R.F.A. No. 1177 of 1991 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: October 30 , 2008 (1) RFA No.1177 of 1991 Dhandu Ram and another ....Appellants Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent (2) RFA No.1178 of 1991 Ramesh Kumar ....Appellant Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent (3) RFA No.1179 of 1991 Ram Avtar and others ....Appellants Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent (4) RFA No.1180 of 1991 Daya Nand and another ....Appellants Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent (5) RFA No.1306 of 1991 Khaili Ram and others ....Appellants Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent R.F.A. No. 1177 of 1991 [2] (6) RFA No.1307 of 1991 Bhola Ram and others ....Appellants Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent (7) RFA No.1308 of 1991 Ram Singh and others ....Appellants Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent (8) RFA No.1309 of 1991 Karan Singh through LRs and others ....Appellants Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent (9) RFA No.1310 of 1991 Fateh Singh ....Appellant Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent (10) RFA No.1311 of 1991 Sushila ....Appellant Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent R.F.A. No. 1177 of 1991 [3] (11) RFA No.1312 of 1991 Rameshwear Dayal and others ....Appellants Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent (12) RFA No.1313 of 1991 Bhola Ram and others ....Appellants Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent (13) RFA No.1314 of 1991 Har Bai and another ....Appellants Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent (14) RFA No.1315 of 1991 Gajanand and others ....Appellants Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent (15) RFA No.1316 of 1991 Nawal Kishore and others ....Appellants Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent (16) RFA No.1317 of 1991 Johari Lal and others ....Appellants Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent R.F.A. No. 1177 of 1991 [4] (17) RFA No.1318 of 1991 Naresh Kumar and others ....Appellants Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent (18) RFA No.1319 of 1991 Ram Ratti and others ....Appellants Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent (19) RFA No.1320 of 1991 Gram Panchayat Tobra ....Appellant Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent (20) RFA No.1322 of 1991 Ram Nand and others ....Appellants Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent (21) RFA No.1323 of 1991 Mewa Devi ....Appellant Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent (22) RFA No.1545 of 1991 State of Haryana ....Appellant Versus Ram Avtar and others ...Respondent R.F.A. No. 1177 of 1991 [5] (23) RFA No.1546 of 1991 State of Haryana ....Appellant Versus Sushila ....Respondent (24) RFA No.1547 of 1991 Haryana State ....Appellant Versus Mewa Devi ...Respondent (25) RFA No.1548 of 1991 State of Haryana ....Appellant Versus Ram Ratti and others ...Respondent (26) RFA No.1549 of 1991 State of Haryana ....Appellant Versus Daya Nand and another ...Respondents (27) RFA No.1550 of 1991 Haryana State ....Appellant Versus Ramesh Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Prabodh Mittal, Advocate for the appellants in R.F.A. Nos. 1177 to 1180, 1545, 1547, 1549 and 1550 of 1991. R.F.A. No. 1177 of 1991 [6] Mr. G.S. Hooda, Advocate for the appellants in R.F.A. Nos. 1306 to 1323 of 1991. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the State. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of a bunch of 27 appeals, as the same arise out of a common acquisition. In R.F.A. Nos. 1177 to 1180, 1306 to 1320, 1322 and 1323 of 1991, the land owners are in appeal before this Court against the award of the learned Court below seeking further enhancement of the compensation for the acquired land. In R.F.A. Nos. 1545 to 1550 of 1991, the State is seeking reduction in the amount of compensation awarded by the Court below. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 1177 of 1991. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 10.3.1986, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), the State of Haryana acquired 31.06 acres of land situated in the revenue estate of Tobra, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh for the construction of new Anaj Mandi at Ateli. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') determined the market value of land at Rs. 27,040/- per acre for chahi land, Rs. 25,120/- per acre for barani land and Rs. 20,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. Aggrieved against the same, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, awarded Rs. 35,000/- per acre except petitioner- Sushila who was awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 35,000/-, Ramotar to the tune of Rs. 27,000/-, Dayanand to the tune of Rs. 28,000/-, Mewa Devi to the tune of Rs. 36,000/-, Ramesh Kumar to the tune of Rs. 33,000/- and Raghbir and Ramrati to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-, in all. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the value of the acquired land, as determined by the learned Court below, is not in conformity with the evidence produced by the land owners on record. In fact, the best piece of evidence in the form of sale deeds forming part of the acquired land, the genuineness of which was never doubted, has been totally ignored. As against this, the evidence in the form of sale deed (Ex. R1), merely tendered by the counsel for the State appearing before the Court below, has been considered for the purpose of determination of fair value of the land, whereas there is no site plan on record to show even the location thereof. Even no witness has been produced to state about R.F.A. No. 1177 of 1991 [7] the location of the land forming part of sale deed (Ex. R1). Reference has been made to sale deed dated 6.9.1984 (Ex. P.7), wherein land measuring 10 marlas was purchased by Daya Nand (appellant in R.F.A. No. 1180 of 1991) at an average price of Rs. 4,21,000/- per acre. He further referred to the fact that Sushila Devi (appellant in R.F.A. No. 1311 of 1991) had purchased the plot measuring one kanal for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- vide registered sale deed dated 1.6.1983 from one Gaja Nand, which is situated on main Rewari-Narnaul road. Vide Ex. P13, land measuring one kanal was purchased by Ram Autar (appellant in R.F.A. No. 1179 of 1991) vide registered sale deed dated 6.6.1983 for a sum of Rs. 24,000/-. Vide sale deed dated 2.12.1985 (Ex. PW12/B), land measuring one kanal was purchased by Ramesh Kumar (appellant in R.F.A. No. 1178 of 1991) for a sum of Rs. 30,000/-. Further reference has been made to Ex. PW11/A, whereby land measuring one kanal was purchased by Rama Nand (appellant in R.F.A. No. 1322 of 1991) for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- vide registered sale deed dated 17.1.1983. Further reference has been made to Ex. PW13/A, vide which land measuring one kanal was purchased by Mewa Devi (appellant in R.F.A. No. 1323 of 1991) vide registered sale deed dated 3.11.1982 for a sum of Rs. 30,000/-. Referring to the aforesaid sale transactions, the submission is that the land which was dealt with in the aforesaid sale deeds was forming part of the acquired land, the fair value of which is to be determined in the present proceedings. Any sale transaction forming part of the acquired land is the best piece of evidence, which has been totally ignored by the Court below merely opining that the transactions are for a small piece of land, whereas reasonable cut could be imposed thereon for the purpose of arriving at a fair value of the large chunk of land which was acquired for the purpose of construction of new Anaj Mandi at Ateli. As regards sale deed (Ex. R1) produced by the State, the submission is that it was merely tendered by the counsel representing the State before the Court below, It has no where come in the evidence as to where the land forming part of sale deed (Ex. R1) is located, as there is no site plan on record to show the location thereof. In the absence of that, the finding recorded by the court below that the same was the best piece of evidence as it is more near to the point of acquisition is totally perverse. Vide this sale deed dated 15.2.1985, 4 kanals of land was sold for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- making at an average of Rs. 30,000/- per acre. It was on this basis that the value of the land in the present case was determined. Learned counsel for the appellants in R.F.A. Nos. 1178, 1179, R.F.A. No. 1177 of 1991 [8] 1180, 1311, 1322 and 1323 of 1991 further submitted that the land owners therein were entitled to the actual cost of purchase of land by them including the cost of stamp duty paid for registration of the sale deeds. In addition to this, increase at least @ 12% per annum should be granted for the time gap between the date of sale and the date of acquisition for the appreciation of prices in between. It is further submitted that the learned Court below has failed to grant total amount claimed by the land owners in the aforesaid cases on account of cost incurred for improvement in the land after purchase and also for construction thereon for which ample evidence was led. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the value of the acquired land, as determined by the learned Court below, is in conformity with the material on record. The transactions of small pieces of land, as are sought to be referred to by the learned counsel for the land owners, cannot be relied upon for the purpose of determination of fair value of the large chunk of land. He further submitted that the reliance placed by the learned court below on the sale deed (Ex. R1) is perfectly in order as the land forming part thereof was situated in close vicinity of the acquired land. However, on a pointed query, he was unable to show any oral or documentary evidence to exactly locate the land forming part of sale deed (Ex. R1) vis-a-vis the acquired land. Referring to the appeals filed by the State, the submission is that additional sum granted by the court below on account of improvement in land and the construction raised thereon is totally uncalled for as there was no evidence to substantiate such a claim by the land owners. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As far as the findings recorded by the court below, while determining the fair value of the land, I am of the opinion that rejection of sale deeds ( Ex. P7, Ex. PW11/A, Ex. PW12/B, Ex. P13 and Ex. PW13/A, which were registered much prior to the acquisition of land and were forming part of the acquired land, have been wrongly ignored by the learned court below merely for the reason that the same were for a small piece of land. In fact, the sale transaction of any piece of land which is ultimately acquired is the best piece of evidence for the purpose of determination of fair value thereof. In case the transaction is of a small piece of land, a reasonable cut can be applied thereon for determining the fair value of the large chunk of land. As regards reliance on sale deed (Ex. R1) by the State is concerned, a perusal of the record shows that two sale deeds (Ex. R1 and Ex. R2) were tendered by the counsel for the State before the Court below on 31.1.1991. There R.F.A. No. 1177 of 1991 [9] is no oral statement or the site plan on record produced by the State to show the exact location of the land forming part of sale deeds (Ex. R1 and Ex. R2). Sale deed (Ex. R2) has rightly been ignored by the learned Court below for the simple reason that the same was dated 6.4.1988, whereas the land in question was acquired on 10.3.1986. Reliance was placed upon sale deed (Ex. R1) which is dated 15.2.1985. Without there being any material on record to show that the land forming part of sale deed (Ex. R1) was similarly located and was almost equivalent in value, accordingly the reliance thereon was totally misplaced. A perusal of site plan (Ex. P3) on record shows the boundaries of the acquired land. The same is located on main Narnaul-Rewari road on one side. On the other side thereof, there is a road leading from Kanina to Kanti. The area in the vicinity was urbanised. Railway Station was also not far off. The site for new bus stand was situated just opposite the acquired land on one side whereas old bus stand was situated opposite other end of the acquired land on the main Rewari- Narnaul road. The land forming part of the sale deeds, which was ultimately acquired, is situated on the main road leading from Narnaul to Rewari. Keeping the location of the land, its potential for urbanisation cannot be disputed and categorising the land as chahi, barani or gair mumkin will not be appropriate. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the value of the land, as determined by the learned Court below, is not in conformity with the settled principles of law. Not only this, even the average price of the land per acre, as determined in sale deeds ( Ex. P7, Ex. PW11/A, Ex. PW12/B, Ex. P13 and Ex. PW13/A), is not correctly calculated considering the fact that those transactions were for a small piece of land. The transaction in sale deed (Ex. P7) dated 6.9.1984 was for 10 marlas of land which was purchased for a sum of Rs. 23,000/-. The average value, as calculated by the learned Court below, is Rs. 4,21,000/- per acre. One acre has 8 kanals and one kanal contains 20 marlas. If the value of the land forming part of sale deed (Ex. P7) is considered, the same would come out to Rs. 3,68,000/- per acre as against Rs. 4,21,000/- per acre calculated by the Court below. As regards sale deed (Ex. PW11/A), the average value thereof would come out Rs. 2,40,000/- per acre as in this transaction, one kanal was sold for Rs. 30,000/-. The average value of the land forming part of sale deed (Ex. PW12/B) would come out to Rs. 3,04,000/- per acre, where 10 marlas of land was sold for Rs. 19,000/-. The average value of the land forming part of sale deed (Ex. P13) would come out to Rs. 1,92,000/- per acre, where one kanal of land was sold for Rs. 24,000/-. Sale deed (Ex. PW13/A), the average value of the land would come out to Rs. 2,04,000/- per acre as one kanal of land was sold for Rs. 31,000/-. It is R.F.A. No. 1177 of 1991 [10] not disputed that the land forming part of all these sale deeds is located on main Narnaul-Rewari Highway (Block `A'), where these small pieces of plots were purchased by various buyers for commercial use. The average of all these aforesaid sale deeds comes out to Rs. 2,70,000/- per acre, which are tabulated as under: “Exhibit Date of sale deed Area dealt with Amount of Rate per K M consideration acre ..................................................................................................................................... Ex. P7 6.9.1984 0-10 23,000/- 3,68,000/- Ex. PW11/A 17.1.1983 1-0 30,000/- 2,40,000/- Ex. PW12/B 2.12.1985 0-10 19,000/- 3,04,000/- Ex. P13 3.6.1983 1-0 24,000/- 1,92,000/- Ex. PW13/A 3.6.1983 1-0 31,000/- 2,04,000/- I am of the considered opinion that keeping in view the fact that the acquisition in the present case is of a large chunk of land measuring 31.06 acres for the purpose of setting up of new Grain Market and the sale transactions, relied upon by the land owners, are for small pieces of land abutting the main road which have been purchased by them for commercial purposes, a cut of 60% can very well be applied for the purpose of determination of fair value of land abutting the main road upto the depth of 100 meters. Accordingly, reducing a sum of Rs. 1,62,000/- from Rs. 2,70,000/- per acre, the value of the land upto the depth of 100 meters from Narnaul-Rewari road is determined at Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre. It is for the reason that the value of the land which abuts the main road is certainly higher than the value of the land which is behind it. As far as the land situated behind that, a cut of 15% further can be applied. Accordingly, after reducing a sum of Rs. 16,000/- from Rs. 1,08,000/- per acre, the value of the acquired land beyond 100 meters from the main road is determined at Rs. 92,000/- per acre (Block `B'). A perusal of the impugned award shows that the owners of the land, namely, Sushila, Ramotar, Dayanand, Mewa Devi, Ramesh Kumar, Raghbir and Ramrati had been granted compensation to the extent of the amounts spent by them on the purchase of land which was ultimately acquired. It was for the reason that genuineness of the sale deeds was not doubted. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the aforesaid land owners are further entitled to the amount spent by them on stamp duty and registration at the time of getting the sale deeds executed. This amount has not been awarded by the learned court below and it was only the face value of the sale deed, i.e., the consideration passed on to the vendor has been awarded. Further claim is for enhancement of amount spent by them on R.F.A. No. 1177 of 1991 [11] improvement of the land and raising the construction thereon, on which account assessment made by the learned court below is sought to be faulted with. In response to this claim of the land owners, learned counsel for the State submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that amount on stamp duty was paid by the buyers, i.e., the appellants and claim for enhancement for improvement on land and also the cost of construction is totally uncalled for as the evidence was not sufficient even to grant the amount which has already been granted by the court below. In fact, in a set of appeals, the State is impugning that part of the award. As far as this claim of the parties is concerned, I find merit in the submissions made by the aforesaid land owners only to the extent of grant of amount spent on stamp duty and registration fee at the time of getting the sale deeds of the land registered which was ultimately acquired. It is always the vendee who purchase the stamp duty for the purpose of registration of sale deed. As far as the issue regarding compensation determined by the learned Court below on account of improvement of land and also the construction raised thereon is concerned, I do not find any merit in the submissions of either of the parties. On the basis of material on record, the learned court below has made very moderate assessment granting small amount on that account which neither calls for reduction nor increase. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeals filed by the land owners are allowed with costs where they are held entitled to amount of compensation, as determined above, along with statutory benefits as available under the Act. As far as the appeals filed by the State are concerned, the same are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge October 30, 2008 mk