Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 104 (PNJ)

Onkarmal (Died) through LRs. v. State of Haryana

2005-01-19

V.K.BALI

body2005
JUDGMENT V.K. Bali, J. (Oral) - By this common order, I propose to dispose of two connected matters, i.e., R.F.A. No. 216 of 1989, which has been filed by the landowner-claimants seeking further enhancement of the compensation of the land, subject matter of acquisition and R.F.A. No. 221 of 1989 that had been filed by the State of Haryana seeking to set aside order dated 10.11.1988 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Hissar, with a further prayer that the market value assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector be restored as also CWP No. 9793 of 1989 which has been filed by the allottees of the land, subject matter of acquisition, challenging notices of enhancement of the plots, pursuant to the market value that has been assessed by the learned Additional District Judge and increased from the one assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector. Brief facts that, however, need a necessary mention for disposing of all the matters, referred to above, have been extracted from RFA No. 216 of 1989, which is an appeal filed by the claimants. 2. The Government of Haryana intended to acquire a piece of land measuring 35 kanals 5 marlas when it issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act of 1894) on 3.3.1981 for a public purpose, namely, for setting up of a Housing Board Colony at Adampur, District Hissar. Since urgency provisions of Section 17 of the Act of 1894 were invoked, follow-up declaration under Section 6 came to be issued on 3.3.1981 itself. Land Acquisition Collector, vide its award dated 31.3.1982 determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 16,450/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the inadequate compensation, assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector, claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 and learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, before whom the matter came up for final disposal, determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 400/- per sq. yard vide its award dated 10.11.1988. Still dissatisfied, the claimants have filed the present RFA No. 216 of 1989 whereas the State has filed RFA No. 221 of 1989 seeking to reduce the market value assessed by the learned Additional District Judge to the one already assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector. 400/- per sq. yard vide its award dated 10.11.1988. Still dissatisfied, the claimants have filed the present RFA No. 216 of 1989 whereas the State has filed RFA No. 221 of 1989 seeking to reduce the market value assessed by the learned Additional District Judge to the one already assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector. Civil Writ Petition No. 9793 of 1989 has been filed by the persons, who were allotted the plots that were carved out on the acquired land after its acquisition challenging the notices issued to them vide which they were asked to deposit the enhanced price of the plots allotted to them in view of the enhancement made by the learned Additional District Judge. 3. The land, subject matter of acquisition, it may be mentioned at the very outset, had a great potential for development as residential area. Learned Additional District Judge himself inspected the spot and vide his note dated 28.5.1983 observed as follows :- "I have inspected the spot today in the presence of Shri S.P. Jain, Advocate, representing the claimants as well as Shri S.B. Sharma, representing the respondents. All the concerned officials of the Department with relevant record were also present there. My observations are as under :- 1. The land under reference is situate on the main road from old Mandi to bus stand. It abuts on the road. It is surrounded by old houses and factories. Some shops beyond the land in dispute at a distance of about 1 furlong towards Hisar side also exist. The bus stand, Police Station and Civil Hospital are just close to it. It adjoins abadi (commercial and residential). 2. Just opposite to the land in dispute is the land which was acquired by the Government and in between the two, only one metalled road intervenes. It was stated by all concerned that the said land was carved out into plots which have been sold by the State Government. It is relevant to mention that the land in dispute is situate fairly in a better condition that the land situate just opposite to the land in dispute, which admittedly was acquired by the Colonization Department and which later on are alleged to have been sold by that Department. It was also conceded that there were pits in the land acquired by the Colonization Department and which otherwise was in possession of unauthorised occupants. It was also conceded that there were pits in the land acquired by the Colonization Department and which otherwise was in possession of unauthorised occupants. The land in dispute, on the other hand, it levelled one. 3. The crux of the above discussion is that the land in dispute has the potentiality of being used both for commercial as well as residential purposes, as practically all the buildings surrounding are old one. In short, trend of extension of Abadi is towards the land under acquisition". 4. The relevant material brought on records seeking enhancement of compensation pertains to auctions held on 7.12.1980, made by the claimants of their area, subject matter of acquisition as also auctions held by the Colonization Department, Government to Haryana, on 4.2.1981, 16.9.1981 and 23.12.1981. The same are tabulated as under :- AUCTIONS BY THE CLAIMANTS HELD ON 7.12.1980 : Sr. No. Area of Plot Sale consideration Price per sq. yard. 1. 21x 52 Rs. 90,000/- Rs. 750/- 2. 52x 22 Rs. 90,200/- Rs. 710/- 3. 21x 52 Rs. 89,700/- Rs. 741/- 4. 21x 52 Rs. 90,500/- Rs. 748/- AUCTIONS HELD BY THE CONSOLIDATION DEPARTMENT ON 4.2.1981, 16.9.1981 AND 23.12.1981 1. 13- 1/2x40 Rs. 85,000/- Rs. 1417/- 2. 20x 125 Rs. 1,85,000/- Rs. 617/- 3. 30 x 120 Rs. 2,01,000/- Rs. 752/- 4. 20 x 12 Rs. 51,000/- Rs. 2000/- 5. 12 x 20 Rs. 80,000/- Rs. 3000/- 5. Learned Additional District Judge, while referring to the case law, relevant on the subject observed that "area of the acquired land is approximately more than 12000 sq. yards. The plots put to auction by the Government through its colonization department were many in number of varying sizes. So, the price fetched for these plots can form a true indicia for assessing the market value of the acquired land. Besides the plots sold by the Colonization Department, I see no reason to disbelieve the evidence adduced by the claimants that on 7.12.1980 they also put certain plots to auction carved out of the acquired land, which fetched prices at the rate of more than Rs. 750/- per sq yard. 6. Mr. Besides the plots sold by the Colonization Department, I see no reason to disbelieve the evidence adduced by the claimants that on 7.12.1980 they also put certain plots to auction carved out of the acquired land, which fetched prices at the rate of more than Rs. 750/- per sq yard. 6. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the claimants contends that if the average price fetched by all the plots sold in the auction held by the Government is taken, which would be the best criteria to work out the market value of the land, subject matter of acquisition, the claimants shall be entitled to far more compensation than the one that has been granted by learned Additional District Judge. He also contends that even if the sale price fetched by the auctions of the plots of the claimants was to be taken into consideration, the claimants would have been entitled to better compensation. Mr. Anand Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Housing Board, which is the only contesting respondent, as the land was acquired for its benefit and it is the Board which has to pay the compensation, be it original one or the one that may be enhanced by the Court, joins issues with Mr. Jain on the points raised by him, as noted above. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, examined the records of the case. The contention of learned counsel for the claimants, it appears, needs to be accepted, even though half way through. It is conceded position during the course of arguments that it is only the plots shown at Sr. Nos. 2 and 3 measuring 20 x 25 and 20 x 120 that were sold before the land in the present case was notified under Section 4 of the Act of 1894. Notification under Section 4, it may be recalled, in the present case, came into being on 3.3.1981. The auction was held by the Colonization Department on three days, i.e., 4.2.1981, 16.9.81 and 23.12.1981. The plots that came to be sold on 4.2.81, i.e., before notification under Section 4 came into being, are only at Sr. No. 2 and 3. The same had fetched price of Rs. 617/- and Rs. 752/- per sq. yard. The plots sold by way of auction made by the claimants themselves had fetched the maximum price of Rs. The plots that came to be sold on 4.2.81, i.e., before notification under Section 4 came into being, are only at Sr. No. 2 and 3. The same had fetched price of Rs. 617/- and Rs. 752/- per sq. yard. The plots sold by way of auction made by the claimants themselves had fetched the maximum price of Rs. 750/- per sq. yard and these auctions, it may be mentioned, were held just within about two months before notification under Section 4 came into being. The maximum price fetched pertains to plot shown at Sr. No. 3 sold in the auction held by the Colonization Department on 4.2.1981. The Court is of the firm view that only two instances of sale by auction shown at Sr. Nos. 2 and 3 provide the relevant criteria for determining the market value of the land, subject matter of acquisition. Worked on the basis of average of these two plots, auction of which was held on 4.2.1981, the average price would come out to be Rs. 634/- per sq. yard. The Court is further of the view that in view of the facts that the plots sold were of very small area as compared to the land, subject matter of acquisition, it would be appropriate to apply a cut of 1/3rd and worked in the manner above said, the market value of the acquired land would come to Rs. 424/- per sq. yard. An argument on the side of claimants does arise that there is no need to make a cut as the same is done normally to develop the land and in the present case, the land, whether developed or not, was sold by way of auction in small plots. The argument appears to be attractive in the first blush but the fact that the sale that takes place by way of auction, involves some element of competitiveness, cannot be lost sight of. The upshot of the above discussion is that whereas the claimants appeal is partly allowed and the market value of the land is assessed @ Rs. 424/- per sq. yard, the one filed by the State is dismissed. The claimants shall be entitled to proportionate costs. Inasmuch as no one appears in support of the writ petition, same is dismissed in default. Appeal partly allowed.