Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1168 (PNJ)

Maman Chand Budhia v. State of Haryana

2003-08-21

V.K.BALI

body2003
JUDGMENT V.K. Bali, J. - By this common order, this Court proposes to dispose of three connected Regular First Appeal Nos. 871, 986 and 1162 of 1981 as common questions of law and fact arise in all these matters. Learned counsel for the parties also suggest likewise. The facts have, however, been extracted from RFA No. 871 of 1981. 2. These appeals have been filed by the claimants, who, in the matter of reference, filed by them under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (here-in-after referred to as the Act) succeeded partly, inasmuch as learned Additional District Judge allowed their reference application by determining the market value of their land @ Rs. 5/- per sq. yard. Naturally, in the present appeals, the claimants-appellants seek further enhancement of compensation by determining the market value of land @ Rs. 60/- per sq. yard as was their demand all through. 3. Brief facts of the case reveal that the Government of Haryana issued notification under Section 4 of the Act on 30.1.1976 intending to acquire 21 acres and 2 marlas of land for a public purpose, namely, for development of Industrial Estate at Bhiwani. The follow-up declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 2.7.1976. The Land Acquisition Collector, vide his award dated 17.11.1976 assessed market value of the land pertaining to 2016 sq. yards, located along side the road, at Rs. 4/- per sq. yard whereas market value of rest of the land was assessed @ Rs. 10,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the wholly inadequate compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector, the claimant-landowners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and, as mentioned above, learned Additional District Judge, vide his judgment dated 15.4.1981 evaluated the entire land at the same rate and determined the same @ Rs. 5/- per sq. yard. Still dis-satisfied with the compensation so assessed, present appeal has been filed. 4. Before the Court might determine the market value of the acquired land, based upon sale instances produced by respective parties before the learned Additional District Judge, it would be relevant to mention here that the acquired land is situated in the Municipal limits of Bhiwani since the year 1972. The land adjoins Circular road, Bhiwani. The colonies, like, Kamla Nagar and Municipal colony had since already been raised in the vicinity of the acquired land. The land adjoins Circular road, Bhiwani. The colonies, like, Kamla Nagar and Municipal colony had since already been raised in the vicinity of the acquired land. Even though, there were not much residential houses in the close vicinity of the land, constructions were existing anterior to the Circular road and that there was not much trend of development towards the side of the acquired land. The very fact that the land was located within the Municipal limits and was only at a distance of 200 yards from Kamla Nagar colony, it certainly had the potential of being converted into a residential or commercial sector. The findings pertaining to the land being within the municipal limits, adjoining the circular road and located close to the colonies, like, Kamla Nagar and Municipal Colony, as recorded by learned Additional District Judge, have not been disputed by either of the parties. 5. The claimants, in their endeavour for fixing the market value of the land at the rate as demanded by them and as mentioned above, led both oral and documentary evidence. There shall be no necessity to mention the entire evidence led by the claimants as the contentions, as have been raised now, pertain to three sets of sale deeds, one pertaining to sale of municipal plots vide special order, Ex. P3 dated 7.7.1975 fixing the sale price of municipal plots, the other pertains to sale of plots situated in Kamla Nagar Colony, Ex. P6 to P10. The third set of evidence pertains to two sale instances of comparable land vide Ex. P12 and P13 dated 9.10.1975 and 1.3.1972 respectively. 6. Insofar as special order dated 7.7.1975, Ex. P3, pertaining to sale of municipal plots is concerned, nothing much could be argued on the basis thereof as the finding recorded by the learned Additional District Judge that location of the said plots was not clear from the documents on record, could not be disputed. However, insofar as sale instances Ex. P6 to P10 pertaining to Kamla Nagar colony, are concerned, the same were at a distance of 201 to 314 sq. yards. Whereas, Ex. P6 can not be said to be relevant being sale instance of 30.6.1976, other sale instances, insofar as the time of sale is concerned, are certainly relevant being pertaining to the year 1974. P6 to P10 pertaining to Kamla Nagar colony, are concerned, the same were at a distance of 201 to 314 sq. yards. Whereas, Ex. P6 can not be said to be relevant being sale instance of 30.6.1976, other sale instances, insofar as the time of sale is concerned, are certainly relevant being pertaining to the year 1974. The said sale instances have, however, been rejected by learned Additional District Judge on the ground that Kamla Nagar colony is anterior to the circular road and it is anterior to circular road that there was more development in the shape of constructions etc. The sale instances Ex. P6 to P10 depict price of the land @ Rs. 28/- to Rs. 36/- per sq. yard. In considered view of this Court, these sale instances pertaining to Kamla Nagar, but for Ex. P6, could not be said to be wholly irrelevant as concededly, land, subject matter of acquisition, is situated within the municipal limits which is also the position of plots sold in Kamla Nagar colony and, as mentioned above, are at a distance of 201 to 314 sq. yards. Even though, at the time of acquisition, there may not have been any development in the shape of constructions, in the land, subject matter of acquisition, but it cannot be ruled out that in very near future, there ought to have been such a development, the land having potential for such purpose as held in the earlier part of this judgment. The sale instances being relevant alone, of course, would not entitle the claimants to the same market value, for which plots in Kamla Nagar colony were sold, even though there was a time lag of about two years in sale of the said plots and notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case. Further, plots sold in an area after developing it and the area which is undeveloped, can definitely not get the same price. Thus, a substantial cut is required to be made while evaluating the market value of land, subject matter of acquisition. 7. The third set of evidence, as mentioned above, is in the shape of sale instances Ex. P12 and P13. Ex. P12 is a sale deed dated 9.10.1975 vide which 314 sq. yards of land was sold for a sum of Rs. 3000/- i.e., @ Rs. 9.50 per sq. yard. Sale deed, Ex. 7. The third set of evidence, as mentioned above, is in the shape of sale instances Ex. P12 and P13. Ex. P12 is a sale deed dated 9.10.1975 vide which 314 sq. yards of land was sold for a sum of Rs. 3000/- i.e., @ Rs. 9.50 per sq. yard. Sale deed, Ex. P13, is dated 1.3.1972 for an area measuring 18 feet x 56 feet which was sold for a sum of Rs. 1000/- i.e., @ Rs. 8.93 per sq. yard. These are private sales and have been duly proved on records of the case and are comparable. These instances have been rejected only on the ground that they pertain to small plots and, thus, can not be accepted in toto to base the findings in this case, as held by learned Additional District Judge. In considered view of this Court, only because sale instances Ex. P12 and P13 were of small size, could not be a ground to reject the same completely. It is not disputed that the sale instances aforesaid are of comparable land and, as mentioned above, are private sales. It is pertinent to mention here that sale instance Ex. P13 pertains to 1.3.1972, i.e., almost four years prior to the date when land was notified under Section 4 in the present case. The land, having a potential for being converted into a residential or commercial area, and it may be mentioned here that the land indeed has been acquired to establish an industrial estate at Bhiwani, the sale instance Ex. P13, being of a small size, could be set off against the same time lag of four years between the said sale instance and notification under Section 4 in the present case. Learned Additional District Judge has indeed returned a finding that there has been rising trend in prices even in the locality where land, subject matter of acquisition, is located, even though there may not be much trend of development on that side. It is by noting, as referred to above, that learned Additional District Judge enhanced the market value of the acquired land from the one assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector to Rs. 5/- per sq. yard at flat rate. 8. It is too well settled that mathematical precision for fixing the market value of the acquired land is not possible. The determination of its market value depends upon number of circumstances. 5/- per sq. yard at flat rate. 8. It is too well settled that mathematical precision for fixing the market value of the acquired land is not possible. The determination of its market value depends upon number of circumstances. If totality of the circumstances has to be seen, it can well be said that in the facts and circumstances of this case, if some comparison of the land, subject matter of acquisition, has to be made with the plots sold in Kamla Nagar colony, as has been held above, and an appropriate cut is applied, which in the present case, should be 75% of the average of Rs. 28/- and Rs. 36/-, the market value in the present case would work out @ Rs. 8/- per sq. yard. If sale instance, Ex. P13 is relied upon and time lag between the said sale instance and notification under section 4 in the present case is set off, Ex. 13 being of a small piece of land, even then, market value of the land would work out to something between Rs. 8/- to Rs. 8.50/- per sq. yard. 9. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the considered view that just and proper compensation in the present case should be @ Rs. 8/- per sq. yard. It is held likewise. Resultantly, these appeals are partly allowed. The claimants are held entitled to compensation, worked out @ Rs. 8/- per sq. yard. They shall, however, be entitled to statutory benefits as given to them by learned Additional District Judge inasmuch as, concededly, in view of the date of the award, claimants are not entitled to statutory benefits that became available to a citizen after the amendment of the Act. The claimants shall also be entitled to proportionate costs which may be worked out by the office. Appeals partly allowed.