Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1544 (PNJ)

Subhash v. State of Haryana

2003-11-12

HEMANT GUPTA

body2003
JUDGMENT Hemant Gupta, J. - This order shall dispose of RFAs 1089 and 1090 of 1988 filed by the claimants-land owners and RFAs 1091 and 1092 of 1988 filed by the State of Haryana against the award passed by the Additional District Judge, Narnaul, dated 19.3.1988. 2. Vide notification dated 2.5.1979, land measuring 11.88 acres was acquired for a public purpose, namely, for construction of Dochana Distributory by the Irrigation Department. The notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act) was published on 1.8.1979. The Land Acquisition Collector, PWD (I.B.) Rohtak gave his award No. 81 dated 28.8.1980 assessing the market price of Chahi land at Rs. 11,000/- per acre, Rs. 8000/- per acre for Barani land and Rs. 6000/- per acre for Bhud land. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the land owners sought references in terms of Section 18 of the Act. Such references have been decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, vide impugned award. 3. Before the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, the land-owners- claimants have produced number of witnesses, including, PW2 Sat Narain, Sub Divisional Engineer. The appellants appeared as their own witnesses as PW7 Hari Singh and PW4 Subhash. The claimants also produced numerous documents such as Khasra girdawaris, mutations, jamabandis apart from sale deed Exhibit P-9 dated 19.6.1980 wherein 5 kanals 10 marlas of land was sold for Rs. 13,379/- and Exhibit PW6/A i.e. sale deed dated 18.5.1983 wherein 3 kanals 15 marlas of land was sold for Rs. 16,000/-. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the award of the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, inter alia on the ground that the compensation assessed for the acquisition of land is meagre. The appellants are entitled to compensation on the basis of the sale instances Exhibits P-9 without deduction. Rs. 5000/- has been wrongly deducted out of the sale consideration by the learned Additional District Judge. Still further, it has been alleged that the land acquired has been classified as Rosli erroneously. Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that possession of the land was taken on 20.1.1979 and, therefore, the appellants are entitled to compensation of deprivation of their crops. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that possession of the land was taken on 20.1.1979 and, therefore, the appellants are entitled to compensation of deprivation of their crops. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants could not refer to any sale instance prior to the publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 2.5.1979. The reliance of the land owners was on the sale instances Exhibit P-9 which is after one year of the notification and Exhibit PW6/A which is after 3 years of the notification. The learned Additional District Judge has relied upon such sale instances holding that the land in these two transactions is situated in close proximity with the acquired land. In the absence of any after evidence, the prevalent market price of the land was drawn to Rs. 14000/- after decreasing Rs. 5000/- on the basis of the sale consideration of Rs. 19,000/- per acre as per exhibit P-9 and Rs. 34,000/- per acre in respect of sale instance Exhibit PW6/A. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon Chimanlal v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, Poona, AIR 1988 SC 1652 to contend that even post notification instances can be taken into account (i) 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. A perusal of the record clearly shows that the land was acquired for Dochana Distributory. The land was not acquired for urban development which may enhance the market value of the land acquired. The land was acquired for providing irrigation facilities. The learned Additional District Judge has also relied upon these two sale transactions. 8. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to take a different view than that of the view taken by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul. It may further be noticed that the State in appeal has challenged only the grant of additional compensation as provided under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In fact ground No. 4 of the memorandum of appeal restricts the claim of the State to the extent of grant of additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. It may further be noticed that the State in appeal has challenged only the grant of additional compensation as provided under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. In fact ground No. 4 of the memorandum of appeal restricts the claim of the State to the extent of grant of additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. The sale instances Exhibits P-9 and PW6/A are of the post notification period. The learned Additional District Judge was justified in decreasing the amount. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the amount of market value determined by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul. 9. The claimants are not entitled to any enhancement of compensation as the market value determined by the learned Additional District Judge is fair and reasonable. There is no other evidence which is relevant for determining of the market value of the land. 10. The award of the Land Acquisition Collector was announced on 28.8.1980 i.e. prior to the notification dated 30.4.1982. In the view of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in K.S. Paripooornan v. State of Kerala and others, 1994(5) SCC 593 the claimants-land owners are not entitled to additional compensation under Section 23(1)(a) of the Act. Consequently, RFAs 1089 and 1090 of 1988 filed by the claimants are dismissed whereas RFAs 1091 and 1092 of 1988 are allowed so as to set aside the benefit of Section 23(1-A) of the Act which was granted to the land owners-claimants. No order as to costs. Appeals dismissed.