Hardev Singh and others ...... Respondents (12) R.F.A. No. 1842 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Santokh Singh and others ...... Respondents (13) R.F.A. No. 1843 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Gram Panchayat Ajnali and another ...... Respondents (14) R.F.A. No. 1844 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Teja Singh and another ...... Respondents (15) R.F.A. No. 1845 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Nachhatar Singh and others ...... Respondents R.F.A. No. 1438 of 2003 [3] (16) R.F.A. No. 1846 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Joginder Singh and another ...... Respondents (17) R.F.A. No. 1847 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Jagdish Chander and others ...... Respondents (18) R.F.A. No. 1848 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Kapoor Kaur and others ...... Respondents (19) R.F.A. No. 1849 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Avtar G.S. Bishan and others ...... Respondents (20) R.F.A. No. 1850 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Karnail Singh and others ...... Respondents (21) R.F.A. No. 1851 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Mohinder Singh and others ...... Respondents (22) R.F.A. No. 1852 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Gurbachan Lal and others ...... Respondents (23) R.F.A. No. 1853 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Mohinder Singh and others ...... Respondents R.F.A. No. 1438 of 2003 [4] (24) R.F.A. No. 1854 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Kartar Singh and others ...... Respondents (25) R.F.A. No. 1855 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Vidya Wanti and another ...... Respondents (26) R.F.A. No. 1856 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Bawa Singh and another ...... Respondents (27) R.F.A. No. 1857 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Dhian Singh and others ...... Respondents (28) R.F.A. No. 1858 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Nachhatar Singh and others ...... Respondents (29) R.F.A. No. 1859 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Sukhwinder Singh and another ...... Respondents (30) R.F.A. No. 1860 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Teja Singh and another ...... Respondents (31) R.F.A. No. 1861 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Kartar Kaur and others ...... Respondents R.F.A. No. 1438 of 2003 [5] (32) R.F.A. No. 1862 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Manohar Lal and others ... Respondents (33) R.F.A. No. 1863 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Surjit Singh and others ...... Respondents (34) R.F.A. No. 1864 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Santokh Singh and others ...... Respondents (35) R.F.A. No. 1865 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Krishan Lal and another ...... Respondents (36) R.F.A. No. 1866 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Santokah Singh and others ...... Respondents (37) R.F.A. No. 1867 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Kuldip Singh and others ...... Respondents (38) R.F.A. No. 1868 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Smt. Sheela Wanti and another ...... Respondents (39) R.F.A. No. 1869 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Jarnail Singh and others ...... Respondents R.F.A. No. 1438 of 2003 [6] (40) R.F.A. No. 1870 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Bachan Singh and others ...... Respondents (41) R.F.A. No. 1871 of 2003 (O&M) and Cross Objection No.37-CI of 2005 Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Jagdeep Kaur and others ...... Respondents (42) R.F.A. No. 1872 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Jarnail Singh and others ...... Respondents (43) R.F.A. No. 1873 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Karnail Singh and others ...... Respondents (44) R.F.A. No. 1874 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Darshan Singh and others ...... Respondents (45) R.F.A. No. 1875 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Smt. Usha Singhal and others ...... Respondents (46) R.F.A. No. 1876 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Jag Singh @ Jagjit Singh and another ...... Respondents (47) R.F.A. No. 1877 of 2003 (O&M) Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. ..... Appellant Versus Bachan Singh and others ...... Respondents R.F.A. No. 1438 of 2003 [7] (48) R.F.A. No. 1944 of 2003 (O&M) Kulwinder Kaur and others ..... Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents (49) R.F.A. No. 1970 of 2003 (O&M) Dhian Singh and another ..... Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents (50) R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2003 (O&M) Manohar Lal and another ..... Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents (51) R.F.A. No. 1972 of 2003 (O&M) Nachhattar Singh and others ..... Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents (52) R.F.A. No. 1973 of 2003 (O&M) Faquir Singh ..... Appellant Versus The State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents (53) R.F.A. No. 1974 of 2003 (O&M) Jagdish Chander and another ..... Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents (54) R.F.A. No. 1975 of 2003 (O&M) Santokh Singh and another ..... Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents (55) R.F.A. No. 1976 of 2003 (O&M) Avtar G.S. Bishan ..... Appellant Versus The State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents R.F.A. No. 1438 of 2003 [8] (56) R.F.A. No. 1977 of 2003 (O&M) Kuldeep Singh and another ..... Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents (57) R.F.A. No. 1978 of 2003 (O&M) Santokh Singh and another ..... Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents (58) R.F.A. No. 1979 of 2003 (O&M) Mohinder Singh and another ..... Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents (59) R.F.A. No. 1980 of 2003 (O&M) Kartar Singh and another ..... Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents (60) R.F.A. No. 1981 of 2003 (O&M) Sukhwinder Singh ..... Appellant Versus The State of Punjab ...... Respondent (61) R.F.A. No. 1982 of 2003 (O&M) Des Raj and others ..... Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents (62) R.F.A. No. 1983 of 2003 (O&M) Krishan Lal ..... Appellant Versus The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents (63) R.F.A. No. 1984 of 2003 (O&M) Amandeep Dutta ..... Appellant Versus The State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents R.F.A. No. 1438 of 2003 [9] (64) R.F.A. No. 1985 of 2003 (O&M) Nachhattar Singh and others ..... Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents (65) R.F.A. No. 1986 of 2003 (O&M) Darshan Singh ..... Appellant Versus The State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents (66) R.F.A. No. 1987 of 2003 (O&M) Gram Panchayat Ajnali ..... Appellant Versus The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents (67) R.F.A. No. 1988 of 2003 (O&M) Hardev Singh and others ..... Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents (68) R.F.A. No. 1989 of 2003 (O&M) Pal Kaur and others ..... Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents (69) R.F.A. No. 1990 of 2003 (O&M) Bawa Singh ..... Appellant Versus The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents (70) R.F.A. No. 1991 of 2003 (O&M) Bachan Singh ..... Appellant Versus The State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents (71) R.F.A. No. 1992 of 2003 (O&M) Bachan Singh and another ..... Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents R.F.A. No. 1438 of 2003 [10] (72) R.F.A. No. 1993 of 2003 (O&M) Mohinder Singh and another ..... Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents (73) R.F.A. No. 1994 of 2003 (O&M) Jarnail Singh and another ..... Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents (74) R.F.A. No. 1995 of 2003 (O&M) Jarnail Singh and another ..... Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents (75) R.F.A. No. 1996 of 2003 (O&M) Jag Singh @ Jagjit Singh ..... Appellant Versus The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents (76) R.F.A. No. 1997 of 2003 (O&M) Jarnail Singh and another ..... Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents (77) R.F.A. No. 1998 of 2003 (O&M) Karnail Singh and others ..... Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents (78) R.F.A. No. 1999 of 2003 (O&M) Jharmal Singh ..... Appellant Versus The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents (79) R.F.A. No. 2000 of 2003 (O&M) Pritam Singh and others ..... Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents R.F.A. No. 1438 of 2003 [11] (80) R.F.A. No. 2001 of 2003 (O&M) Karnail Singh and others ..... Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents (81) R.F.A. No. 2002 of 2003 (O&M) Pritam Singh and another ..... Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents (82) R.F.A. No. 2858 of 2003 (O&M) Surinder Kaur ..... Appellant Versus The State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents (83) R.F.A. No. 3593 of 2003 (O&M) Balbir Kaur and others ..... Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents (84) R.F.A. No. 3594 of 2003 (O&M) Pritam Singh and others ..... Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sukhwinder Kaur, Mr. Sandeep Kumar Sharma and Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advoates for the land owners. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Ms. Lisa Gill and Mr. Pradip Bhandari, Advocates for Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of above mentioned appeals, as common questions of law and facts are involved. R.F.A. Nos. 1438, 1944, 1970 to 2002, 2858, 3593 and 3594 of 2003 have been filed by the land owners seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. R.F.A. No. 1438 of 2003 [12] R.F.A. Nos. 677, 1833 to 1877 of 2003 have been filed by the Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. (for short, `PSIEC') seeking reduction in the amount of compensation awarded to the land owners by the learned court below. In R.F.A. No. 1871 of 2003, cross objections have been filed by the land owners seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 209.55 acres, situated in village Ajnali and 4.39 acres, situated in village Ambe Majra (Mandi Gobindgarh), was acquired by the State Government vide notification dated 17.2.1992, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for setting up Industrial Focal Point, Mandi Gobindgarh. The same was followed by notification dated 8.9.1992, issued under Section 6 of the Act. Vide award dated 14.9.1994, the Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land in village Ajnali @ Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre and Rs. 80,000/- per acre for the land situated in village Ambe Majra. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned court below, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, assessed the market value of the part of the land situated in between the G.T. Road and the minor canal @ Rs. 1,80,000/- per acre, whereas for the remaining land situated beyond the minor canal was assessed @ Rs. 1,20,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the learned court below has failed to consider the material placed on record by them while determining the amount of compensation, to which the land owners are entitled to. It has totally failed to take notice of the fact that the land was strategically located in Mandi Gobindgarh, which is called as Manchester of India or steel town of India. The entire area in the vicinity had already been developed as lot of industries had been set up there. The pressure for further expansion of the industries was on this side of the city, which is towards Ludhiana. Even beyond the acquisition boundaries, the industrial units had been set up. The land is located just on G.T. Road. It was acquired for the purpose of development as Industrial Focal Point. In fact, part of the acquired land was within the municipal limits, whereas the other was abutting it, which itself shows that the land had great potential for being used for industrial and residential purposes. It was abutting the abadi of village Ajnali. The land owners had produced two sale-deeds on record. Due weight has not been given to these sale deeds, namely, Ex. P1 and Ex. PW4/A. The learned court below, while assessing the compensation for the acquired land, R.F.A. No. 1438 of 2003 [13] applied a cut of 50% on the value as shown in the aforesaid sale deeds and thereafter averaged the same with the value of sale deeds produced by the State. It was a kind of double cut. The land pertaining to the sale deeds produced by the State had not been located on any site plan produced by the State on record. Even otherwise, the value shown therein being less than the award of the Collector deserves to be kept out of consideration. Even if cut of 50%, as was applied by the learned court on the value of the land shown in the sale deeds produced by the land owners, is considered to be appropriate, though the contention of the land owners is that it is on higher side, still the value of the land would come out to Rs. 11,95,000/-per acre, whereas the learned court below has awarded merely Rs. 1,80,000/- per acre for the land situated on G.T. Road till the minor canal and Rs. 1,20,000/- per acre beyond that. Reliance was placed upon The State of Punjab and others v. Gurbax Singh, 2009(5) RCR (Civil) 432. Learned counsel further submitted that no amount of compensation has been paid on account of acquisition of tubewells, super structures etc. existing on the acquired land. On the other hand, learned counsel for PSIEC submitted that in fact the sale deeds produced by the State on record before the learned court below clearly show that the award of the Collector was justified and the same did not call for any interference, whatsoever. The contention of learned counsel for the land owners that the land pertaining to the sale deeds produced by the State had not been pointed out on any site plan is not correct, as the land pertaining to the relevant sale deeds (Ex. R4, Ex. R5 and Ex. R8) have been pointed out on site plan Ex. RW4/A. The land pertaining to sale-deeds (Ex. R4 and Ex. R8) is located just on G.T. Road, whereas the land pertaining to sale deed (Ex. R5) is situated just beyond the acquired land. The average sale price of the land situated on G.T. Road was about Rs. 72,500/- per acre, whereas for the land situated beyond the acquired land, it was Rs. 60,814/- per acre. The sale deeds produced by the land owners cannot possibly be relied upon for the reason that the land pertaining thereto cannot be compared with the acquired land. The land forming part of sale deed (Ex. P1) is situated on G.T. Road and admittedly half kilometer towards Gobindgarh city, whereas the land pertaining to sale deed (Ex. PW4/A) is a small plot of one biswa, which is located adjoining to the abadi of village Ajnali. It would not be justifiable to rely upon both the sale deeds for the purpose of assessment of compensation for big chunk of land measuring about 214 acres of land. It was further disputed by the learned counsel that any part of the acquired land is situated within the municipal limits of Mandi Gobindgarh, as there was no documentary evidence produced therefor, on record. It was merely the oral R.F.A. No. 1438 of 2003 [14] evidence led by the land owners. As far as small portion of land situated on G.T. Road is concerned, it was submitted that it was acquisition merely for passage to the Industrial Focal Point. The value thereof should also be assessed at the same rate at which the other land is to be assessed. As regards valuation of tubewells, super structures etc. is concerned, appropriate amount of compensation has been paid. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the land owners are not entitled to any increase therefor. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. 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.” In case titled as Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (D) By LRs. Vs. State of Gujarat, 2005(2) RCR (Civil) 492, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down certain R.F.A. No. 1438 of 2003 [15] broad principles for determination of compensation for the acquired land. Relevant paras are reproduced hereunder:- 17. Section 23 of the Act specifies the matters required to be considered in determining the compensation; the principal among which is the determination of the market value of the land on the date of the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4. 18. One of the principles for determination of the amount of compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefor. It is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a willing and informed buyer would offer would be different in the cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the cases where he is not. 19. Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase. Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences have to be considered. 20. The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-a-vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. The positive and negative facts are as under :- _______________________________________________________ Positive facts Negative factors _______________________________________________________ (i) smallness of size (i) largeness of area (ii) proximity to a road (ii) situation in the interior at a distance from the road R.F.A. No. 1438 of 2003 [16] (iii) frontage on a road (iii) narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth (iv) nearness to developed (iv)lower level requiring area the depressed portion to be filled up (v) regular shape (v) remoteness from developed locality (vi) level vis-a-vis land under (vi) some special under acquisition disadvantageous factors which would deter a purchaser (vii)special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage. ____________________________________________________ 21. Whereas a smaller plot may be within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed preparing a layout plan, carving out roads, leaving open spaces, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers and the hazards of an entrepreneur. Such development charges may range between 20% and 50% of the total price.” In case titled as Haridwar Development Authority, Haridwar Versus Raghubir Singh etc., 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 301, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the issue as to whether entire chunk of land has to be valued at the same rate irrespective of its locational advantages/disadvantages or different rates can be awarded for different portions and opined as under: “6. The question whether the acquired lands have to be valued uniformly