Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 46 (PNJ)

Gulzar Singh v. State of Haryana

2000-01-13

SWATANTER KUMAR

body2000
JUDGMENT Swatanter Kumar, J. - The above three regular first appeals arise from common judgment and award of the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, dated 10.4.1985 vide which the learned Additional District Judge answered 18 references. However, only three claimants have preferred the appeals out of the aforestated 18 references. In these circumstances, it will appropriate to dispose of all these three appeals together by a common judgment. 2. Vide notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) published on 29.12.1978, the State of Haryana intended to acquire 6614 Bighas 19 Biswas (1378 acres) land in the revenue estate of village Naggal Patti Milak, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Ambala (now Distt. Yamunanagar). After adopting the procedure prescribed under the law, the Collector classified the land into two kinds i.e. Gair Mumkin and Barani and awarded the following amounts to the claimants vide award dated 26.3.1982 : For Barani land Rs. 2200/- per acre For Gair Mumkin land Rs. 600/- per acre. 3. The claimants were dissatisfied with the extent of the amount awarded on account of the compensation for compulsory acquisition, resultantly they preferred references before the learned District Judge, Ambala. As already noticed, vide award dated 10.4.1985, the learned Additional District Judge enhanced the amount of compensation payable to the claimants while maintaining the classification of the land into two groups and had awarded a sum of Rs. 2500/- per acre for Barani Land and Rs. 800/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land. While the State accepted the award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, the claimants being dissatisfied preferred the above-stated regular first appeals before this Court. The claimants had examined three witnesses to prove their claims and had produced on record sale instances Ex. P5 to Ex. P7 and Ex. P11 and Ex. P12. They also produced on record mutations Ex. P8 and Ex. P9 and copy of the order dated 6.8.1981 Ex. P10. On the contrary, the respondent examined only one witness and tendered on record copy of jamabandi Ex. R1 and mutations Ex. R-2 to Ex. R-4. After taking into consideration the evidence produced by the parties, the learned Additional District Judge, while relying upon Ex. P-12, granted the aforestated compensation to the claimants. Ex. P-12 is the sale deed dated 17.7.1978, wherein the land measuring about 17 bighas 5 biswas was sold for Rs. 49,000/-. R1 and mutations Ex. R-2 to Ex. R-4. After taking into consideration the evidence produced by the parties, the learned Additional District Judge, while relying upon Ex. P-12, granted the aforestated compensation to the claimants. Ex. P-12 is the sale deed dated 17.7.1978, wherein the land measuring about 17 bighas 5 biswas was sold for Rs. 49,000/-. This was a barani land and the value comes to Rs. 2504.64 per acre. Other sale instances were of other villages and/or were post-notification as such were not considered to be relevant and comparable pieces of evidence by the learned Additional District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge, while determining the fair market value of the land in question, held as under :- "After taking into consideration the evidence of both the parties, I am of the considered view that the sale deed, copy of which is Ex. P-12, provides some useful data, on the basis of which the market value may be determined in the present case at the relevant time. The land was sold in village Naggal Patti Milak at rate of Rs. 2504.64 per acre on 17.7.1978 and the land is said to be barani in nature and there is no evidence/material on record to show that the prices have risen during the period of five months, i.e. from July, 1978 to December, 1978 and so, it can be said that the market value of the present acquired lands of barani type was also the same at the time of publication of Notification under section 4 of the Act in the present cases. However, the value of the gair mumkin type of land is about one-third of the value of the barani land and the Land Acquisition Collector, vide his impugned award has also kept more or less the same ratio while granting the compensation for the gair mumkin type of land. As such taking into consideration the evidence led by both the parties documentary as well as oral, and the submissions made by the Ld. counsel for the parties, I hold that the market value of the Barani type of acquired land in the present case at the time of publication of Notification under section 4 of the Act was Rs. 2500/- per acre and that of Gair Mumkin acquired land in the present cases was Rs. 800/- per acre. I decide issues No. 1 and 2 accordingly." 4. 2500/- per acre and that of Gair Mumkin acquired land in the present cases was Rs. 800/- per acre. I decide issues No. 1 and 2 accordingly." 4. The short question that falls for determination is as to whether the market value determined by the learned Additional District Judge is sustainable as determined or calls for any increase as claimed by the claimants. 5. It is a conceded case before this Court that the sale instances were only produced by the claimants and they have also not proved the same in accordance with law. As per the law enunciated by the Honble Supreme Court of India in the cases titled as A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad v. P. Venkaiah and others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2600 and Special Deputy Collector and another v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2625 the said sale instances are inadmissible, as no vendor or vendee was examined to prove the authenticity of the documents and genuineness of the contents mentioned therein. However, the value reflected in the sale instance (Ex. P-12), which is relevant and comparable instance, is only Rs. 2504.64 per acre. This document is relevant from the point of time, area and location of the land. 6. Ex. P-10 is an order passed by the authorities concerned i.e. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Karnal, on the return filed by the claimants. In this return, the claimants have shown the value of the acquired land at Rs. 2500/- per acre in the year 1979-80. The claimants would be bound by their own document and admittedly the land reflected in Ex. P-10 is a barani land and the value has been shown subsequent to the date of the notification. 7. The location of the land is of some dispute between the parties. According to the PWs. the land had trees and part of it was uneven and is towards the left of road leading from Yamunanagar to Paonta Saheb. According to the witnesses and more particularly RW-1, the land is much away from the road and has even gair mumkin pahar as part of the acquired land. The only factor which can be taken note by the Court is that the land itself has been acquired for the purposes of forestation. According to the witnesses and more particularly RW-1, the land is much away from the road and has even gair mumkin pahar as part of the acquired land. The only factor which can be taken note by the Court is that the land itself has been acquired for the purposes of forestation. In other words, the land is capable of growing trees and has been acquired precisely for this purpose by the State. The learned counsel for the claimants placed heavy reliance upon Ex. P-4, which is an award dated 11.11.1978 passed by the Collector. In this case, the Collector awarded Rs. 3000/- per acre for banjar kadim land and Rs. 2400/- per acre for gair mumkin land. This land was acquired from the revenue estate of village Rainawala. The land under Ex. P-4 was acquired vide notification under Section 4 dated 13.6.1978 which was published in the Gazette on 20.6.1978. As far as acquisition of land under Ex.P-4 is concerned, it cannot be made absolute and only basis for determining the fair market value of the acquired land. Vide Ex.P-4 land was acquired for the purpose of construction of Power House by the Electricity Board. PW-2, in his cross examination, clearly admitted that the acquired land is more than 2 kms. away from the land acquired under Ex.P-4 in village Rainawala and the land of village Rainawala was nearly 1 and 1/2 kms. away from Yamunanagar-Paonta Saheb road. Thus, it is clear that the value of the acquired land from village Rainawala has to be much higher than the value of the acquired land in the present case. The land of village Rainawala has greater potential. Thus, it can only be a guiding factor and not determining factor for determining the fair market value of the land in question. The cumulative effect of Exs.P-10, P-4 and for that matter even Ex. P-12 (even if it is considered for the sake of arguments as admissible documents), would be that the compensation for the barani land at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per acre is a reasonable and fair compensation awarded by the learned Additional District Judge. The only question that remains to be considered is that whether granting of compensation at the rate of Rs. 800/- per acre for gair mumkin land is sufficient and reasonable. The only reason given by the learned Additional District Judge for granting Rs. 2500/- per acre is a reasonable and fair compensation awarded by the learned Additional District Judge. The only question that remains to be considered is that whether granting of compensation at the rate of Rs. 800/- per acre for gair mumkin land is sufficient and reasonable. The only reason given by the learned Additional District Judge for granting Rs. 800/- per acre for gair mumkin land is that gair mumkin land would fetch value nearly 1/3rd of the value payable for sale of barani land. The learned Judge has further observed that the Collector has applied the same principle. It appears that the Collector has given comparatively higher value in relation to the barani land than the one awarded by the learned Additional District Judge. Otherwise also the land is acquired for the same purpose and is subject matter of one and the same acquisition. It is a case of huge acquisition and possibility of the land being uneven and then even cannot be ruled out. There is no definite documentary evidence or a map to show the exact nature and location of the land in question. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties on record, and being guided by Ex. P-4, which is an award of the Collector, I am of the considered view that it would be just, fair and proper that the claimants who owned gair mumkin land in the area in question should be awarded higher compensation i.e. at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per acre instead of Rs. 800/- per acre as awarded by the learned Additional District Judge. 8. From the record, it is clear that the learned Additional District Judge had pronounced his award on 10.4.1985 while the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act were amended in the year 1984 and they came into force with effect from 24.9.1984, hence the claimants would obviously be entitled to the solatium and the interest in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act. The reasoning given by the learned Additional District Judge for declining the relief of solatium and interest in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act does not appear to be correct. The claims of the claimants have to be decided in accordance with law prevalent at the time of adjudication of the rights of the parties. The reasoning given by the learned Additional District Judge for declining the relief of solatium and interest in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act does not appear to be correct. The claims of the claimants have to be decided in accordance with law prevalent at the time of adjudication of the rights of the parties. Reference under Section 18 of the Act is a continuation of original proceedings initiated and as such they would have to be controlled and governed by the amended provisions of the Act. In this regard, reference has been made to the judgment of this Court in the case titled as Smt. Bharpai v. State of Haryana, 1999(2) The Punjab Law Reporter 721 : 1999(2) RCR(Civil) 374 (P&H). 9. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants did not press any claim in relation to enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded on account of trees etc. to them. Furthermore, the claimants have not produced and proved on record by leading any expert evidence in relation to the girth, their age, value etc. of the trees. Self-serving statements of the claimants can hardly be taken as a valid ground for increasing the compensation on this account. The learned Additional District Judge declined to interfere for the reasons recorded therein in regard to the compensation payable for the trees etc. I would affirm the said finding and would decline to grant any higher compensation to the claimants on account of trees etc. 10. As a result of above discussion, the appeals filed by the claimants are accepted partly and to the limited extent that the claimants, owners of gair mumkin land, would be entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per acre instead of Rs. 800/- per acre, as granted by the learned Additional District Judge. All the claimants would be entitled to the statutory benefits arisen from the statutory provisions of the amended Act under Sections 23(1- A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. All other prayers of the claimants are rejected. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.