Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 423 (PNJ)

Zile Singh v. State Of Haryana

2004-04-06

JASBIR SINGH, V.K.BALI

body2004
Judgment V.K.Bali, J. 1. By this common order, we propose to dispose of 9 connected appeals bearing L.P.A. Nos.869, 961, 1101, 1147, 1272, 1300, 1324, 1325, 1326 and of 1999, as common questions of law and facts are involved in all these matters and further that all these appeals arise from a common impugned judgment recorded by learned Single Judge. 2. Brief facts of the case, that have been extracted from L.P.A. No. 1272 of 1999, are that the State of Haryana intended to acquire 3637 kanals 12marlas of land situate in revenue estate of village Alipur for a public purpose, namely, extension of Hisar Cantonment to be utilised for the Ministry of Defences, Union of India. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act) was issued on 18.6.1984. Follow up declaration under Section 6 of the Act came into being on 25.6.1984. Land Acquisition Collector, vide his award No. 2 of 1985-86, assessed market value of the land categorised as Nehri/Chahi at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per acre. Tal/Barani and Tibba lands were assessed at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- per acre, respectively. 3. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Collector, the landowners sought references under Section 18 of the Act wherein learned Additional District Judge, vide his order dated 30.1.1989, assessed market value of the land categorised as Nehri/Chahi at Rs. 35,000/- per acre. For other two kinds of land, as categorised by the Land Acquisition Collector, market value was assessed at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs.l7,000/-per acre, respectively. 4. Still dissatisfied, the claimants filed Regular First Appeal in this Court and learned Single Judge, vide his order dated 1.4.1999, divided the lands into two categories and assessed market value of the land that was categorised as Nehri, Chahi, Tal/Barani at Rs. 46,500/- per acre, whereas Banjar Kadim and Tibba Lands were assessed at Rs. 23,250/- per acre. 5. The claimants are still not satisfied and have, thus, filed the present Letters Patent Appeals, seeking further enhancement of the compensation. 6. Before we proceed any further, we would like to mention that aggrieved with the order passed by learned Single Judge for enhancement of compensation in the matter, as referred to above, Union of India filed L. P. As. The claimants are still not satisfied and have, thus, filed the present Letters Patent Appeals, seeking further enhancement of the compensation. 6. Before we proceed any further, we would like to mention that aggrieved with the order passed by learned Single Judge for enhancement of compensation in the matter, as referred to above, Union of India filed L. P. As. in this Court which came up for hearing before this Court on 24.2.2001 and were dismissed in limine by passing following order:- "Heard. The Learned Single Judge has taken into consideration sale instances Ex. P14 and Ex. PI6 and the judgment in the case of Mangtu Ram. Increasing trend in prices of land evidence from Ex.P14 and Ex.P16, besides other evidence on record, has been discounted on a balance of the element of deduction on account of larger area of the land under acquisition. Further, cut of 20% has been applied on compensation awarded for the second category of land away from the national Highway in the case of Mangtu Ram. Moreover, Learned Single Judge has preferred Ex.P16 on the ground that it is the sale instance closer in point of time. On combined effect of these three factors, it appears that the quantum of compensation has been restricted. This may be the cause for grievance to the claimants,who have sought further enhancement of compensation, in the appeals that have been admitted for hearing. On the facts and circumstances elaborately discussed in the impugned judgment, we do not find any justification for reduction in the amount of compensation for acquisition of the land in question. Finding no merit in the appeal, we need not go into the question of delay in filing/refiling the appeal. Dismissed." Concededly, against the orders passed by the Letters Patent Bench, as reproduced above, Union of India filed Special Leave Petition, which has been dismissed. 7 The claimants/appellants, with a view to have more compensation had before the reference Court relied upon sale instances, Ex.P14, P15, P16, P17 and PI8. The said sale instances, with details are as under:- S. No. Sale Deed Area K.M Date of sale Sale Consideration including registration expenses Average price per acre 1. Ex.P14 8-0 12.08.1983 Rs. 30000+4062 Rs. 34062/- 2. Ex.P15 7-12 29.08.1983 Rs. 70000+9460 Rs. 82,986/- 3. Ex.P16 8-0 10.11.1983 Rs. 45000+6700 Rs. 51,087/- 4. Ex.P17 8-0 12.08.1983 Rs. 49000+6700 Rs. 55,700/- 5. Ex.P18 3-4 04.02.1986 Rs. 20000+2710 Rs. Ex.P14 8-0 12.08.1983 Rs. 30000+4062 Rs. 34062/- 2. Ex.P15 7-12 29.08.1983 Rs. 70000+9460 Rs. 82,986/- 3. Ex.P16 8-0 10.11.1983 Rs. 45000+6700 Rs. 51,087/- 4. Ex.P17 8-0 12.08.1983 Rs. 49000+6700 Rs. 55,700/- 5. Ex.P18 3-4 04.02.1986 Rs. 20000+2710 Rs. 56,750/- 8. Inasmuch as vide notification of the same very date, issued under Section 4, land pertaining to village Meyiar was acquired for the same very public purpose, the claimants also relied upon judgment rendered in the said case for assessment of proper compensation on the basis of market value at the time when notification under Section 4 and 6 of the Act were issued. 9. While dealing with the evidence seeking higher compensation that was led by the claimant/appellants and which has been mentioned above, learned single Judge, in the first instance, took note of sale instances, i.e. Ex.P14, P15, P16, P17 and P18 and on the basis of law that was then prevalent, held that inasmuch as the parties who had produced these documents failed to examine the vendors or the vendees of the sales, the same cannot be read in evidence in view of the law laid down by Honble Supreme Court in A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. P. Venkaiah and Ors., 1997 Supreme Court 2600. However, when finally assessing the market value of the land, subject-matter of the acquisition, learned Single Judge did rely upon Ex.P14 and P16 as the same very evidence had been led by the respondent/State as Ex.R2 and R4. Learned Single Judge, on the basis of evidence, came to a firm conclusion that insofar as the lands subject-matter of acquisition of the even date pertaining to village Meyiar, were concerned, the same were far better located than the land, subject matter of the acquisition situate in village Alipur. The learned reference court had also held likewise. 10. The evidence discussed by the learned Single Judge pertaining to the location of the lands located in villages Meyiar and Alipur reads thus:- "It needs to be mentioned that this land was acquired for the same purpose for which the lands in village Alipur have been acquired i.e for the development of Cantonment at Hisar. In other words, notification is of the same date, the purpose is same. However, the land of village Meyiar is located on National Highway No. 10. In other words, notification is of the same date, the purpose is same. However, the land of village Meyiar is located on National Highway No. 10. It has come in the evidence of the present case even according to respondents that National Highway is nearly 2 kilometres away from the acquired land while according to the claimants it is 1 kilometre away. In between National Highway is the entire land of village Meyiar where industries are also located and the land of Satrod falls on one side and these land touch the revenue estate of village Alipur where the present land has been acquired. Keeping in view the distance, location and potentiality of the land, the claimants in the present appeals cannot get the same compensation what has been awarded by the Supreme Court in the case of Mangtu Ram (supra)." 11. The finding given by learned Single Judge, as reproduced above, has not been challenged during the course of arguments before this Court. Insofar as village Meyiar is concerned, the matter went upto Honble Supreme court, where market value of the land situated within a distance of 500 yards from the National Highway was assessed at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre and the land behind 500 yards was assessed at Rs. 40,000/- per acre Insofar as the 3rd category of land i.e. Banjar Kadim, classified as Class-B is concerned, same was assessed at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per acre. Judgment in the matter pertaining to village Meyiar given by the Supreme Court has been reported in Union of India and Ors. v. Mangtu Ram etc., (1998-1)118 P.L.R. 160 (S.C.). 12. Learned Single Judge assessed the market value of the land, based upon sale instances Ex.P14 and PI6, as also judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Mangtu Rams case (supra). However, insofar as assessment of market value of the land, based upon the judgment of Supreme court in Mangtu Rams case (supra), is concerned, learned Single Judge applied a cut of 20% while assessing the market value of land in village Alipur on account of better location of the land located in village Meyiar than that of village Alipur. Learned Single Judge on the basis of sale instance, Ex.P14 and P16, assessed market value at Rs. 45,000/- per acre for Nehri, Chahi and Tal Barani lands and at the rate of Rs. Learned Single Judge on the basis of sale instance, Ex.P14 and P16, assessed market value at Rs. 45,000/- per acre for Nehri, Chahi and Tal Barani lands and at the rate of Rs. 22,500/- per acre in respect of Gair Mumkin and Tibba lands. By applying a cut of 20% on the price of the land located in village Meyiar, learned Single Judge worked out the value of Nehri, Chahi and Tal Barani lands at Rs. 48,000/- per acre and Gair Mumkin and Tibba Lands at the rate of Rs. 24,000/- per acre. Learned Single Judge, further worked out average, based upon sale instances and judicial decision mentioned above, and ultimately assessed the market value of the land of first category at Rs. 46,500/- per acre and Rs. 23,250/- per acre for the second category. 13. Mr. Chaudhary, learned counsel representing the appellant, contends that even though at the time when learned Single Judge decided the matter, the law was that sale instances brought on record for determining the market value of the land, subject-matter of acquisition cannot be read in evidence unless the parties have examined the vendor or the vendee, at present the law is entirely different as the earlier judgments have since been overruled by the subsequent judgment of the Honble Supreme Court. Thus, it was argued that sale instances Ex.P15, P17 and P18 have also to be taken into consideration, while assessing the market value of the land, subject-matter of acquisition. 14. The argument of learned counsel representing the appellants prima facie appears to be attractive but when examined in detail, the same is found to be of no substance whatsoever. Insofar as Ex.P18 is concerned, the same is a post notification transaction and thus, cannot be taken into consideration. Insofar as sale instances Ex.P15 and P17 are concerned, the counsel has not shown to us as in which village the lands pertaining to these transactions are located. Assuming that the sale instances pertain to village Alipur itself, price of the same would not work out to more than Rs. 56,959/- per acre. After excluding registration charges, the same would come to Rs. Assuming that the sale instances pertain to village Alipur itself, price of the same would not work out to more than Rs. 56,959/- per acre. After excluding registration charges, the same would come to Rs. 48,500/- per acre and even if a cut of 10 to 12% is applied on the said sale instances, being small in nature, by and large, the market value would be the same, which has been assessed by the learned Single Judge and rather it may come to even less than one assessed by learned Single Judge. No other arguments has been raised in this case. We are satisfied that, learned Single Judge has taken into consideration all the permutations and combinations to arrive at a correct conclusion in assessing the market value of the land, subject-matter of acquisition in the case. Resultantly, finding no merit in all these appeals, the same are dismissed, leaving, however, the parties to bear their own costs.