Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 636 (HP)

G. M. Northern Railways v. Avtar Singh

2016-05-02

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. All these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment as they arise from a common Award rendered by the learned District Judge, Una in reference petitions respectively instituted before him by the landowners under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as the Act) against the award rendered by the Collector Land Acquisition (Railways), Una, H.P. qua the lands of the landowners/ petitioners therein/ respondents herein as stood subjected to acquisition. 2. The learned District Judge, Una while interfering with the award rendered by the Collector Land Acquisition (Railways), Una qua the lands of the respondents herein/petitioners before the learned District Judge proceeded to in his impugned award qua the lands of the respondents herein assess a uniform rate of compensation at the rate of Rs.55,000/- per kanal irrespective of the classification borne by the lands of the landowners subjected to acquisition. Apart therefrom, the learned District Judge in his impugned award, as stands concerted by the appellant herein to be quashed and set aside has therein also awarded Rs.60,990/- as compensation for the acquisition of house of Bhagat Singh comprised in Khwat Khatauni No. 155 min/386, khasra No.114/1. Moreover, the statutory components of compulsory acquisition charges envisaged under the Act stood also levied and added to the amounts aforesaid as adjudged by him as compensation qua the lands of the petitioners therein/respondents herein as stood subjected to acquisition, besides also upon a sum of Rs. 60,990/- as stood assessed as compensation by him qua the house of Bhagat Singh as stood subjected to acquisition. 3. The short ground which stands addressed before this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant for nullifying the award rendered by the learned District Judge, Una while exercising powers under Section 18 of the Act is of the assessment therein of a uniform rate of compensation by him qua different categories/classifications of lands of the landowners subjected to acquisition being untenable. Consequently, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends of the varying rates of valuation borne by different categories of lands of the landowners subjected to acquisition rather were enjoined to be borne in mind by him, than his proceeding to untenably assess a uniform rate of compensation qua different categories of lands as stood subjected to acquisition. 4. Consequently, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends of the varying rates of valuation borne by different categories of lands of the landowners subjected to acquisition rather were enjoined to be borne in mind by him, than his proceeding to untenably assess a uniform rate of compensation qua different categories of lands as stood subjected to acquisition. 4. The aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the appellant holds no force in the face of the apparent fact of the appellant acquiring the lands of the landowners for a common purpose. The factum of the lands of the landowners/respondents herein standing subjected to acquisition for a common purpose, renders the factum of the potentiality of the lands of the respective landowners/respondents herein marked by different/varying valuations borne by each category/classification of land, paling into insignificance. In sequel, the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant of varying rates of valuations borne by different classifications/categories of land subjected to acquisition warranting reverence for assessing diverse/varying rates of compensation vis-a-vis diverse classifications/categories of lands subjected to acquisition, cannot be countenanced by this Court. Rather as aforestated with the lands of the respondents herein/landowners standing subjected to acquisition for a common purpose, the factum of various/different categories of lands of the landowners carrying varying/diverse potentiality besides their standing reflected in the apposite material to carry distinct valuations qua their crop yielding capacity when, for reiteration, stands settled in a catena of decisions/judicial verdicts to hence hold no force for theirs constraining this Court to rely upon them for assessing different/varying rates of compensation for different categories/classifications of lands of the landowners as stood subjected to acquisition. Contrarily, the assessment of a uniform rate of compensation in a sum of Rs.55,000/- per kanal as adjudged by the learned District Judge, Una qua the lands of the respondents herein/landowners as stood subjected to acquisition dehors the classifications borne by their respecitive lands as stood subjected to acquisition does not merit any interference by this Court. The learned District Judge, while concluding of Rs.55,000/- comprising the apposite reckoner for assessing compensation qua lands of the landowners/respondents herein subjected to acquisition has relied upon various exhibits placed before him, inasmuch as upon Exts. P1 and DX, P2 and DZ and P3 and DY and has also placed reliance upon Ex.P1/DX, sale deeds of 13.5.1988. The learned District Judge, while concluding of Rs.55,000/- comprising the apposite reckoner for assessing compensation qua lands of the landowners/respondents herein subjected to acquisition has relied upon various exhibits placed before him, inasmuch as upon Exts. P1 and DX, P2 and DZ and P3 and DY and has also placed reliance upon Ex.P1/DX, sale deeds of 13.5.1988. He has also proceeded to place reliance upon an award rendered in reference petition titled as Gulzar Singh and others versus LAC decided on 31.3.2009, comprised in Ex.P-20. It is to be discerned whether any reliance thereupon by the learned District Judge, Una for assessing Rs.55,000/- per kanal as the rate of compensation qua lands of the landowners/respondents herein as stood subjected to acquisition is worthy of legal acceptability, inasmuch as the learned District Judge while on its anvil uniformly assessing the aforesaid rate of Rs.55,000/- per kanal as compensation qua the lands of the landowners subjected to acquisition, had borne in mind the twin legal principles of (I) proximity from location angle and (ii) proximity from time angle of the land comprised in Ex.P-20 vis-a-vis the lands of the landowners herein subjected to acquisition whereupon alone legality would stand fastened by this Court qua the aforesaid rate of Rs.55000/- per kanal assessed as compensation besides any assessment in the sum aforesaid on the anvill of Ex.P-20 by the learned District Judge as compensation qua the lands of the landowners subjected to acquisition holding legal formadibility. The acquisition of lands comprised in Ex.P-20 was for a purpose analogous to the purpose for which lands of the landowners herein stood subjected to acquisition. The year of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act whereupon the process of acquisition of lands of the petitioners therein stood initiated is the year 2001 which is the very same year rather a year common to the one whereat the process for acquisition of lands of the landowners herein stood initiated. The year of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act whereupon the process of acquisition of lands of the petitioners therein stood initiated is the year 2001 which is the very same year rather a year common to the one whereat the process for acquisition of lands of the landowners herein stood initiated. Given the commonality of the year of initiation of process of acquisition of lands of the landowners marked in Ex.P-20 vis-a-vis the lands of the landowners herein, the legal canon qua proximity from time angle or of contemporaneity intra se the year of issuance of notifications under the apposite provisions of law, whereupon the process for acquisition of lands of the landowners therein stood initiated vis-a-vis initiation of process for acquisition of lands of the landowners herein, hence, achieves accomplishment and satiation. Moreover, with commonality qua the purpose of acquisition of lands of the landowners in Ex.P-20 vis-a-vis the purpose for which lands of the landowners herein stood subjected to acquisition gives firm leverage to this Court to hold of the learned District Judge, Una while relying upon Ex.P-20 having not placed any unwarranted reliance thereupon especially when it begets compliance besides satiates the legal principle of contemporaneity in time angle qua the initiation of process for the acquisition of lands of landowners therein vis-avis qua lands of the landowners/respondents herein. In sequel, reliance upon Ex.P-20 by the learned District Judge, Una, for on its sinew adjudging compensation qua lands of the landowners herein was apt. 5. Now it has to be discerned from the material on record, whether the rate of compensation assessed in Ex.P-20 constituted a tenable/apposite parameter or reckoner for constraining the learned District Judge, Una, for his thereupon assessing an analogous rate of compensation qua lands of the landowners as stood subjected to acquisition. For solving the aforesaid conundrum, it is apt to refer to the deposition comprised in the cross-examination of PW-5, wherein he has underscored the factum of the land of Gulzar, one of the petitioners in Ex.P-20, whose land stood subjected to acquisition standing assessed to compensation at a rate of Rs.55,000/- per kanal. For solving the aforesaid conundrum, it is apt to refer to the deposition comprised in the cross-examination of PW-5, wherein he has underscored the factum of the land of Gulzar, one of the petitioners in Ex.P-20, whose land stood subjected to acquisition standing assessed to compensation at a rate of Rs.55,000/- per kanal. The aforesaid underscorings occurring in the cross-examination of PW-5 conducted by the counsel for the appellant herein when omitted to be repulsed by his seeking permission from the learned District Judge, Una to recross-examine him on the facet aforesaid, constrains this Court to conclude of the appellant herein acquiescing to the factum of Rs.55000/- per kanal, as stood assessed as compensation under Ex.P-20 qua the lands of the landowners therein being the apposite rate of compensation qua even the lands of the landowners herein/respondents herein as stood subjected to acquisition. The effect of acquiescence aforesaid is of its enfeebling the learned counsel for the appellant herein to espouse of given any purported improximity of lands of the landowners herein vis-a-vis lands of the landowners in Ex.P-20, the rate of Rs.55,000/- per kanal assessed as compensation payable qua lands of the landowners herein by the learned District Judge on its anvil was both inappropriate besides untenable. With the aforesaid inference covering all the facets aforesaid, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant stands estopped to contend before this Court of the rate of Rs.55000/- per kanal assessed as compensation by the learned District Judge, Una on the anvill of Ex.P-20, being neither an appropriate nor an apt reckoner for adjudging compensation qua the lands of the respondents herein. Predominantly, the further effect of the aforesaid acquiescence is of the appellant abandoning any further endeavour of improximity, if any, intra se the lands of the landowners in Ex.P-20 with the lands of the landowners herein, besides the appellant also abandoning any concert of theirs not bearing congruous rates rather theirs respectively bearing diverse/distinct rates, hence, also theirs standing estopped to contend of compensation qua the lands of the landowners herein being not assessable on the anvil of Ex.P-20. Also when PW-5 underlines in his deposition comprised in his cross-examination of theirs standing entitled to compensation at the rate as assessed in an award comprised in Ex.P-20 rendered by the learned District Judge, Una, qua the lands of Gulzar Singh besides qua lands of other petitioners therein necessarily hence when qua the facet aforesaid which occurs in the cross-examination of PW-5 conducted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant before the learned Reference Court, he has omitted to by his asking for his re-crossexamination besides obviously he has also omitted to shatter the aforesaid communications in his cross-examination, also constrains this Court to hold that any argument or espousal before this Court on the part of the appellant of lands of the landowners depicted in Ex.P-20 being not comparable qua proximity besides qua other relevant factors for reliance thereupon by the learned District Judge while adjudging compensation qua lands of the landowners herein being wholly unwarranted, staggering as also falling apart. The effect of the aforesaid discussion is of the learned District Judge, while assessing compensation at the rate of Rs.55000/- per kanal as a uniform rate of compensation qua lands of the landowners herein as stood subjected to acquisition has borne in mind the legal canon aforesaid of proximity in location angle intra se the lands of the land owners in Ex.P-20 vis-a-vis lands of the landowners herein. In sequel, the impugned award rendered by the learned District Judge, Una does not merit any interference. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends with force of assessment of compensation by the learned District Judge, Una, at the rate of Rs.60,990/- for acquisition of house of respondent Bhagat Singh is not anvilled upon any credible material. However, the aforesaid submission falls apart in the face of there occurring a marked portrayal in the impugned award of the learned District Judge, Una of his while assessing compensation qua the house of Bhagat Singh as stood subjected to acquisition, his placing reliance upon Ex.PW4/B which stood proved by PW-4 Jaswinder Singh, who in his examination-in-chief after tendering into evidence, his apposite valuation report comprised in Ex.PW4/B stood also thereafter subjected to the ordeal of an exacting cross-examination. Since he remained unscathed during the ordeal of an exacting cross-examination for shattering the tenacity of the portrayals constituted in Ex.PW4/B, necessarily hence, portrayals constituted in Ex.PW4/B are construable to be carrying probative worth. The discarding by the learned District Judge of Ex.RW1/B arose on account of its author not stepping into the witness box. Obviously when PW-4 Jaswinder Singh, who stood subjected to a rigorous and grueling cross-examination, in course whereof he remained unshattered qua the tenacity of the portrayals in Ex.PW4/B prepared by him, hence, evaluation of the house of Bhagat Singh depicted in Ex.PW4/B has to be imputed sanctity vis-a-vis the report of the Executive Engineer comprised in Ex.RW1/A especially when the Executive Engineer concerned did not step into the witness box nor stood subjected to cross-examination for efficaciously proving the veracity of the contents of Ex.RW1/A, hence, manifestations therein are to be construable to be not carrying any legal worth vis-a-vis Ex.PW4/B which for the reasons aforestated holds immense evidentiary value qua the facet aforesaid. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the impugned award is ridden with an infirmity on the ground of the learned District Judge, Una not meteing deductions to the amount of compensation as assessed by him qua lands of the landowners, whereas, he was enjoined to do so. 8. While proceeding to gauge the sinew of the above contention canvassed before this Court, it is necessary to bear in mind that the judgments cited in support of the above view espoused by the learned counsel for the appellant, are distinguishable, vis-à-vis, the facts at hand, hence, in the modest view of this Court, not reliable inasmuch as (a) all the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant concert to marshal the view of deductions being from lump sum compensation assessed qua a large tract of land on the score of market value of a small/minimal piece of land. In other words, the emphasis in the aforesaid citations is of the market value of a small tract of land for it comprise an admissible parameter for on its strength working out the compensation for a large tract of land, it is imperative of deductions towards development costs being made. In other words, the emphasis in the aforesaid citations is of the market value of a small tract of land for it comprise an admissible parameter for on its strength working out the compensation for a large tract of land, it is imperative of deductions towards development costs being made. However, distinguishably in the citations aforesaid, the acquisition was made for the development of sites for allotment for housing purpose or for construction of a housing colony or the purpose of acquisition had an inherent profiteering motive. Therefore, given the purpose for which the land was acquired in the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant deductions were enjoined to be imperative or necessary as the entity for whom the land was brought under acquisition would be entailed/obliged to make the land fit for the purpose for which it stood acquired, inasmuch as the apposite entity concomitantly being driven to incur exorbitant expenses, towards its development for rendering it fit for use. As such, given the magnified increase in the scale of economies or given the ultimate manifold increase in the scale of economies or any incurring of exorbitant expenses on development of lands subjected to acquistion, hence, acquiring the capacity to proportionately reduce their profit, as such, for rendering the project for which the land stood acquired financially viable or to obviate losses accruing from steep rates of compensation as may be awarded that deductions were permitted. In other words, deductions from compensation were mandated to not render the venture and the purpose for which the land stood acquired in the aforesaid citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, financially un-whole some as well as unviable, more so, when the land stands acquired for State holdings, building/housing agency(ies) or the agencies carrying out and engaged in profiteering work. However, in contra distinction, to the facts of the judgments as relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, in the instant case the lands stood subjected to acquisition for the purpose of construction of a railway track. In the appellant engaging itself in the construction of a railway track, it has assumed the role of doing so as a welfare measure and not as a profiteering measure. In the appellant engaging itself in the construction of a railway track, it has assumed the role of doing so as a welfare measure and not as a profiteering measure. The railway track would continue to be owned by the appellant in distinction to the facts of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant where the agency for whom the land stood subjected to acquisition would on developing the land, sell it further or gain profit. (b) The appellant has omitted to adduce cogent evidence on record displaying the fact that each of the land holder whose land stood subjected to acquisition was holding a vast expanse of land. Omission to adduce into evidence such proof demonstrative of each of the land holders, whose land stood subjected to acquisition owing a wide expanse or a large sized holding, vis-à-vis, the sale transactions relied upon in Ex. P-20, a firm conclusion can be formed, that, the size of the holding or the size of the land of the each of the land holders whose land was subjected to acquisition was more or less equal to or not disproportionately larger in size to the area of the lands of the landowners in Ex. P-20. Hence, there was no jurisdictional error on the part of the learned Judge, Una, in not affording deductions from compensation especially given the smallness in size of the lands of the landowners in Ex.P-20 vis-à-vis the lands of each of the individual landowner, whose lands stood subjected to acquisition. Besides, it has also not been cogently proved by the appellant that any part of the land owned by each of the landowners and subjected to acquisition did not bear potentiality nor would have commanded a market value, lesser than the value earned by the expanse of land relied upon in Ex.P-20. 9. It is also significant here to refer to the judgment reported in Bhagwathula Samanna & Ors. v. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1992 SC 2298 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has mandated:- “13. The proposition that large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are sold is not absolute proposition and in given circumstances it would be permissible to take into account the price fetched by the small plots of land. The proposition that large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are sold is not absolute proposition and in given circumstances it would be permissible to take into account the price fetched by the small plots of land. If the larger tract of land because of advantageous position is capable of being used for the purpose for which the smaller plots are used and is also situated in a developed area with little or no requirement of further development, the principle of deduction of the value for purpose of comparison is not warranted. With regard to the nature of the plots involved in these two cases, it has been satisfactorily shown on the evidence on record that the land has facilities of road and other amenities and is adjacent to a developed colony and in such circumstances it is possible to utilize the entire area in question as house sites. In respect of the land acquired for the road, the same advantages are available and it did not require any further development. We, are, therefore, of the view that the High Court has erred in applying the principle of deduction and reducing the fair market value of land from Rs.10/ per sq. yard to Rs. 6.50 paise per sq. yard to Rs.6.50 paise per sq. yard. In our opinion, no such deduction is justified in the facts and circumstances of these cases. The appellants, therefore, succeed.” (pp. 2301-2302) 10. The citation aforesaid enshrines the principle that it is not a absolute proposition of law that on the score of market value of small tracts of land compensation for large tracts of land is impermissible. For assessing compensation for large tracts of land, the market value of smaller tracts of land can be relied upon, in case a larger tracts of land in its entirety is advantageous or capable of being used for the purpose for which the smaller tracts are used and is also situated in a developed area with little or no requirement of further development. Besides, the principle of deduction need not be applied when this Court has held that there is no cogent and reliable evidence on record to prove that each part of the larger tracts of the land or the wide expanse of land subjected to acquisition does not have either potentiality or market value equivalent to the smaller tracts, comprised in Ex.P-20 relied upon by the learned District Judge for assessing compensation qua the lands of the landowners subjected to acquisition. 11. In view of above discussion, I find no merit in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed and the common award of 25.2.20011 rendered by the learned District Judge, Una, is affirmed. No order as to the costs. All pending applications stand disposed of.