Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 350 (PNJ)

MAHENDER ETC. v. STATE OF HARYANA

2017-02-07

ARUN PALLI

body2017
JUDGMENT : ARUN PALLI, J. 1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide a batch of 100 appeals, of which 52 appeals have been filed by the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (HSIIDC), the beneficiary of the acquisition, and the rest 48 appeals have been preferred by the claimant/landowners. For, the matter arises out of the same acquisition and the question that requires determination in all these appeals is common, these are being disposed of by a common order and judgment. However, by consensus the facts are being culled out from RFA No. 5266 of 2011 (Mahender and others v. State of Haryana and others). 2. Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) was published on 03.09.2004, vide which land situated in three different villages, i.e. Turkpur, Thana Kalan and Mandora, Tehsil Kharkhoda, in District Sonepat, was sought to be acquired for construction and development of Express Highway and to connect the National Highway No. I, Sonepat, therewith. The Land Acquisition Collector, though vide separate awards, assessed the market value of the acquired land situated in all the villages at Rs. 12,50,000/- per acre. The claimant/landowners were also awarded the statutory benefits as admissible in law. Being aggrieved of the assessment as also the compensation awarded by the Collector, the claimant/landowners filed objections under Section 18 of the Act and the dispute was referenced to the Civil Court. 3. On a consideration of the matter and material on record, the Reference Court reached a conclusion that the claimant/landowners failed to prove any sale deed/sale instance, which either pertained to the land situated in the same village or in its vicinity, to substantiate their claims for further enhancement. However, as regards the land situated in village Mandora, albeit the Court reached the same conclusion, but yet assessed the value of the acquired land @ Rs.13,00,000/- per acre i.e. at Rs.50,000/- per acre higher than the compensation awarded by the Collector, owing to the extra ordinary hardship purport to have been suffered by the claimant/landowners. In so far as the claim of the claimant/landowners as regards compensation on account of severance, it was held that in the absence of any cogent or credible material, no such claim could be granted. Whereas certain other claimants-landowners, whose land was situated in village Thana Kalan, proved that owing to the acquisition their land holdings stood severed. In so far as the claim of the claimant/landowners as regards compensation on account of severance, it was held that in the absence of any cogent or credible material, no such claim could be granted. Whereas certain other claimants-landowners, whose land was situated in village Thana Kalan, proved that owing to the acquisition their land holdings stood severed. And resultantly, they were awarded compensation/severance charges @ 50% of the value of the acquired land. 4. It may be clarified that these appeals have been preferred against the five identical awards, though delivered on different dates, i.e. 14.3.2011, 12.9.2011, 21.9.2011, 29.4.2014 and 31.5.2014. Of course, HSIIDC has preferred appeals only in those cases where the landowners have been awarded compensation @ Rs. 13,00,000/- per acre, and 50% of the value of the acquired land on account of severance of their holdings. Rest of the appeals have been preferred by the claimant/landowners. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The sale deeds (Ex.P-2 to Ex.P-9) were ruled out of consideration, for, these transactions pertained to the land of other villages, i.e. Kundli, Rasoi and Abaspur, whereas, the acquired land was situated at a considerable distance from those villages. The Reference Court discarded even the sale deed (Ex.P-7), for, it pertained to an extremely small or a negligible area. Likewise, for the sale deeds (Ex.P-10 to Ex.P-16) were executed post issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, these were also not factored in. In fact, the specific finding recorded by the Reference Court is that no sale instance of the area of village Turkpur, which was germane, and prior to the publication of notification under Section 4, was produced on record. On the contrary, the respondents had proved a sale instance (Ex. R-3), showing that prior to issuance of notification under Section 4, the land situated in village Turkpur itself was sold at Rs.3,10,000/- per acre. Similarly, the Collector rates (Ex. R-1), for the year 2004-05, for the land that formed part of the revenue estate of village Turkpur, were also Rs.3,10,000/- per acre. In fact, an analysis of the document (Ex. R-4), revealed that the Divisional Level Committee constituted by the government for assessment of the value of the acquired land, only recommended Rs. 4,00,000/- per acre to be awarded as compensation. In fact, an analysis of the document (Ex. R-4), revealed that the Divisional Level Committee constituted by the government for assessment of the value of the acquired land, only recommended Rs. 4,00,000/- per acre to be awarded as compensation. But, still the Collector assessed the value of the acquired land at Rs. 12,50,000/- per acre. Thus, the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was far more than the true value of the acquired land. 7. Significantly, the Reference Court had itself recorded a finding that the claimant/landowners failed to show even a single instance vide which the land situated at village Mandora was sold at a higher rate than the compensation awarded by the Collector i.e. Rs.12,50,000/- per acre. And, yet assessed the value of the land @ Rs.13,00,000/- per acre; “The LAC has not awarded any amount of compensation to the petitioners on account of extraordinary hardship such as severance and other hardship as discussed hereinbefore. This court is of the firm view had the LAC beside assessing the market value of the acquired land, had awarded some short of more compensation to them it would have sufficed the purpose and ends of justice would have met.” Concededly, neither this was the claim of the claimant/landowners before the Reference Court that they had suffered any extra-ordinary hardship nor any evidence was led in this regard. On being specifically asked, learned counsel for the claimant/landowners could not point out the basis for the said finding, and as to how it could be justified. In a nut shell, the claimant/landowners in all these matters failed to lead any cogent evidence to substantiate their claims. Thus, the only and the inevitable conclusion could/can be reached is that they were not entitled to any further enhancement. 8. As regards those cases, where the claimant/landowners led specific evidence to prove that their land holding indeed stood bifurcated owing to the acquisition, and the Reference Court had awarded compensation, no exception can be taken to the said finding. In fact, Mr. Pritam Saini, learned counsel for the HSIIDC, fairly submitted that the evidence on record fully substantiates the conclusion arrived at the Reference Court in this regard. 9. In conspectus of the position as sketched out above, the appeals preferred by the claimant/landowners are dismissed. In fact, Mr. Pritam Saini, learned counsel for the HSIIDC, fairly submitted that the evidence on record fully substantiates the conclusion arrived at the Reference Court in this regard. 9. In conspectus of the position as sketched out above, the appeals preferred by the claimant/landowners are dismissed. Accordingly, even the appeals filed by HSIIDC against the awards, vide which claimants were awarded 50% of the value of the acquired land as severance charges are also dismissed. However, the appeals filed against the awards, vide which the Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.13,00,000/- per acre, are accepted, and the landowners in those cases shall also be entitled to compensation @ Rs.12,50,000/- per acre, as has been awarded and affirmed in the matters pertaining to villages Turkpur and Thana Kalan.