Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1490 (PNJ)

Neki Ram v. State Of Haryana

2003-10-29

SWATANTER KUMAR

body2003
Judgment Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. 2. This Regular First Appeal is directed against the judgment 18.10.1984 passed by the learned District Judge, Hissar, vide which he enhanced the compensation for acquisition of land of the appellants to Rs. 12,000/- per acre from Rs. 10,800/- per acre, computed by the Collector; 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants mainly challenged the award in question on the following two grounds - (a) the reference Court has not considered the evidence, particularly exhibits P4 to P6, which had a direct bearing on the determination of compensation payable to the claimants and ignoring this substantial evidence has resulted in tendering the judgment patently incorrect and liable for interference; and (b) that the learned reference court has fallen in error of law in not awarding compensation/damages to the claimants on account of severance of acquired land belonging to the appellants, within the scope of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act; and Before I proceed to discuss the merits of these two contentions, reference to basic facts would be necessary. 4 The State of Haryana issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereafter referred to as the Act) On 20.1.1979 for the purpose of setting up of cotton ginning and pressing Unit at Ratia, Tehsil Fatehabad and the notification under Section 6 was also issued. The Collector vide his award, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,800/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the extent of compensation awarded to the claimants, they preferred reference under....of the Act, which as already noticed, was partially allowed by the learned District Judge, who enhanced compensation to Rs. 12,000/- per acre. Still claimants being dissatisfied from the award passed by the reference court have filed the present appeal. 5. I would prefer to deal with the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant first. 6. No doubt, a claimant is entitled to receive damages on account of severance of the land, in the event of acquisition. This is so stipulated under Section 23 of the Act. The bare reading of this statutory provision shows that the claimant is not entitled to compensation per se on account of severance but he is entitled to damages on account of severance of land wherever it is partly acquired by the State. This is so stipulated under Section 23 of the Act. The bare reading of this statutory provision shows that the claimant is not entitled to compensation per se on account of severance but he is entitled to damages on account of severance of land wherever it is partly acquired by the State. In other words, damage is a concept, which must essentially be pleaded and proved and there cannot be grant of statutory damages automatically. In fact, grant of severance/damages is not the legislative intention behind this provision. 7. Learned counsel for the State contended that the value of the severed land, in fact, has gone up after acquisition, because of surrounding area was acquired and developed. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants contends that severance per se has resulted in diminishing the value and utility of the remaining land. The petitioner owned 44 kanals 12 marlas of land out of which 22 kanals 4 marlas has been acquired. Thus, leaving balance land in terms of exhibit P1. Despite this, I am afraid that Court cannot assume that the damages stands proved, It is not disputed before me that neither in the reference under Section 18 of the Act nor in the Regular First Appeal averments were raised and, in fact, no evidence was led in support thereof. The Court can neither rule out the payable costs or value of land nor can it reject that the petitioner might have suffered any damages on account or severance. In these circumstances second contention raised before this Court is rejected. 9. As far as the other contention is concerned, learned reference court has rightly rejected exhibits P4 to P6, as they are post notification. It will be appropriate to make a reference to the findings recorded by the learned reference court while rejecting these exhibits and enhancing the compensation to Rs. 12,000/- per acre. Thus, primarily for two reasons, firstly that the transactions shown by Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 are of a much later time than the date of notification and secondly, that they relate to very small plots, so I deem it proper not to consider them for arriving at the market value. Mutation Ex.P3 bearing No. 6341 dated 7.10.1978 is of 2 kanals and 1 marla and the sale price paid was Rs. 4000/-. The price comes to less than Rs. 1600/-(Rs. 16,000/-) per acre. Mutation Ex.P3 bearing No. 6341 dated 7.10.1978 is of 2 kanals and 1 marla and the sale price paid was Rs. 4000/-. The price comes to less than Rs. 1600/-(Rs. 16,000/-) per acre. This is the nearest mutations in point of time prior to the date of the notification i.e. 20.1.1979. The mutation relied upon by the State are of very small plots of land and are of the same date i.e. 13.11.1980. 19. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I consider the mutation Ex. P.3, as most relevant for adjudging the market value of the land. At the same time, I have to take into consideration that this mutation is of a small parcel of land and so, price has to be reduced to some extent with a view to arrive at the market value of the total area involved in acquisition proceedings. The claimants have been given compensation at the rate of Rs. 19,800/- per acre. 20. Having considered all the facts and circumstances and keeping in view the relevancy of the mutation Ex.P3, I feel that a just and reasonable compensation at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per acre would meet the ends of justice. All the claimants are, therefore, entitled to have compensation at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per acre. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and Anr., A.I.R. 1988 Supreme Court 1652 to contend that post notification, instance can also be taken into account and the learned reference court has fallen in error in law. 10. It may be noticed at the out set that the proposition of law can hardly be disputed. The Honble Apex Court, while laying the said provisions observed as under:- (5) Even post notification instances can be taken into account (1) if they are very proximate (2) genuine and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects. Following guide-lines was laid down in paragraph No. 6:- "6. The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations- (i) proximity from time angle. Following guide-lines was laid down in paragraph No. 6:- "6. The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations- (i) proximity from time angle. (ii) proximity from situation angle." It is clear from the bare reading of the guide-line that post instances are not to be taken into consideration merely because they have been proved on record. Firstly, exhibit P4 to P6 are mutations and not the sale deeds. Be that as it may, still it has not been shown as to how they are more genuine i.e. P3, which ultimately relates to sale of the land in the same revenue estate and is. patently relevant and admissible. 11 At this stage reference can also be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Atma Parkash and Ors. v. Haryana State and Ors., (2000-2)125 P.L.R. 90 wherein it was held that it is not very safe to rely upon the post notification sale instance particularly when the evidence, which is materially comparable and is directly available on the record. Equally post sale instances can be looked into for the purpose of judging the trend in the costs of land at the relevant time. As per the Exhibits P3, it is an instance of 4th October, 1978 where notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 20th January, 1979. This is the best piece of evidence from the point of proximity of time. The sale relates to the same village and 2 kanals 1 marlas land was sold for Rs. 4,000/- giving aggregate Rs. 16,000/- per acre. Learned reference court has granted 12,000/- per acre, while noticing that this is small piece of land and to some extent amount of sale should be reduced to adjudge the fair market value of the land at the relevant time. 12. Under the circumstances, the Court would have to apply some guess work and conjecture whether the reduction of Rs. 4,000/- per acre is a justifiable reduction or it should be lesser by some extent.- Exhibits P4 and P6, are post notifications and clearly show that there was increasing trend in the price of the land. Such a trend is reflected from the fact that prices of the land were shown to be Rs. 72,000/- to Rs. 80,000/- per acre in the year 1979. Such a trend is reflected from the fact that prices of the land were shown to be Rs. 72,000/- to Rs. 80,000/- per acre in the year 1979. This factor, thus, must accrue of some advantage to the claimants for the intervening period of October to January of the relevant year. It may also be noticed that exhibits R1 and R2 which are mutations for the year 1980-1981 had shown value of the land as even lesser than as in exhibit P3. I have already noticed that the court in such type of cases can adopt the principle of rationality, some what supported by guess work. 13. For the reasons afore-stated, I am of the considered view that enhancement at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per acre would be fair and just enhancement. Consequently, the appeal is partially accepted. The claimants would be entitled to Rs. 14,000/- per acre with statutory benefits. Leaving the parties to bear their own costs.