Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 105 (PNJ)

State Of Haryana v. Tahla Ram And Ors.

2008-01-17

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

body2008
Judgment Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. 1. This order shall dispose of R.F.A. No. 351 of 1987 preferred by the State of Haryana and the Cross Objections No. 55-CI of 1987 filed by the claimants against the same award of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra whereby the compensation has been assessed @ Rs. 32,000/- per acre. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 6.4.1979 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) 6 kanals of land of the respondents situated in village Nakhroj Pur, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, was acquired for public purpose, namely for the construction of Ladwa-Gazlana road to village Mahuvakheri. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 30.01.1981 determined the compensation @ Rs. 11,504/- per acre in respect of Chahi land. Through another notification dated 19.8.1980 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, 2 Kanals 6 marlas of Chahi land of the respondents was acquired for the same purpose mentioned here-in-above and the Land Acquisition Collector vide his award of the same day i.e. 30.1.1981 determined the compensation @ Rs. 11,500/- per acre. Aggrieved by the award under Section 11 of the Act, the respondents filed reference under Section 18 in respect of 6 kanals of land, which was acquired on 6.4.1979 and was registered as L.A.C. Case No. 26/4 of 1986 and in respect of 2 kanals 6 marlas land, which was registered as L.A.C. Case No. 27/4 of 1986. Since in both the cases, land of the same respondents was acquired for the same purpose and the award was also given on the same day, the learned Addl. District Judge, Kurukshetra consolidated both the cases on 23.7.1986 and vide his award dated 19.9.1986 allowed both the cases assessing market value @ Rs. 32,000/- per acre. 3. Dissatisfied with the award of the Ld. Addl. District Judge, both the State of Haryana and the claimants have come up in appeal before this Court in the aforesaid RFA and Cross Objections. Since both the cases are arising out of the same judgment dated 19.9.1986, therefore, by this common order, both the case are being disposed of together. 4. Dissatisfied with the award of the Ld. Addl. District Judge, both the State of Haryana and the claimants have come up in appeal before this Court in the aforesaid RFA and Cross Objections. Since both the cases are arising out of the same judgment dated 19.9.1986, therefore, by this common order, both the case are being disposed of together. 4. Counsel for the appellant in appeal has argued that the learned Courts below has erred in placing reliance upon post notification sale deed i.e. Ex.P1 dated 12.6.1980 and in this regard, she has relied upon decision of this Court in the case of Kanshi Ram, Asa Ram and Piara v. Punjab State Electricity Board and Ors. 2004 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 690. She further submitted that the learned Court below has erred in awarding compensation under Section 23(1-A) awarding interest @ 12% per annum on the market value for the period beginning from the date of issue of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act to the date of taking of possession of the land or the award of the Collector whichever is earlier. In support of her contention, reliance has further been placed upon a decision of this Court rendered in Haryana Education Society, Bahadurgarh v. State of Haryana (2004-1) 136 P.L.R. 273. It was also contended that the learned Court below should have placed reliance on Ex.R2, which is sale deed dated 27.6.1977. 5. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents/claimants has urged that the argument of the counsel for the appellant is factually incorrect because sale deed Ex.P1 dated 22.06.1980 is prior to the notification dated 19.8.1980 and is not a post notification sale. In respect of issue No. 2 is concerned, it is stated that the respondents are entitled to the benefit of Section 23(1-A) as the award was announced on 30.01.1981 under both the notifications and also the possession was taken on the same day. Regarding Ex.R2, it has been argued that the sale deed dated 27.06.1977 cannot be taken into consideration since the Collector has determined the compensation more than that. 6. While pressing Cross objections, counsel for the claimants has urged that by virtue of the acquisition, 43 kanals land has been severed, which has become inaccessible and unirrigated, therefore, they may be awarded Rs. 36,000/- as compensation. 7. 6. While pressing Cross objections, counsel for the claimants has urged that by virtue of the acquisition, 43 kanals land has been severed, which has become inaccessible and unirrigated, therefore, they may be awarded Rs. 36,000/- as compensation. 7. I have heard both the counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 8. The claimants have relied upon two sale instances Ex.Pl and Ex.P2 dated 12.06.1980 and 22.04.1982, respectively and examined Gurbax Singh as PW1. The appellants produced two documents Ex.P1 i.e. Aks-shajra and Ex.R2 sale deed dated 2.06.1977. 9. The first submission of the appellant that the learned Court below has committed error in relying upon Ex.P1 dated 12.06.1980 and should have relied upon sale deed Ex.R2 dated 27.06.1977 is misconceived because first acquisition is of the year 1979 and the second one is of 1980, therefore, the sale deed dated 27.06.1977, cannot be taken a true guide to assess the market value as there is a difference of two years and three years in both the notifications. The sale deed Ex.P1 dated 12.06.1980 reflects the correct market value since it took place about 2 months prior to the second notification and 10 months after the first, therefore, it is in close proximity to the two notifications in question. Therefore, I find no merit in the arguments raised by learned Counsel for the appellant and reject the same. The value assessed under issue No. l @ Rs. 32,000/- per acre is just and proper. 10. So, far as submission on issue No. 2 is concerned, the claimants are not entitled to the benefit of Section 23(1-A) of the Act as the award of the Collector is prior to30.4.1982 and this point in issue is squarely covered by the decision of Honble Apex Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama, K.S. Paripooranan v. State of Kerala and Ors., and Haryana Education Society, Bahadurgarh v. State of Haryana. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed and the award of the Court below is modified holding that the respondents are not entitled to compensation awarded under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. The findings on issue No. l with regard to the determination of the market price is kept undisturbed. 11. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed and the award of the Court below is modified holding that the respondents are not entitled to compensation awarded under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. The findings on issue No. l with regard to the determination of the market price is kept undisturbed. 11. Coming to the Cross-Objections filed by the claimants, it is pertinent to mention here that neither there is any pleadings in the objections under Section 18 nor any issue has been framed in respect of severance, therefore, no evidence has been led by the claimants in this regard. Furthermore, the only witness Gurbax Singh, who appeared as PW-1 even did not state anything in respect of his land. So much so, nothing was argued before the Court below in respect of severance, therefore, the Cross-objections of the claimants are meritless and are dismissed as such.