Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1973 (PNJ)

Surinder Kumar v. State Of Haryana

2009-11-13

A.N.JINDAL

body2009
Judgment A.N.Jindal, J. 1. Sixty-five appeals challenging the award dated 30.08.2000, passed Additional District Judge, Ambala, shall stand disposed of by this in ail these cases, one judgment, as a common issue is to be determined in all these cases. RFA Nos. 2617, 944. 2025, 379, 364. 935, 377, 936, 937, 2026, 380, 378, 381, 382, 383, 2614, 2615, 2616. 2618, 2619, 2620, 2613, 384, 938, 2024 and 927 of 2001, RFA No. 1424 of 2002 and RFA No. 2040 of 2004 have been filed by the land-owners, whose land has been acquired, seeking enhancement of the compensation in lieu of acquisition of their pieces of land, while RFA Nos. 4411, 151, 391, 4412, 4400, 152, 4405. 4409. 141, 4406, 4401, 4402. 4403, 4408, 4407, 144, 146, 148, 149, 150, 4413, 4404. 4410, 386, 388, 142, 147, 143, 145, 389, 387, 385 and 390 of 2001, RFA Nos. 1451 and 1452 of 2002, RFA No. 829 of 2003 and RFA No. 3290 of 2006 have been filed by the State of Haryana, challenging award of compensation to the claimants - land-owners, claiming it to be on higher side. However, for determination of the present controversy, the facts are being taken from RFA No. 2617 of 2001. 2. Vide notification dated 8.2.1989 issued under Section 4 of the Act, the Haryana Government proposed to acquire the land situated in Hadbast No. 88 of village Naraingarh and had-bast No. 307 of village Milk, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala. Thereafter, vide notification dated 7.2.1990 issued under Section 6 of. the Act, the said land was acquired and the Land Acquisition Collector, Panchkula was directed under Section 7 of the Act to start the process for the acquisition of the land in question. Notices were issued under Section 9 of the Act to the land-owners and the interested persons for assessment of compensation. The Collector after hearing the parties, vide his award dated 5.2.1992 assessed the compensation for the land-owners of Hadbast No. 88 of village Naraingarh at Rs. 1,37,223/- per acre for Chai land; Rs. 1,75,000/- per acre for gair mumkin land; Rs. l,50,000/-per acre for Barani land, and Rs. 50,000/- per acre for Banjer Kadim land. Besides this, solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value and interest permissible under the Act were also granted. 3. 1,37,223/- per acre for Chai land; Rs. 1,75,000/- per acre for gair mumkin land; Rs. l,50,000/-per acre for Barani land, and Rs. 50,000/- per acre for Banjer Kadim land. Besides this, solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value and interest permissible under the Act were also granted. 3. Feeling dissatisfied with the above compensation, the land- owners/claimants (herein referred as the claimants) preferred references before the Collector, which were referred to the District Judge for disposal. By way of their claim references, the claimants submitted that the acquired land has high potential value, having worth more than Rs. 500/- per square yard and they were entitled to get compensation as per the actual market value of the acquired land. It was further pleaded that some constructed structures and grown up trees existed on the acquired land, but the value of the same was not assessed properly. 4. Both the parties led evidence to substantiate their respective claims. After considering evidence on record and the rival contentions, the Additional District Judge vide his award date 30.8.2000 assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 2720/- per Marla. The amount of compensation awarded to the claimants of references bearing LAC Nos. 43,46 and 69 on account of super-structures, etc., was enhanced to Rs. 15,160/-, Rs. 14060/- and Rs. 16,429/-, respectively. 5. However, both the parties, feeling dissatisfied with the above award, have preferred the instant appeals, as referred to in preceding paras. 6. Arguments heard and record perused. 7. On. appreciation of the evidence, vide judgment of even date passed in RFA No. 2970 of 1994, the market value of the land measuring 3.21 acres situated in Hadbast No. 88, Tehsil Naraingarh, has been assessed at the rate of Rs. 2300.- per Maria. The land acquired in the instant case is also situated nearby the acquired land in the aforesaid case. The Trial Court as well had relied upon its judgment dated 1.4.1994 in the other case titled "Som Nath and others v. State of Haryana" (Ex. R.6) while assessing compensation in the present cases, therefore, I treat the judgment of this Court passed in RFA No. 2970 of 1994, as a comparable instance for assessing the market value of the land involved in this case, which was acquired after the land covered by the aforesaid appeals. R.6) while assessing compensation in the present cases, therefore, I treat the judgment of this Court passed in RFA No. 2970 of 1994, as a comparable instance for assessing the market value of the land involved in this case, which was acquired after the land covered by the aforesaid appeals. Earlier the land situated in Hadbast No. 88 of village Naraingarh was acquired by issuing notification on 29.06.1986 under section 4 of the Land Acquistion Act, 1894 (herein for short the Act), whereas, notifications acquiring the land involved in the present cases situated in Hadbast No. 88 of village Naraingarh and Hadbast No. 307 of village Milk was issued on 8.2.1989. As such no discrimination could be made in the market price of the two parcels of land acquired on different dates. However, the Court could take judicial notice of the fact that the market value of the acquired land in the present case would have substantially increased after 29.6.1986 (date of acquisition proposal notice in the previous case) till the acquisition of the present land on 8.2.1989. Consequently, the same parameters i.e., normal increase at the rate of 12% deserves to be added while assessing the market value of the land involved in the instant case. Similar view was taken in Karnail Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 1990(1) R.R.R. 101:1990(1) RLR 77, wherein, it was observed that an increase of 12% in price deserves to be added for the purpose of computing the actual market potential of the acquired land. 8. Thus, while applying the principle of 12% annual increase, the market value of the acquired land could safely be determined @ 3128/- per Maria. However, while rounding the same, it is determined at Rs. 3200/- per Maria at the time of the acquisition of the land. 9. The claimants in Reference Nos. 43,46 and 69 have also sought enhancement of compensation with regard to super-structures and tube-well, etc., which were found in existence in their lands at the time of acquisition. The claimants had earlier been awarded Rs. 14318/-, Rs. 11911/- and Rs. 14,023/-, respectively by the Collector, which was enhanced to Rs. 15160/-, Rs. 14060/- and Rs. 16429/-, respectively, by the Court below. While scrutinising the evidence, it comes out that the claimants had examined Krishan Kumar (P.W.3), a licensed evaluator, having an experience, of over 15 years, who, deposed from his report Ex. 14318/-, Rs. 11911/- and Rs. 14,023/-, respectively by the Collector, which was enhanced to Rs. 15160/-, Rs. 14060/- and Rs. 16429/-, respectively, by the Court below. While scrutinising the evidence, it comes out that the claimants had examined Krishan Kumar (P.W.3), a licensed evaluator, having an experience, of over 15 years, who, deposed from his report Ex. P.W.3/E, Ex. P.W.3/A and Ex. P.W.3/C that the claimants of Ref. No. 43,46 and 69 were entitled to Rs. 34,255/-, Rs. 39,750/- and Rs. 39,920/-, respectively. However, in order to rebut the aforesaid evidence, the State has relied upon the reports Ex. R.3 to Ex. R.5 of Ramphal Singh, Junior Engineer (R. W.2), who testified that the claimants were entitled to Rs. 14318/-, Rs. 19911/- and Rs. 14023/-, respectively, for the super structures made by them. He has determined the compensation while applying the rates noted in the Haryana Government Scheduled Rates, 1988 for the purpose of evaluating the worth of super structures belonging to the claimants. These reports were prepared on the basis of the Scheduled Rates as per notification published just before the scheduled rates came into force in the year 1989, whereas, the reports made by Krishan Kumar (P.W.3) is of no consequence. Thus, I do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the counsel for the claimants relating to LAC Case No. 43, 46 and 69 and hold that the Reference Court rightly awarded the compensation in this regard. 10. As Regards the award with regard to trees, the Collector awarded compensation on the basis of the report Ex. R.l made by Amrik Singh, who in his capacity as Junior Engineer, Horticulture Wing, Haryana Urban Development Authority determined the market value of the trees by giving an elaborate report. Thus, it appears that the Collector rightly relied upon this report and properly assessed the market value of the trees and, thus, there is no ground to make any enhancement in the same. 11. In the wake of the above discussion, 1 partly accept RFA Nos. 2617, 944, 2025, 379. 364. 935, 377, 936, 937, 2026, 380, 378, 381, 382, 383, 2614, 2615, 2616, 2618, 2619, 2620, 2613, 384, 938, 2024 and 927 of 2001, RFA No. 1424 of 2002 and RFA No. 2040 of 2004, and modify the impugned award to the extent that the claimants/land-owners are entitled to Rs. 2617, 944, 2025, 379. 364. 935, 377, 936, 937, 2026, 380, 378, 381, 382, 383, 2614, 2615, 2616, 2618, 2619, 2620, 2613, 384, 938, 2024 and 927 of 2001, RFA No. 1424 of 2002 and RFA No. 2040 of 2004, and modify the impugned award to the extent that the claimants/land-owners are entitled to Rs. 3200/- per Maria of the land alongwith all other statutory benefits. However, I find no reason to enhance the compensation with regard to super structures and the trees. 12. Consequently, RFA Nos. 4411, 151, 152, 391,4412,4400,4405,4409,141,4406,4401, 4402, 4403, 4408, 4407, 144, 146, 148, 149, 150, 4413, 4404, 4410, 386, 388, 142, 147, 143,145,387,385, and 389,390 of 2001, RFA Nos. 1451 and 1452 of 2002, RFA No. 829 of 2003 and RFA No. 3290 of 2006, filed by the State of Haryana fail and the same are hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.