Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 309 (PNJ)

Raham Deen v. State of Haryana

2000-03-16

SWATANTER KUMAR

body2000
JUDGMENT Swatanter Kumar, J. - By this judgment I propose to dispose of 142 regular first appeals and cross objections arising from the judgment/award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala dated 26.9.1987. Out of these, 70 appeals have been preferred by the State, 69 appeals have been filed by the claimants and 3 respondents/claimants have preferred cross objections. 2. The necessary facts are that Government of State of Haryana issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, thereinafter referred to as the Act, on 20.4.1979. In furtherance thereto, notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 1.6.1979 to acquire 2343 acres 2 kanals 15 marlas of land in the revenue estate of village Nangali, Had Bast No. 32, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Ambala. The land was acquired for forestation and anti-soil erosion. The Collector vide his award dated 5.8.1985 awarded the following compensation to the claimants after adopting the prescribed procedure : a) Claimants owning Barani Land : Rs. 1600/- per acre b) Claimants owning Gair Mumkin Pahar : Rs. 400/- per acre 3. The claimants felt dissatisfied from this amount of compensation and, thus, they filed reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act claiming enhancement of the amount. The learned District Judge permitted the parties to lead evidence in support of their claim and finally vide his judgment dated 26.9.1987 enhanced the compensation to the following extent :- a) Barani Land : Rs. 4000/- per acre. b) Gair Mumkin Pahar : Rs. 800/- per acre. 4. The learned judge rejected the claim of the claimants in relation to loss of business or houses etc. as there was no cogent evidence on record for granting any enhancement on that account. Discontended from the above judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, both the parties i.e. the State as well as the claimants have filed appeals before this Court. As all these appeals arise from a common judgment, common premises and are based upon identical evidence, I have proposed to dispose of these appeals by a common judgment. The claimants claim further enhancement of the awarded amount while the State prays for reduction of the awarded amount and resultant restoration of the award of the Collector. 5. In order to appreciate the merits of the rival contentions raised by the parties, it will be appropriate to refer to the evidence on record. The claimants claim further enhancement of the awarded amount while the State prays for reduction of the awarded amount and resultant restoration of the award of the Collector. 5. In order to appreciate the merits of the rival contentions raised by the parties, it will be appropriate to refer to the evidence on record. The claimants examined four witnesses AW1 to AW4 in support of their case. AW1 mainly referred to the location and potential of the land as well as the trees existing thereon. AW2 produced the award Ex. A.1 on record as well as tendered in evidence jamabandi Ex. A.2, sale-deeds Ex. A.3 and Ex. A.4, Aks- shijra Ex. A.5 and mutations Ex. A.6 and Ex. A.7. AW3 and AW4 stated orally and produced on record lease order Ex. A.9 and receipt of payment of lease money Ex. A.10. 6. To rebut this evidence, the respondents produced sale-deeds Ex. A.6, Ex. A.7, Ex. A.8 in addition to some mutations. They examined four witnesses RW1 to RW4. These witnesses also refer to the location and potential of the land as well as its distance from the nearby village known as Salimpur Kohi. It is commonly conceded case that none of the said deeds produced by either party is admissible in evidence in view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. P. Venkaiah and other, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2600 and Special Deputy Collector and another v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2625. In other words, Ex. A.3, Ex. A.4, and Ex. R.6 to Ex. R.8 cannot be relied upon by the Court as they are inadmissible in evidence. These documents, thus, were rightly excluded and rejected by the learned trial Court in addition to the above amongst other reasons like that the land in question related to other villages etc. The mutations are no direct and complete evidence of fair market value of the land in question. Once mutation and sale-deeds are excluded from the zone of consideration, the Court was primarily left with Ex. A.1 which is the award. The learned trial Court applied certain guess work and held as under :- "According to further evidence the metaled road ends up only at some distance behind the river bank towards Salempur Kohi. Once mutation and sale-deeds are excluded from the zone of consideration, the Court was primarily left with Ex. A.1 which is the award. The learned trial Court applied certain guess work and held as under :- "According to further evidence the metaled road ends up only at some distance behind the river bank towards Salempur Kohi. From that point onward, village Naggli is linked by a Kachha road left in Consolidation. The State of Haryana acquired land for construction of the metalled link road in village Salempur Kohi called Garhwali road. The notification under section 4 of the Act for that acquisition was issued on 27.12.78. Sh. K.K. Gupta, Land Acquisition Collector, Ambala announced the award for that acquisition on 31.7.85. He allowed compensation at the rate of Rs. 8800/- per acre for barani land in village Salempur Kohi. An attested copy of that award is Ex. A.1. If for an acquisition of 1978 in a neighbouring village of Salempur Kohi the Collector allowed compensation at the rate of Rs. 8800/- per acre for barani land, there appears to be no justification for compensation at the rate of Rs. 1600/- per acre only for the acquisition of the neighbouring village Naggli, separated only by a seasonal river, in the year 1979, when this acquisition was made. It is not the case of any party that the compensation assessed in the award Ex. A.1 was found to be on higher side or was reduced by any court. In view, therefore of the instance Ex. A.4 of village Naggli even after excluding the possible inflated element in the price and in view of the award for acquisition of Salempur Kohi of a point of time one year before the present acquisition covered by Ex. A.1 there is a definite case for increase in market value of barani land over that determined by the Land Acquisition Collector, who just copied out the rate supplied by the District Collector. The law laid down in Jagir Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 1983 Current Law Journal (C&CR) 154 is that compensation for the acquired land cannot be calculated with mathematical precision and that some amount of work is inherent in the process of computation of the market value. The law laid down in Jagir Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 1983 Current Law Journal (C&CR) 154 is that compensation for the acquired land cannot be calculated with mathematical precision and that some amount of work is inherent in the process of computation of the market value. In AIR 1984 Supreme Court 852, it was held that in the very scheme for fixation of compensation provided by the Land Acquisition Act, there is bound to be some amount of arbitrariness. In view of this, the market value of barani land in the present acquisition cannot be fixed with mathematical precision. In view, therefore, of the location, situation and potential value of the acquired barani land, I consider it just and fair if the market value of the barani land is determined at Rs. 4000/- per acre and I decide accordingly." 7. It is apparent from the afore-noticed facts and conclusion of the learned Judge that except Ex. A.1 there is no cogent, relevant and admissible evidence on the record of this case which could safely be construed as a basis for determination of fair market value payable to the claimants. Vide Ex. A.1 the Collector had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 8800/- per acre for barani land and Rs. 11,200/- per acre for Chahi land. This land was acquired in village Salimpur Kohi vide notification dated 16.1.1970 (1.6.1979 ?). The land was acquired for construction of the link road from Laidi Gadwali road to Salimpur Kohi. The notification for acquiring the land in the present case was also issued on 20.4.1979. 8. It is a settled principle of law that where the sale-deeds or awards from the acquired land itself are not available the Courts can safely rely upon the awards of the adjacent villages. On the strength of the statement of AW3 and AW4 it is argued by counsel for the claimants that the land of village Salimpur Kohi is across the river/nullah. In other words, the lands of Village Nangli and Salimpur are divided by this Nullah. On the strength of the statement of AW3 and AW4 it is argued by counsel for the claimants that the land of village Salimpur Kohi is across the river/nullah. In other words, the lands of Village Nangli and Salimpur are divided by this Nullah. The witnesses of the claimants have stated that the acquired land is even better than Salimpur Kohi land but that can safely be construed as an exaggerated comment by the claimants witnesses, but the Court cannot ignore the statement of RW4, who in his cross-examination admitted before the Court that the acquired land was located on one side of the river, while the lands of village Salimpur Kohi were on the other side. The relevant extract of the statement of this witness reads as under :- "The Abadi of village Salempur Kohi is 5 kilometres from acquired area. The land of village Salempur Kohi is a plain area while acquired land is a mountainous terrain. The pucca road ends at Salempur Kohi and thereafter there is a Kachha path left in consolidation." "It is a seasonal river. The Nagli village is situated at a distance of 300 metre from the other bank of aforesaid river. There were thatched huts of residents of jungle. I did not notice any cattle being reared by the occupants out of those huts. There is Abadi in the village, but there was no Abadi in the jungle. It is incorrect that the acquired area had several lac of trees of different species grown over there, in addition to the bushes. It is also incorrect that I am deposing falsely being the representative of the acquiring department." Thus, it is established on record that the acquired land is not much far away from the lands in village Salimpur Kohi. The cumulative effect of the oral and documentary evidence on record is that Ex. A.1 can be treated as a relevant piece of evidence for determining the fair market value of the land in question but with little caution because of the potential and location of the acquired land. It would certainly call for grant of lesser compensation than what has been awarded vide Ex. A.1. 9. A.1 can be treated as a relevant piece of evidence for determining the fair market value of the land in question but with little caution because of the potential and location of the acquired land. It would certainly call for grant of lesser compensation than what has been awarded vide Ex. A.1. 9. It is settled principle of law that the Courts can rely upon awards of the villages of adjacent revenue estates for determining the market value of the land if other direct, relevant and admissible evidence is available on record. In this regard reliance can be placed on the cases of Sushma v. State of Haryana through Land Acquisition Collector, Directorate of Urban Estates, Haryana, Panchkula, 1994(3) PLR 178, Punni Devi alias Basant Kaur v. Collector, Land Acquisition Industries (Collector ?), 1992(1) PLR 516 and State of Haryana and another v. Om Parkash and others, 1998(2) PLJ 163 and the judgment of Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kanvar Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1999 Supreme Court 317. 10. At this stage it will be not only relevant but pertinent to discuss the nature and kind of the acquired land. It is conceded even by the claimants before me that no part of the land was Chahi. The learned counsel for the claimants contended that there is definite evidence to show that the land was capable of growing grass, trees and other allied agricultural products. On the strength of this evidence, the learned counsel further contended that such Gair Mumkin Pahar, capable of giving of agricultural products as afore- noticed, should be awarded even higher compensation than the Barani land, because Barani land is incapable of growing agricultural products. For this purpose he referred to the statement of AW3, the expert produced by the claimants. This witness has categorically stated that there was grass and trees on the acquired land. 11. While AW 3 was proposing to prepare his report and expected to inspect the land, an application was moved by the claimant for treating AW3 as Local Commissioner and further, to direct him to submit report in relation thereto. However, the Court did not appoint AW3 as local Commissioner but certainly directed the Government i.e. Forest Department to render all help to facilitate the preparation of the report. However, the Court did not appoint AW3 as local Commissioner but certainly directed the Government i.e. Forest Department to render all help to facilitate the preparation of the report. In other words, the Government was put on complete notice about the inspection of the acquired land by AW3. In these circumstances it will not be appropriate for this Court to totally put aside the evidence of AW3 on the ground that he was the expert produced by the claimants themselves. RW1 was an officer who appeared in the witness box and tried to comment upon the report of AW3 and to some extent showed that the said report was not very correct. AW4 clearly stated in his statement that the land in question was not a Banjar land and was capable of growing agricultural products. In fact AW4 stated that the Government had granted him lease for Bhabar grass over the acquired land and he had paid the lease money. He tendered in evidence the receipt Ex. A.10 and lease order as Ex. A.9 is dated 10.10.1986 which apparently means that the Government was earning money for even Bhabar grass and other products over the land after its acquisition in the year 1979. Thus, it hardly lies in the mouth of the State Government to contend that the land in question was incapable of growing any agricultural products. The land itself was acquired for forestation and stopping the erosion of soil, which would apparently show that the land in question was incapable of growing trees and grass etc. Besides all this, RW4 in his statement admitted that there were trees and grass on the acquired land. 12. The learned reference Court has ignored this aspect of the matter and has awarded low compensation to the claimants. It is true that it is not a fit case where the claimants would be entitled to separate compensation for trees or grass etc. but is a case where composite value could be awarded for both the land and grass and some trees. RW1 also admitted that there were trees of the height of 5-6 feet on the acquired land. The Honble Supreme Court of India has settled the principle in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 106 that determination of value on composite basis is a just and fair method of calculation. RW1 also admitted that there were trees of the height of 5-6 feet on the acquired land. The Honble Supreme Court of India has settled the principle in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 106 that determination of value on composite basis is a just and fair method of calculation. In this regard reference can be made to the following observations of the Honble Apex Court :- "It is settled law that the Collector or the Court who determines the compensation for the land as well as fruit bearing trees cannot determine them separately. The compensation is to the value of the acquired land. The market value is determined on the basis of the yield. Then necessarily applying suitable multiplier, the compensation need to be awarded. Under no circumstances the Court should allow the compensation on the basis of the nature of the land as well as fruit bearing trees. In other words, market value of the land is determined twice over and one on the basis of the value of the land and again on the basis of the yield got from the fruit bearing trees. The definition of the land includes the benefits to arise from the land as defined in Section 3(a) of the Act. After compensation is determined on the basis of the value of the land from the income applying suitable multiplier, then the trees would be valued only as fire-wood and necessary compensation would be given." "The enunciated principle clearly shows that in the present case compensation for the trees has to be separately awarded and also that there is no direct or indirect evidence to show inclusion of value of the trees in the compensation awarded of the land. In the case of Koyappathodi M. Ayisha Umma (supra), the Supreme Court reiterated the principle as under :- "It is settled law that in evaluating the market value of the acquired property, namely, land and the building or the lands with fruit bearing trees standing thereon, value of both would not constitute one unit, but separate units; it would be open to the Land Acquisition Officer or the Court either to assess the lands with all its advantages as potential value and fix the market value thereof where there is reliable and acceptable evidence available on record of the annual income of the fruit bearing trees the annual income net income multiplied by appropriate capitalisation of 15 years would be the proper and fair method to determine the market value but not both. In the former case the trees are to be separately valued as timer (timber ?) and to deduct salvage expenses to cut and remove the trees from the land." 13. This Court has to decide the case on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence on record. It is clear that Ex. A.1 is a relevant piece of evidence, but is not totally comparable and identical instance to the acquired land. The record shows clear distinction between the two the kinds of land, location and potential of the land. In Ex. A.1 there was Chahi land and even the land where the school and other buildings were located. That is not the case herein. The Court has to apply some kind of a guess work in cases where the claimants have not brought complete and fully admissible evidence on record. Ex. A.3 and Ex. A.4 show increasing trend in the prices of the land in both these villages. There was a definite burden upon the claimants to prove that the lands of village Salimpur Kohi were identical or atleast comparable in their nature and potential to the land of village Nangli, which they have not been able to show on record by oral and documentary evidence. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances placed on record, I am of the considered view that the claimants should be entitled to a limited increase. 14. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances placed on record, I am of the considered view that the claimants should be entitled to a limited increase. 14. The learned Advocate General, Haryana, was not able to show any evidence which would justify reduction in the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants and for restoration of the Collectors award. Ex. A.1 is the document of the State itself and by which the State is bound and it suggests no further reduction. 15. Resultantly, I would increase compensation payable to the claimants of the Barani land at the rate of Rs. 6000/- per acre and that of Gair Mumkin Pahar, at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per acre for the reason that it is capable of growing trees and grass etc. 16. For the reasons afore-stated, the appeals and cross objections of the claimants are partly accepted with statutory benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, while those of the State are dismissed without any order as to costs. Appeals partly allowed.