Sale Deed cannot be discarded in absence of any material being on record to prove they were actuated with malafide: Himachal Pradesh High Court

 Hig h C o urt of H.P on 22 05 HCHP IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RFA No.3012 Reserved on: 12.05.2021 Decided on: 19.05.2021 Manish Bhatia .…Appellant. Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & another …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel Judge. Whether approved for reporting 1 Yes For the appellant : Mr. K.D. Sood Senior Advocate with Mr. Sukrit Sood Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Sumesh Raj Additional Advocate General with Ms. Divya Sood Deputy Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel Judge This Regular First Appeal is directed against the Award passed by the Court of learned District Judge Mandi District Mandi H.P. in Reference Petition No.05 titled as Manish Bhatia Versus State of H.P. & another decided on 06.12.2011 vide which learned Reference Court has held that the petitioner therein i.e. the present appellant was not entitled for any enhancement of compensation as the market 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment Hig h C o urt of H.P on 22 05 HCHP 2 value of the land as well as non fruit bearing trees stood rightly assessed by the respondents. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are as under: The land of the appellant situated near the road head in village Jilhan Jhantingeri Tehsil Padar District Mandi H.P. was acquired by the respondents with the intent of developing the same as a tourist place. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 05.06.1997. Land measuring 7 18 0 bighas in village Jilhan was purchased by the appellant on 19.09.1996 for a sum of Rs.2 00 000 . Thereafter on 27.12.1996 he again purchased land measuring 0 16 3 bigha in the same mauja for a sum of Rs.50 000 . 3. Land Acquisition Collector awarded an amount of Rs.3 65 188 for 8 14 3 bighas of the land which stood acquired whereas as per the appellant the market value of the land was Rs.4 40 000 per bigha. It was further the case of the appellant that he had spent huge amount for development of the land for which no compensation stood Hig h C o urt of H.P on 22 05 HCHP 3 awarded to him and therefore he was entitled for an Award of Rs.2 00 000 on this behalf also. Feeling aggrieved he filed the reference. 4. The Reference Petition was answered by learned District Judge Mandi District Mandi H.P. by holding that the land owner was not entitled for any enhancement of compensation as the compensation awarded to the land owner by Land Acquisition Collector was adequate. 5. The issues which were framed by learned Reference Court for adjudication in the Reference Petition were as under: “1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the enhancement of compensation as alleged OPP. 2. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form OPR. 3. Whether the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as alleged OPR. 4. Relief.” 6. The issues were answered by learned Reference Court as under: “Issue No.1 No. Issue No.2 No. Hig h C o urt of H.P on 22 05 HCHP 4 Issue No.3 No. Relief: The petitioner is not entitled for enhancement in the value of the acquired land.” 7. While answering issue No.1 learned Reference Court held that to prove its case the petitioner examined one Kashmir Singh as PW 1 who being Registration Clerk of Tehsil Padhar proved the copies of Sale deeds dated 16.05.1997 Ext.PA to Ext.PC. Petitioner himself entered the witness box as PW 2. He admitted the purchase of acquired land vide sale deeds Ext.RA and RB dated 19.09.1996 and 27.12.1996. He mentioned in his cross examination that some trees were already standing on the acquired land and he also planted trees upon the land. 8. Respondents examined Ram Partap Sharma as RW 1 who deposed about market value of the acquired land. RW 2 Mohan Lal Patwari deposed that adequate compensation stood paid to the land owner. RW 3 Ramesh Kumar had prepared average price of the land as Ext.RW3 A. RW 4 Sameer Rastogi assessed the value of non fruit bearing trees. RW 5 K.L. Mastana deposed regarding the fact that he Hig h C o urt of H.P on 22 05 HCHP 5 visited the acquired land and found debris of one house upon the same. 9. Learned Reference Court held that Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 05.06.1997. The acquired land stood purchased by the petitioner for a sum of Rs.2 50 000 in the year 1996. Petitioner wanted to rely upon three sale deedsas exemplar sale deeds which admittedly were executed by his father on 16.05.1997 about 19 days prior to the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. It also held that by virtue of Award No.1 the respondents acquired land measuring 8 14 3 bighas belonging to the petitioner for which Land Acquisition Collector assessed value of the same as Rs.3 55 188 . Learned Reference Court observed that the value so assessed by Land Acquisition Collector was just value. It further held that the sale deeds relied upon by the petitioner as exemplar sale deeds did not fall within the definition of bonafide sale transactions as the sale deeds Ext.RA and Ext.RB were the best sale instances to be taken into consideration in order to Hig h C o urt of H.P on 22 05 HCHP 6 determine market value of the land. It further held that Land Acquisition Collector rightly assessed market value of the land and awarded a sum of Rs.6 24 793 as value of the trees whereas the land alongwith all the rights apertinent thereto were purchased by the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.2 50 000 . On these basis the Reference Petition stood answered by learned Reference Court by holding that the compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Collector was adequate. 10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that the Award passed by learned Reference Court was not sustainable in the eyes of law as the sale deeds relied upon by the appellant as exemplar sale deeds were discarded by learned Reference Court erroneously. He further argued that simply because the sale deeds were executed by the father of the petitioner was no valid basis for discarding the same and similarly because the same were executed 19 days prior to issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was also no valid ground for discarding the same. He argued that even if other things are taken to be as they are then also the compensation Hig h C o urt of H.P on 22 05 HCHP 7 paid to the appellant has to be enhanced in terms of the sale deeds exhibited by the appellant. 11. Opposing the plea learned Additional Advocate General submitted that there was no infirmity with the Award passed by learned Reference Court. He argued that learned Reference Court correctly observed that as adequate compensation stood paid to the land owner taking into consideration the fact that he had purchased the entire property for a sum of Rs.2 50 000 only therefore the award called for no interference. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the award passed by learned Reference Court as well as record of the case. 13. It is not in dispute that the acquired land was purchased by the appellant for a sum of Rs.2 50 000 in all vide two sale deeds dated 19.09.1996 and 27.12.1996. It is also not in dispute that Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of acquisition of the land was issued on 05.06.1997. Hig h C o urt of H.P on 22 05 HCHP 8 14. The appellant had approached learned Reference Court for enhancement of the compensation on the basis of three sale deeds i.e. Ext.PA dated 22.03.1997 registered on 16.05.1997 Ext.PB dated 19.03.1997 registered on 16.05.1997 and Ext.PC dated 19.03.1997 registered on 16.05.1997. Vide sale deed Ext.PA 0 3 0 bigha of land situated in Mohal Jilhan Sub Tehsil Padar was sold by one Shri Jai Prakash Bhatiya to one Shri Pritam Singh for a sale consideration of Rs.66 000 . Similarly vide sale deed Ext.PB land measuring 0 3 0 bigha situated in Muhal Jilhan Tehsil Joginder Nagar District Mandi H.P. was sold by one Shri Jai Prakash Bhatia to one Shri Gulab Singh for a sum of Rs.66 000 and similarly vide sale deed Ext.PC Shri Jai Prakash Bhatia sold the land measuring 0 1 10 bigha for a sum of Rs.33 000 in Muhal Jilhan Sub Tehsil Padar District Mandi H.P. to Shri Inder Singh. Thus one biswa of land was sold by way of these three sale deeds by Shri Jai Prakash Bhatia the vendor who admittedly happens to be the father of the present appellant for a sum of Rs.22 000 in two cases and Rs.33 000 in one case. These three sale deeds Hig h C o urt of H.P on 22 05 HCHP 9 have been discarded by learned Reference Court only on the ground that the same were executed by the father of the land owner about 19 days prior to the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 15. In the considered view of the Court this reason was not sufficient for learned Reference Court to have had discarded said three sale deeds until and unless it stood proved on record that the father of the present appellant was having knowledge with regard to acquisition of the land and these three sale deeds were not executed with a bonafide intent by the father of the present appellant. There are no such findings returned on record by learned Reference Court. Not only this no evidence has been placed on record by the respondents to demonstrate that the sale deedsrelied upon by the present appellant were not bonafide sale deeds but were executed by the father of the present appellant just to artificially enhance the value of the land in the vicinity as he was aware of the process of acquisition of the same. In the considered view of this Court the factum of the value at which the acquired land was Hig h C o urt of H.P on 22 05 HCHP 10 purchased by the land owner lost its significance as there were subsequent sale deeds on record executed of the land in immediate vicinity before the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is reiterated that in the absence of any material being on record to demonstrate that said sale deeds were actuated with malafide to reflect an artificial inflation of the price of the land of the area in vicinity the same could not have been discarded as these sale deeds being close to the date of acquisition were the best evidence to assess the value of the land. 16. Now the next question that arises is as to what can be termed to be a fair price of the land acquired by the respondents. In terms of Ext.PA to Ext.PC three biawas of land were sold for a sum of Rs.66 000 whereas one biawa of land was sold for a sum of Rs.33 000 . Thus the average price of one biswa of land sold by way of these three sale deeds is between Rs.22 000 to Rs.33 000 . However as the land subject matter of these three sale deeds is small as compared to the land acquired of the present appellant in the considered Hig h C o urt of H.P on 22 05 HCHP 11 view of this Court the fair compensation in favour of the land owner can be said to be Rs.15 000 per biswa. 17. Accordingly this appeal is allowed by setting aside the award passed by learned Reference Court and by ordering the enhancement of the Award amount awarded in favour of the appellant by Land Acquisition Collector by assessing the same at the rate of Rs.15 000 per biswa. Rest of the Award passed by Land Acquisition Collector shall remain as it is. The appeal stands disposed of so also pending miscellaneous applications if any. Judge May 19 2021 

Summary: While deciding on the enhancement of compensation regarding an acquired land under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, the court held sale deeds cannot be discarded when there is no evidence to prove that they were executed with malafide intention to inflate the price of land. This judgment was passed in the case of Manish Bhatia vs. The state of Himachal Pradesh &amp; another [RFA No.302/2012] by a single bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice Ajay Mohan Goel. The Regular First Appeal was preferred against the award passed by the District Judge, wherein the appellant was not entitled for any enhancement in the compensation as the market value of land and non-fruit bearing trees stood rightly assessed by the respondents. The land of the appellant was situated near the road in a village of Mandi and was acquired by the respondents with intent of developing same as tourist place. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued, and the land acquisition collector awarded an amount of Rs.3,65,188/- for a market value of 4,40,000/- The appellant pleaded that he had put in a lot of money to develop the land therefore should be awarded Rs.2,00,000/- The Reference Court while deciding whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation, observed that the acquired land was purchased for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and the collector merely assessed the value of the land. The Land Acquisition Collector rightly assessed market value of the land and awarded a sum of Rs.6,24,793/- as value of the trees, whereas the land along with all the rights pertinent thereto were purchased by the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/ and held the compensation was adequate. After hearing the parties to the proceeding, the High Court observed that the appellant had approached the court for enhancement of compensation on the basis of four sale deeds. As per the first and second sale deed the two parts of the land was sold for Rs.66,000 each and vide the third sale deed the land was sold for Rs.33,000. These were discarded by the Reference Court on the ground that it was executed by the father of land owner about 19 days prior to the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The High Court held that such a reason was not sufficient to discard the documents until and unless it was proved that the father of the present appellant was having knowledge with regard to acquisition of the land and these three sale deeds were not executed with a bonafide intent by the father. Further, it was held that on execution of subsequent sale deeds, the value at which the land was purchased lost its significance. The High Court went on to decide on what could be a fair price of land and held that since the land in the three sale deeds were small compared to the land acquired by the present appellant, the compensation in favour pf the land owner was Rs.15,000/-