Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1304 (PNJ)

Vinod Kumar v. State Of Haryana

2003-09-17

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

body2003
Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against award of the reference court, seeking further enhancement of the compensation for the land of the appellant acquired by the State of Haryana for development of residential area in Sector-28, Faridabad, Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the land in question was issued on 1.10.1973. Vide his award dated 22.2.1974, the Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 124/- per marla, apart from compensation of Heena plantation at the rate of Rs. 12/- per marla. The reference court has enhanced the compensation for the land to Rs. 18 per square yard and that of Heena plantation to Re.1/- per square yard. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that compensation should be en-hanced to Rs. 29.50 per square yard and compensation for Heena plantation should be raised to Rs. 3/- per square yard. Reference was made to award of reference court in relation to acquisition of adjoining land for setting up Sector 27-A, wherein, compensation has been enhanced to Rs. 24/- per square yard. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since notification under Section 4 of the Act in that case was dated 7.10.1971, 12% enhancement ought to be given on the said rate for acquisition in the present case, for which notification under Section 4 of the Act had been issued on 1.10.1973. Alternatively, he submits that this court in RFA No. 1434 of 1988 decided on 8,10.1998 awarded rate of Rs. 22.54 per square yard for the land in Sector 27-A. He referred to evidence of AW8 at page 404 of the record to the effect that the [and in question was two Furlongs from G.T. road and there was a link road with Abadi of old Faridabad also. He submits that the witness was not cross-examined on this point. He also referred to Akshajra, Ex.A6 and map showing that Sector-28 in Faridabad was on the main Mathura Road. He also referred to judgment Ex.A14 at page 124 of the record, wherein, in para 42 rate of Heena plantation was held to be Re.1 per square yard and the rate of Heena was Rs. 45 per Maund, wherein, notification for acquisition issued on 18.01.1960. He also referred to judgment Ex.A14 at page 124 of the record, wherein, in para 42 rate of Heena plantation was held to be Re.1 per square yard and the rate of Heena was Rs. 45 per Maund, wherein, notification for acquisition issued on 18.01.1960. He submitted that AW1 Naresh Chand mandi Supervisor at page 391 of the record stated that rate of Heena was Rs. 268.87 per quintal and AW7 Rattan Lal stated the rate of Heena to be Rs. 330/- per quintal in the year 1973 and yield to be 40 Maunds per acre. The appellant himself appeared as AW8 and stated that rate of Heena was Rs. 350/- per quintal and market value of the land was Rs. 5/- per square yard. He submitted that since rate of Re.1 per square yard for Heena plantation was Rs. 45/- per Maund and price of Heena plantation has gone up by six times, the rate of Heena should be at least thrice. 3. Learned counsel for the State submitted that matter was covered by DB judgment of this court in respect of the same land being RFA No. 1534 of 1977 (Sh. Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana) decided on 18.4.1979, Ex.A15 on record, referred in 1980 P.L.J. 77 and, thereafter, further judgment in RFA No. 787 of 1978 (Om Parkash v. State of Haryana), Ex.A16 decided on 17.5,1979. He submitted that the reference court has rightly followed the said DB judgments. He also referred to judgment of this Court in Brij Nandan v. The State of Haryana, 1979 P.L.J. 502, wherein, rate of Heena plantation was assessed at Rs. 1/- per square yard. Learned counsel for the State also referred to para 8 of the impugned judgment. It is submitted that statement of AW1, Naresh Chand, Mandi Supervisor giving the rate of sale of Heena to be Rs. 268/- per quintal refers to sale made in the year 1977 and he admitted that in the year 1973, sale was at the rate of Rs. 150 per quintal, but even for that, he admitted that there was no entry in record, learned counsel also referred to evidence of AW2 R.N.Tyagi, Assistant Director of Horticulture, CPWD, to the effect that in the year 1971-72, price of Heena plantation was 25 paise per plant and price of Shrub Heena plant was Rs. 150 per quintal, but even for that, he admitted that there was no entry in record, learned counsel also referred to evidence of AW2 R.N.Tyagi, Assistant Director of Horticulture, CPWD, to the effect that in the year 1971-72, price of Heena plantation was 25 paise per plant and price of Shrub Heena plant was Rs. 2/- per plant, which includes cost of earthen pot, cost of manure and soil, etc. and the cost of maintenance for a period of one to three years. In evidence of AW6, Ram Nath Kumar, Deputy Director, Agriculture, he has given a report, Ex.A5, according to which value of crop of land was assessed at Rs. 53750/- per acre. The reference court did not accept his evidence as his inspection was on 11.02,1980 when there was no crop. As regards evidence of AW7 Rattan Lal Garg, the reference court observed that his evidence was of general nature depending upon so many variables, like, nature of land, investment made etc. With regard to evidence of AW8, Vinod Kumar, the appellant himself, it has been held that his evidence was vague. Appellant has also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Cod of Civil Procedure for additional evidence comprised of judgment dated 11.2.1992 in respect of acquisition for Sector 27-A at Faridabad for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 7.10.1974, wherein, compensation was fixed at Rs. 24 per square yard. It was submitted that since Sector-27A was an adjoining sector, the said award could be taken into account. The respondent-State has contested this application on the ground that the acquisition did not belong to same notification, award or sector, but in respect of a sector which is one kilometre away from G.T.Road and since evidence was available in respect of the same sector, the said award could not be taken into account. 4. After hearing counsel for the parties, I do not find any ground to permit additional evidence at this stage. No doubt, an award can be taken into account as evidence for determining market value of the acquired land, but when evidence with regard to the land covered by the same notification is available, award in relation to some other notification and which is away from the acquired land, may not be relevant. Application for additional evidence is dismissed. 5. No doubt, an award can be taken into account as evidence for determining market value of the acquired land, but when evidence with regard to the land covered by the same notification is available, award in relation to some other notification and which is away from the acquired land, may not be relevant. Application for additional evidence is dismissed. 5. Since a Division Bench judgment is available for the acquired land, which has been made the basis of the impugned award, there is no reason to assess compensation for the acquired land at a different rate. As regards Heena plantation, merely because rate of Heena plantation has been awarded at the same rate in respect of previous acquisition, it cannot be held that a higher rate is called for. Even for Heena plantation, Division Bench judgment of this court in respect of land covered by the same notification is available. I, therefore, do not find may ground for further enhancement in the amount of compensation. 6. I, however, find merit in the contention that interest and solatium is payable at revised rates, award of the reference court being after 30.4.1982. Accordingly, while upholding the enhancement as made by the reference court, the appellant is held entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 9% p.a. for the first year and at the rate of 15% for subsequent period in terms of proviso to Section 28 of the Act. Appeal stands disposed of.