Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1283 (PNJ)

Chandgi Ram v. Haryana State

2003-09-11

SWATANTER KUMAR

body2003
JUDGMENT Swatanter Kumar, J. - By this judgment, I would dispose of above 13 Regular First Appeals, as they have been preferred against the one and the same judgment/award dated 31st July, 1987 passed by the learned District Judge, Gurgaon. 2. The facts, in brief, are that State of Haryana issued a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 19th March, 1979, intending to acquire land in the revenue estate of Village Choma. The petitioners being dis-satisfied from the compensation awarded to them by the Collector preferred references under section 18 of the Act, praying that the market value of the land was not less than Rs. 1 lac per acre and thus, the compensation awarded by the Collector was totally insufficient. These references came up for adjudication before the learned District Judge, Gurgaon, who answered 18 references together by the judgment and award afore-referred. On the pleadings of the parties, learned reference court framed the following issues :- 1) What was the market value of the acquired land on the date of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ? 2) Whether any severance or fragmentation of any other land of the petitioners was occasioned by the acquisition in question ? If so what compensation is payable thereof ? 3) Relief. 3. After permitting the parties to lead evidence the learned reference court enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 26/- per square yard, in addition to interest and other charges at the statutory rates in accordance with the provisions of the amended Act. The petitioners still were not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded to them and thus, have preferred the present appeals for further enhancement and raising their claim to Rs. 50/- per square yard. 4. It will be appropriate to refer to the findings recorded by the learned reference court on issue No. 1, which reads as under :- "Issue No. 1 5. The petitioners relied on sale deeds (Ex. P.1 to P.4) which are of the year 1981. Reliance was also placed on sale deeds (Ex. P.6 and Ex. P.7). They are of the year 1980. Sale deeds (Ex. P.9 and P.11) are of the years 1984, whereas sale deed (Ex. P.10) is of the year 1983. Another sale deed Ex. P.16 is of the year 1985. P.1 to P.4) which are of the year 1981. Reliance was also placed on sale deeds (Ex. P.6 and Ex. P.7). They are of the year 1980. Sale deeds (Ex. P.9 and P.11) are of the years 1984, whereas sale deed (Ex. P.10) is of the year 1983. Another sale deed Ex. P.16 is of the year 1985. These are, therefore, not relevant. 6. Reliance was also placed on a sale deed (Ex. P.14) dated 27.10.1975 whereunder two marlas of land under a well was sold for Rs. 8000/-. This instance also is not relevant because it was of a very tiny piece of land which was under a well, Ex. P.5 is a sale deed dated 27.7.1977 where-under one kanal of land in village Daulatpur Nasirabad was sold for Rs. 4500/-. 7. We have, however, a judgment (Ex. P.13) rendered by an Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, wherein land in village Daulatpur Nasirabad (Carterpuri) has been acquired in pursuance of a notification dated 23.11.1979 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and the learned Judge awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 26/- per square yard. It is in the un-rebutted and challenged testimony of Suraj Bhan (PW1), one of the petitioners, saying the village Carterpuri also known by the name of village Daulatpur Nasirabad adjoins village Choma. Therefore, the judgment (Ex. P.13) is a good piece of evidence to determine the market price of the land in question. It is true that the notification in the said case was of November, 1979 whereas in the present case it was of March, 1979. However, learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to Shri Tara Singh (Deceased) v. The State of Punjab 1983 Punjab Law Reporter 286. It was held that bonafide transactions subsequent to the notification can also sometimes be taken into consideration and that they are not always altogether to be ignored. In the reported case an instance of 9-1/2 months after the date of notification under Section 4 was considered. The instance furnished by the judgment (Ex.P.4) cannot be said to be malafide because it was a judicial determination of the controversy between the parties. The difference in the two dates of notification under section 4 is also not very long. As such I hold that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 26/- per sq. yard. The issue is decided accordingly." 5. The difference in the two dates of notification under section 4 is also not very long. As such I hold that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 26/- per sq. yard. The issue is decided accordingly." 5. The bare reading of the above findings clearly show that the learned Judge has mainly relied upon the earlier judgment/award exhibit P.13 to be a good piece of evidence and thus, was made the basis for determining the market value of the land at the relevant time. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants stated that whatever be the fate of exhibit P.13 would also determine the compensation payable to them in accordance with law. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State contended that exhibit P.13 could not be material piece of evidence for determining the market value of the land. 8. The land in the present case was acquired vide notification dated 19th March, 1979, exhibit P.13 is a award/judgment in case of Inder Singh v. State of Haryana which was decided by the Court on 3.6.1985. There also land was acquired by notification under section 4 of the Act dated 23rd November, 1979, land was acquired from the adjoining villages and compensation at the rate of Rs. 26/- per square yard along with other statutory benefits was granted to the petitioners in those cases. Exhibit P.13 was subject matter of Regular First Appeal No. 95 of 1995 titled Inder Singh v. State of Haryana, which was decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court, vide judgment dated 27th April, 1987 and the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 30/- per square yard. Still, the appellant preferred Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which was registered as Letters Patent Appeal No. 316 of 1987 titled Inder Singh v. State of Haryana and the same ws dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 7th of January, 1997. Thus, it is clear that the compensation awarded by the learned Single Judge on the basis of exhibits and which was increased to Rs. 30/- has become final, after dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal. It is nobodys case before me that the judgment in the Letters Patent Appeal was assailed before the Honble Apex Court. Thus, it is clear that the compensation awarded by the learned Single Judge on the basis of exhibits and which was increased to Rs. 30/- has become final, after dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal. It is nobodys case before me that the judgment in the Letters Patent Appeal was assailed before the Honble Apex Court. I find that the reasoning given by the learned reference court in not considering the sale deed exhibits P.1 to P.4 and P.6, P.7 as well as exhibits P.9 and P.11 on the ground that they relate to the period of 1980-1984 is correct as they could not form the basis for determining fair market value of the land. 9. It is settled principle of law that judicial pronouncement, which relates to somewhat similarly situated land and are comparable instances for deciding subsequent matter and once these instances are found to be comparable examples on earlier acquisition then they can certainly be the reasonable basis for determining the fair market value of the land, subject to subsequent proceedings. It is not even the case of the State that exhibit P.13 is not a comparable instance. I am further of the considered view that the rejection of other sale deeds which might have given higher compensation to the claimants for acquisition of their land were rightly rejected by the learned reference court. As already noticed, compensation awarded by exhibit P.13 already stands enhanced to Rs. 30/- per square yard and the judgment of the learned Single Judge has already been affirmed by the Letters Patent Bench, which would be binding upon this Court. As such compensation awarded to the claimants is enhanced by Rs. 4/- per square yard. Thus, giving them total compensation payable at the rate of Rs. 30/- per square yard. 10. As a result of the above discussion, all these appeals are allowed to the limited extent that the total compensation payable to the claimants shall be at the rate of Rs. 30/- per square yard. The claimants would obviously be entitled to statutory benefits, solatium and interest in accordance with the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeals allowed.