Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 968 (PNJ)

State of Haryana v. Dosti

2003-07-16

SWATANTER KUMAR

body2003
JUDGMENT Swatanter Kumar, J. (Oral) - This Regular First Appeal is directed against the judgment/award dated 31.8.1981 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ambala. Vide the impugned judgment, the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation payable to the claimant for the acquisition of their land at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per acre. 2. While impugning the award, the learned counsel appearing for the State of Haryana contended that the enhancement being nearly five times more than the amount awarded by the Collector is apparently excessive and disproportionate to the actual market value of the land in question. He further contended that there is no direct evidence to substantiate the extent of compensation awarded to the claimants. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court is reasonable, fair and just. He further contends that an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, the Act) was filed by the claimants during the pendency of the appeal praying that the benefit of the amended provisions of Section 28 of the Act should be granted to them. 4. The Government of Haryana issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act on 27.5.1971. Notification under Section 6 was issued on 27.8.1971. Thereafter, the land of the petitioners was acquired and the learned Collector vide his award dated 8.8.1972 awarded a sum of Rs. 6,400/- per acre for chahi land and Rs. 5,200/- per acre for barani land and Rs. 4,800/- per acre for banjar qadim. Claimants being dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, preferred a reference under Section 18 of the Act before the learned Reference Court claiming enhancement at the rate of Rs. 20/- per sq. yard (Rs. 80,000 per acre). 5. The following issues were framed by the learned Reference Court upon the pleadings of the parties :- 1. Whether the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation over and above the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, if so, to what extent ? OPA. 2. Relief. 6. After permitting the parties to lead evidence the learned Reference Court as afore-noticed, enhanced the compensation at a uniform rate of Rs. 30,000/- per acre. The State being aggrieved by the said award has filed the present appeal. OPA. 2. Relief. 6. After permitting the parties to lead evidence the learned Reference Court as afore-noticed, enhanced the compensation at a uniform rate of Rs. 30,000/- per acre. The State being aggrieved by the said award has filed the present appeal. No appeal has been preferred by the claimants. 7. It will be appropriate to refer to the findings recorded by the learned trial Court in relation to determination of fair market value of the acquired land at the relevant time, which are as under :- "The instances of comparable sales provided by deeds Ex. A2 Ex. A3 and Ex. A4 are in respect of tiny plots. It is true that in State of Haryana v. S.N. Kapoor deceased through his LRs., 1981 All India Land Laws Reporter (P&H) 386, relied upon by the learned counsel for the claimants it was ruled that the market value in respect of a single instance of a small portion could be relied upon but this case presents peculiar features of its own and the ratio in that judicial pronouncement has no application thereto. Another fact which the Court cannot lose sight of is that the notification was originally published in the year 1967 and after that was quashed by the Honble High Court in the year 1970, a fresh notification was published on 27.3.1971. Naturally, there must have been a tendency on the part of the parties to the sale to inflate the sale consideration being apprehensive of the impending acquisition proceedings, while executing these sale deeds Ex. A2, Ex. A3 and Ex. A4 witnesses in April 1970, November, 1970 and December 1970 respectively. The dictum laid down in Smt. Shakuntala Devi v. State of Haryana through the Collector Gurgaon, 1979 PLR 693, cited by the learned counsel for the claimants, could not in any way advance their plea. The only proposition laid down therein was that the court could take judicial notice of upward trend in prices but that rule did not operate in vacuum. Having regard to totality of circumstances on record not much of evidentiary value could be attached to these instances of sales for supporting the exaggerated claim of landowners who have now asserted that the market value of the land acquired was Rs. 35/- per sq. yard although in the petition objection taken before the Land Acquisition Collector its price was claimed as Rs. 20/- per sq. 35/- per sq. yard although in the petition objection taken before the Land Acquisition Collector its price was claimed as Rs. 20/- per sq. yard. However, there are on record previous judgments determining the value of similar lands in the same or neighbouring localities. These previous judgments are certainly relevant and afford a good guide for determining the market value which from the very nature of things has to be arrived at by inferences and rational guess work. That very view followed from the observations made in Chinta Mani Sahu v. Collector Cuttack, AIR 1976 Orissa 76. Judgment dated 27.3.1981, Ex. A-10 of this Court also related to the acquisition of land of village Chandpur acquired for the some purpose and pursuant to notification dated 27.5.1971 as in the instant case. In view of the clear finding in that judgment which found strength from the earlier judgment dated 28.3.1980 Ex. A-11 of the court of Additional District Judge, Ambala and yet another judgment dated 12.11.1980 Ex. A-9 of the Improvement Trust Tribunal, it inevitably followed that the claimants were entitled to the award of compensation @ Rs. 30,000/- per acre. That very inference followed from the award made by the Honble High Court per judgment dated 31.7.1980 Ex. A-8 pertaining to the acquisition proceedings of the land situated in village Garhi Gajran within the municipal limits of Yamuna Nagar town for the construction of bye-pass in pursuance of notification dated 10.8.1973. As a sequel to the foregoing discussion it is concluded that the claimants are entitled to the award of compensation @ Rs. 30,000/- per acre for the entire acquired area." 8. The above reasoning given by the learned Reference Court is in consonance with the settled principles of law. The attack to the award that there has been mis-appreciation of evidence by the Reference Court is without any merit. The learned trial Court has relied upon the judgments of the High Court Ex. A-10 and A-11. Both these judgments relate to the acquisition of land by a notification which was issued on 27.5.1971. The findings were further fully supported by the declaration of law in Ex. A-11. In the present case the notification under Section 6 is dated 27.5.1971 of the Act and as such a judgment which has been upheld by this Court would squarely be applicable on the principle of ratio-decidendi to the present case. The findings were further fully supported by the declaration of law in Ex. A-11. In the present case the notification under Section 6 is dated 27.5.1971 of the Act and as such a judgment which has been upheld by this Court would squarely be applicable on the principle of ratio-decidendi to the present case. The reliance made by the Reference Court on Exhibits A-10 and A-11 thus cannot be faulted with. 9. Of course, the contention on behalf of the State that the grant of solatium and statutory benefits in consonance with the provisions of the Act is also a relief to which the claimants were entitled to and it has rightly been granted. 10. Coming to the application (C.M. No. 1233-CI of 1985), I have no hesitation in rejecting the said application for the reason that the rights between the parties had been determined and the award was pronounced on 31.8.1981 while the provisions of Section 28 of the Act were amended vide notification dated 24.9.1984, as such, they cannot get the said benefits. In this regard reference can also be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case titled as K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala, (1994) 5 Supreme Court Cases 593 and High Court Judgment titled as Surjit Kaur v. State of Punjab, 1998(2) PLJ 251. For the reasons afore-stated, I find no merit in this appeal. The same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.