Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1127 (PNJ)

State of Haryana v. Nand Lal

2003-08-13

SWATANTER KUMAR

body2003
JUDGMENT Swatanter Kumar, J. (Oral) - I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. 2. By this judgment, I propose to dispose of Regular first Appeal No. 450 of 1982 and Cross Objection No. 54-CI of 1991, as they arise from the same judgment. 3. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued by the State of Haryana on 23rd May, 1972, intending to acquire 6.76 acres of land in village Bhairi Akbarpur, Tehsil Hisar. Thereafter, notification under section 6 of the Act was issued on 19th December, 1972. The claimants were heard by the Collector, who, vide his Award dated 8.3.1980 granted compensation to be claimants at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per acre. The claimants had prayed compensation at the rate of Rs. 50/- per square yard. Thus, being dis-satisfied by the award of the Collector, reference under section 18 of the Act was preferred to the learned District Judge, Hisar, which was disposed of by the learned District Judge, Hisar, vide judgment dated 4.1.1982. He enhanced the compensation to Rs. 8000/- per acre as against Rs. 4,000/- awarded by the Collector. 4. At the very outset, we may notice that the learned counsel appearing for the parties have fairly conceded that the mutation placed on record by the respective parties could lawfully be ignored by the learned reference court. The claimants-objector submits that the judgment of the reference court is erroneous inasmuch as it has ignored and rejected exhibit P.13 judgment of the court, wherein for the land acquired in the year 1967 in relation to the adjacent village compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 10/- per square yard. Thus, on this basis, it was contended that the learned reference court has ignored the relevant piece of evidence and as such has fallen in error in recording the finding to the contrary. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State strenuously contended that exhibit P.13 is the award/judgment dated 21.12.1971 relating to the different village falling in different revenue estate and as such provide no payment for determining the fair market value of the acquired land subject matter of the present appeal. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State strenuously contended that exhibit P.13 is the award/judgment dated 21.12.1971 relating to the different village falling in different revenue estate and as such provide no payment for determining the fair market value of the acquired land subject matter of the present appeal. According to him, in fact, the amount of compensation awarded by the learned reference court is liable to the reduced and the award given by the Collector needs to be restored by the Court. 7. As already noticed, a short question that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the exhibit P.13 is the indicator/guiding factor for assessing the fair market value of the land in question and can form basis for determination of fair market value of the land at the relevant time. 4. The learned reference court, while rejecting this piece of evidence exhibit P.13 held as under :- ".........It is also worthwhile to mention that no reliance can be placed on the certified copy of a judgment passed by Shri A.K. Jain, then Additional District Judge, Hisar, dated 21.12.1972, (sic) because no attempt had been made by the claimants to show that this land regarding which compensation was enhanced is adjacent to the land in dispute, or is situate in the near vicinity. I do not dispute with the legal proposition propounded by the learned counsel for the claimants Shri Aggarwal that a judgment rendered by a Court in acquisition proceeding can be looked into as one of the instances of the transaction of sale. However, as stated above, this judgment does not render any help for the reasons stated above." 5. The above findings of the learned reference court are being challenged on the ground that it is clear contradiction to the statement made by PW.1 claimants and RW.1, the witness who appeared on behalf of the department. PW.1 in his statement has categorically stated that land in dispute was not under cultivation and was kept vacant for constructing houses and shops. The land in the village abadi is densely populated. Uklana mandi and village Bheri Akbarpur adjoin each other. In the cross-examination of this witness, no suggestion was made that the land acquired in village Bheri Akbarpur was not adjacent or adjoin to Uklana Mandi. The land was acquired in 1964. The land in the village abadi is densely populated. Uklana mandi and village Bheri Akbarpur adjoin each other. In the cross-examination of this witness, no suggestion was made that the land acquired in village Bheri Akbarpur was not adjacent or adjoin to Uklana Mandi. The land was acquired in 1964. RW.1 in his cross-examination stated as under :- "..........I have been seeing the land in dispute right from 1962 till now but I cannot give any specific reason, for seeing this land in 1972. Cinema near a part of the acquired land was in existence even prior to 1962. The abadi of Uklana Mandi from the Cinema is about 1 K.M. Village Budakhera is 2 K.Ms. from the Cinema. I have not seen Fateh Chand Colony, if there is any. There is no abadi near the Cinema. Railway Station Uklana is about 3/4 K.M. from the Cinema. Uklana Mandi and railway station are connected by roads with the Cinema." 6. The evidentiary value of exhibit P.13, which is a judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, dated 21st December, 1972, in relation to the land acquired in village Uklana Mandi in the year 1967 has to be examined in light of the above evidence which was led by the parties. 7. It is true that two lands, though may be adjacent to each other but may not have the market value for the purpose of payment of compensation. Various factors like its potentiality, location, utility and other factors are the guiding factors for determine such compensation, but equally true is that it provides an index to what can be the market value of the land at the relevant time. 8. It is stated by the learned counsel for the claimants-objector that exhibit P.13 in terms of its value had attained the finality and was never reduced by the higher court. 9. Once, an index is available for determining the market value of the land, it is the duty of the Court to award a reasonable and fair compensation to the claimants, whose land is being acquired by the State. The Collector had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per acre and it was enhanced to Rs. 8,000/- per acre by the learned reference court. 10. The Collector had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per acre and it was enhanced to Rs. 8,000/- per acre by the learned reference court. 10. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of K.S. Shivadevamma and others v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer and another, 1996(2) Supreme Court Cases 62 has clearly held that the adjacent land can be awarded similar compensation. Following the law enunciated by the Honble Supreme Court, I am of the considered view that exhibit P.13 can be looked into as indicative to the extent of compensation which may be paid to the claimants for acquisition of their respective land. There is no direct evidence to show that there was increasing trend in the price of the land. Furthermore, the potentiality of the land acquired was in any case better or more than the land acquired in any year 1967. Furthermore, there is no evidence to show the exact situation vis-a-vis exhibit P.13. Absence of this material evidence must result in some disadvantage to the claimants. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the objectors that the land in question was acquired in later point of time than the land acquired in exhibit P.13 and as such during the intervening time to two acquisitions there was increase in price of land. Lapse of time itself is not a ground for enhancing. It must be shown and reflected by overwhelming evidence and onus is on the claimant to prove that there was increase in the price of the land. Moreover, in the exhibit P.13 a small land measuring 0.72 acre was acquired for construction of Uklana-Pabra road and was granted higher compensation whereas in the present acquisition approximately 6 acres of land was acquired that too for construction of the road. Keeping the above factors and the fact that the parties have not led definite evidence the claimants cannot claim the total benefits as granted to the land acquired in the year 1967 notification. The land may be better located, more potential and was already developed but in absence of definite evidence, certain amount of guess work has to be worked out for determining the fair market value of the land. In this regard reference can be made to the case of Chand Kiran Tyagi and others v. The State of U.P. and another, 1995 Land Acquisition and Compensation Cases 207. In this regard reference can be made to the case of Chand Kiran Tyagi and others v. The State of U.P. and another, 1995 Land Acquisition and Compensation Cases 207. The cumulative effect of the above discussion is that the appeal preferred by the State of Haryana is dismissed, the cross-objection filed by the claimant is allowed and the claimants shall be entitled for enhanced compensation from Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per acre with statutory benefits provided under sections 23 (1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. Regular First Appeal as well as Cross-objections are disposed of accordingly. Appeal dismissed.