Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1094 (PNJ)

Chhoto v. State of Haryana

2003-08-08

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2003
JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - This judgment shall dispose of three Regular First Appeals, bearing Nos. 1725, 1757 and 1758 of 1982. The earlier instituted appeal i.e. Regular First Appeal No. 1725 of 1982 has been filed by the land owners, whereas the other two appeals i.e. Regular First Appeals No. 1757 and 1758 of 1982 have been filed by the State of Haryana. However, all these three appeals are arising from the common judgment pertaining to the same acquisition. 2. Vide notification dated 1.4.1980 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the State of Haryana acquired certain land of two villages, namely Sidipur and Lowa Kalan for a public purpose i.e. for construction of road from Sidipur to Mundera. Vide two separate awards, one for the land of Village Sidipur and the other for the land of Village Lowa Kalan, the Land Acquisition Officer assessed the market value of the acquired lands at the following rates :- S.No. Name of the village where the land is situated Rate awarded 1. Lowa Kalan Rs. 10400/- per acre for gair mumkin abadi land. 2. Sidipur i) Rs. 10400/- per acre for chahi, chahi/nahri and nahri land. ii) Rs. 8320 per acre for Berani land. Dis-satisfied with the aforesaid determination of the market value, the land owners sought references under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation. Those references were referred to the District Judge, Rohtak, which were consolidated and ultimately decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak vide his award dated 2.9.1982. By the impugned award, the learned Additional District Judge determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 10/- per square yard and awarded 15% solatium and interest @ 6% per annum from the date of taking possession till the date of payment of the enhanced amount of compensation to the land owners. 3. Both the parties were aggrieved against the aforesaid award. The land owners as well as the State of Haryana have filed the instant appeals against the said award. 4. Learned counsel for the land owners (appellants in RFA No. 1725 of 1992) submitted that while determining the market value of the acquired land, learned Additional District Judge relied upon only one sale transaction i.e. Ex. P1 (Ex. P4 is also the same sale transaction). 4. Learned counsel for the land owners (appellants in RFA No. 1725 of 1992) submitted that while determining the market value of the acquired land, learned Additional District Judge relied upon only one sale transaction i.e. Ex. P1 (Ex. P4 is also the same sale transaction). The other sale transactions relied upon by the land owners as well as the State were not taken into consideration as those were not found to be relevant for determination of the market value in the instant case. The sale transaction Ex. P1 pertains to the land within the Abadi of Village Lowa Kalan and it was situated at a distance of 825 feet from the acquired land. Learned counsel for the land owners further submitted that vide Ex. P1, the land measuring 1 Biswa was sold for Rs. 5,000/-, but the learned Additional District Judge took the sale price of the said land as Rs. 1,500/- as only this amount was paid by the vendee before the Sub Registrar and the remaining amount of Rs. 3,500/- was paid by the vendee to the vendor at the time of agreement of sale as earnest money. It was observed by learned Additional District Judge that since the agreement of sale was not produced, therefore, the sale deed will be deemed to be for a consideration of Rs. 1,500/- only. By taking the sale consideration of the said sale deed as Rs. 1,500/- the learned Additional District Judge assessed market value of the acquired land at Rs. 10/- per square yard. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the aforesaid conclusion drawn by the learned Additional District Judge is not valid and legal. Merely because some amount was paid as earnest money and was not paid before the Sub Registrar at the time of execution of the sale deed, it cannot be said that the sale transaction took place only for the amount which was paid before the Sub Registrar. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the learned Additional District Judge has wrongly fixed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 10/- per square yard on the basis of sale deed Ex. P1, which pertains to the year 1974. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the learned Additional District Judge has wrongly fixed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 10/- per square yard on the basis of sale deed Ex. P1, which pertains to the year 1974. According to learned counsel for the State, the learned Additional District Judge could have determined the market value of the acquired land on the basis of the sale transactions Ex. R4 to Ex. R7 produced and proved by the State. 6. I have heard the respective arguments of learned counsel for both the parties and have perused record of the case. 7. Vide sale deed Ex. P1, 1 Biswa of land situated in Village Lowa Kalan was sold for a consideration of Rs. 5,000/-. Out of the total sale consideration Rs. 3,500/- were paid at the time of agreement as earnest money and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,500/- was paid before the Sub Registrar at the time of execution of the sale deed. This sale deed has been proved by Kartar Singh (PW.3), who was the vendee of the sale deed Ex. P1. He has stated that he has purchased the land through the registered sale deed for a consideration of Rs. 5,000/-. He further stated that an agreement of sale was executed between the parties and he had paid Rs. 3,500/- as earnest money but he could not bring the agreement of sale at the time of his deposition in the Court. He specifically denied the suggestion put to him that the aforesaid land was purchased by him only for Rs. 1,500/-. In view of this, I am of the opinion that the conclusion drawn by the learned Additional District Judge that this sale transaction was only for Rs. 1,500/- is not correct. Merely because part of the sale consideration was paid at the time of execution of the sale deed, it cannot be presumed that the sale deed was executed only for that amount. In this case, Kartar Singh (PW.3) has categorically stated that he has purchased the land mentioned in sale deed Ex. P1 for a consideration of Rs. 5,000/-. He also stated that he paid Rs. 3,500/- as earnest money and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,500/- was paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. In this case, Kartar Singh (PW.3) has categorically stated that he has purchased the land mentioned in sale deed Ex. P1 for a consideration of Rs. 5,000/-. He also stated that he paid Rs. 3,500/- as earnest money and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,500/- was paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. A suggestion was put to him that he purchased the land through the aforesaid sale deed only for a sum of Rs. 1,500/-, which was denied by him. Except this suggestion, the State of Haryana did not lead any evidence to establish that the aforesaid sale transaction was only for Rs. 1,500/-. Therefore, I hold the land owners have proved the sale transaction Ex. P1 which was executed for a sale consideration of Rs. 5,000/-. Vide this sale deed, only 1 Biswa of land was sold on 23.1.1974. This sale transaction pertains to a very small piece of land, through adjacent to the acquired land. Therefore, it will be appropriate to impose a cut upon this sale transaction to ascertain the true market value of the bigger land. In my opinion, a cut of 50% will be appropriate in the instant case. After imposing cut of 50% on the aforesaid sale deed, the sale consideration will come to Rs. 2,500/-. Keeping in view the sale amount, the market value of the acquired land is assessed at Rs. 16.75 per square yard instead of Rs. 10/- per Square yard and the land owners are entitled for enhancement of Rs. 6.75 per Square yard over and above the market value of the acquired land determined by the learned Additional District Judge. The land owners shall also be entitled to 30% of the solatium on the enhanced amount under Section 23(2) of the Act. They shall also be entitled to statutory interest on the enhanced compensation @ 9% per annum, for the first year and 15% per annum subsequently till payment under Section 28 of the Act. However, the land owners shall not be entitled for additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the land owners is allowed as above and the appeals filed by the State of Haryana are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.