Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1454 (PNJ)

Haryana Education Society v. State Of Haryana

2003-10-20

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

body2003
Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This appeal has been against award of the reference Court, claiming further enhancement of the market value of the acquired land. 2. The respondent-State acquired land of the appellant pursuant to a notification dated 6.1.1977 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act). The Collector vide his award dated 18.2.1977 determined market value in two blocks- Rs. 20560/- per acre for Block A and Rs. 20,000/- per acre for Block B Block A comprised area abutting Bahadurgarh-Delhi road on either side upto the depth of 108 feet while Block B was the remaining land. The appellant preferred reference under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement to Rs. 40/- per square yard. 3. The claimant examined Ram Niwas PW1. Ravinder Parkash, PW2 proved the site plan Ex.Pl. The claimant also relied on jamabandi Ex.P2, mutations Exhibits P3 to P3, judgments Exhibits P6 and P7 and Aks-shajra Exhibits P8 and P9. 4. The reference court held that Ex.P7 is a judgment in respect of acquisition of land by notification of the same date for which this court had fixed compensation at the rate of Rs. 10/- per square yard. Since both the sides relied on Ex.P7, the reference court followed the said precedent and determined market value at the rate of Rs. 10/- per square yard. Hence this appeal. 5. Mr. Sanjay Bansal, learned counsel for the appellant contended that land covered by Ex.P7 was not on the main road but about 4 killas away from the National Highway as admitted by Mir Singh, Patwari, RW1. He also submitted that though market value was awarded @ Rs. 10/- per square yard which was prevalent in the are in the year 1969, in the year 1977, value had gone upto Rs. 20/-per square yard. He also submitted that 12% p.a. should be considered as a general appreciation of price of land even in absence of any material in view of the provisions of Section 23(1-A) of the Act. For this, he relied upon decision of this court in Balbir Kaur and Ors. v. The Collector Land Acquisition Colonisation Department, Punjab, Chandigarh and Anr., 1 (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 465 and Braham Parkash and Ors. v. The State of Haryana,2 R.F.A. No. 911 of 1985, decided on 8.4.1987. 6. For this, he relied upon decision of this court in Balbir Kaur and Ors. v. The Collector Land Acquisition Colonisation Department, Punjab, Chandigarh and Anr., 1 (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 465 and Braham Parkash and Ors. v. The State of Haryana,2 R.F.A. No. 911 of 1985, decided on 8.4.1987. 6. Learned counsel for the State submitted that a perusal of Ex.P7 shows that acquired land in that case adjoined Delhi-Haryana Border and acquisition is also of the same date and, therefore, the rate of Rs. 10/- per square yard was fixed for the acquisition of the year 1977. He also submitted that price of Rs. 10/- per square yard in the year 1969 was in respect of acquisition of land for construction of Bus Stand and, therefore, though Ex.P7 could be made the basis of determining compensation, observations made in the said judgment with regard to value of land on the main road having gone upto Rs. 20/- by the 1975 were not relevant for determining compensation in the present case. He, therefore, sought to justify the observations made by the reference court whereby prayer for fixing market value @ Rs. 20/- per square yard on the basis of observations made in Ex.P7 was rejected on the ground that even in Ex.P7, the High Court did not give rate higher than Rs. 10/- for the land abutting the National Highway. 7. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and perused the record. I need not refer to any other evidence as learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that only Ex.P7 is the basis of his claim. 1 am unable to accept the contention that the appellant is entitled to higher rate of compensation than the rate disclosed in Ex.P7 which is also in respect of acquisition of the same date and is considered relevant by the parties. Observations made in the said judgment with regard to rise in prices on the main road acquired for Bus Stand are not relevant for higher compensation as even in that case, price was fixed at Rs. 10/- per square yard for the entire land. 8. Contention that in that case, land was four killas away from the main road and on that ground,higher compensation should be given in the present case, cannot be accepted. Difference in prices of two blocks of land fixed by the Collector was Rs. 10/- per square yard for the entire land. 8. Contention that in that case, land was four killas away from the main road and on that ground,higher compensation should be given in the present case, cannot be accepted. Difference in prices of two blocks of land fixed by the Collector was Rs. 560/-per acre which is insignificant and there is no evidence to show that on the main road, there was substantial difference in the price. 9. As regards the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, the same are distinguishable. The price for comparable land being Rs. 10/- per square yard only in the year 1977, price of Rs. 10/- per square yard in the year 1969 is not shown to be of comparable land. Moreover, it has been held by the Apex Court in Mehtab Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana (1995-2)110 P.L.R. 47 (S.C.) = (1994)6 S.C.C. 64 that rule of thumb of awarding of 12% increase for each year was not proper. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted in the end that the award of the reference court being after 30.4.1982, the appellant was entitled to interest and solatium at revised rates as per amending Act No. 68 of 1984. 11. This contention has merit, in view of judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1933. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified. The appellant is held entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the next year as per amending Act No. 68 of 1984. The appellant is not entitled to benefit of Section 23(1-A) of the Act as the award of the Collector is prior to 30.4.1982 as held by the Apex Court in K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Ors., (1994)5 S.C.C. 593.The appeal is disposed of accordingly.