State of Haryana & Ors. v. Umrao & Ors.

Mr. A. K. Singal, Advocate for the land owners. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 2413 to 2423, 2874, 2875, 2907, 2910 to 2913, 2915, 2916, 2972, 2986 to 2988, 3198 and 3199 of 2002, as common questions of law and facts are involved. In the appeals filed by the State, the prayer is for reduction of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned court below to the landowners for the acquired land, whereas in the appeals filed by the land owners, they are seeking further enhancement thereof. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 2413 of 2002. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated

9.12.1997, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana acquired 4.83 acres of land in village Bolni, Tehsil and District Rewari for construction of Bolni Extension Distributory by irrigation department. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), vide award dated 8.4.1999, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 2,50,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 6,00,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that though the leaned court below has assessed the compensation payable to the land owners by R.F.A. No. 2413 of 2002 [2] placing reliance upon the sale deeds produced by the land owners, but still the fact that those sale deeds were registered upto two years prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, for the intervening period, no addition in the valuation thereof has been awarded. The sale deeds produced by the land owners are pertaining to the land of the same village. He further submitted that with the acquisition of land for the purpose of construction of distributory, the land of the land owners has been divided into two parts, which has made it difficult for them to irrigate two portions of the land and no compensation has been awarded on account of severance. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that there is error apparent in the manner the learned court below has assessed the amount of compensation payable to the land owners. Sale deeds (Ex. PW3/1 to Ex. PW3/4), on which reliance has been placed by the learned court below pertained to 5 marlas to 15 marlas of land and the acquisition being for 4.83 acres, a reasonable cut was required to be applied for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land. However, he was fair enough to admit the fact that with the acquisition of land for the construction of distributory, the land of the land owners may have been divided into two parts. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. The acquisition in the present case is merely for a small portion of

4.83 acres of land. The land owners though had produced on record seven sale deeds, but out of them four were considered relevant, namely, Ex. PW3/1 to Ex.PW3/4. Those pertained to the same village, the land of which has been acquired. Though there is no site plan on record as such, however, judicial notice can very well be taken of the fact that the sale deeds being for small pieces of land would certainly be located on road or close to the road. The State produced two sale deeds on record. Both of them were registered much after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and even otherwise, the amount of consideration paid therein is far less than even the award of the Collector. The sale deeds relied upon by the land owners are as under: Ex. Date Area Sale price in ` Value per acre in ` ........................................................................................................................................................ PW3/1 10.10.1995 5 marlas 20,000/- PW3/2 11.4.1995 15 marlas 51,000/- PW3/3 14.6.1996 5 marlas 18,500/- PW3/4 29.6.1996 5 marlas 16,500/- 5,33,333/- 5,44,000/- 5,92,000/- 5,28,000/- R.F.A. No. 2413 of 2002 [3] As the aforesaid sale deeds were registered prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and the land dealt with therein pertained to the same village, in my opinion, for the time gap till the issuance of notification from the date of sale deeds, an addition @ 10% per annum can very well be made therein. Adding the same, the value per acre will come out as under: Ex. Date Area Period of difference in ` in ` Sale price Sale price per acre ........................................................................................................................................................ PW3/1 10.10.1995 5 marlas 26 months 24,316/- 7,78,112/- PW3/2 11.4.1995 15 marlas 32 months 64,600/- 6,89,056/- PW3/3 14.6.1996 5 marlas 18 months 21,275/- 6,80,800/- PW3/4 29.6.1996 5 marlas 18 months 18,975/- 6,07,200/- The average consideration paid per acre in the aforesaid sale deeds would come out to ` 6,88,792/-. Considering the fact that the aforesaid sale deeds pertained to 5 to 15 marlas of land and even the acquired land is also merely for

4.38 acres, which was acquired in the form of a belt for the purpose of construction of a distributory, where small portions of land pertaining to number of land owners was acquired, in my opinion, a cut of 25% would be reasonable. After applying the cut of 25%, the value of the land will come out to ` 5,16,594/- per acre. As the land in question was acquired for the purpose of construction of a distributory, in my opinion, the land owners are also entitled to damages on account of severance, which are quantified @ 20% of the value of land. If the aforesaid amount is added thereon, the same would come out to ` 6,19,914/- per acre. The aforesaid amount is quite close to the amount of compensation awarded by the learned court below, i.e., ` 6,00,000/- per acre. Considering the fact that the area acquired is merely 4.38 acres, the acquisition being 13 years old, I do not find it appropriate to disturb the amount of compensation awarded by the learned court below. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the State as well as the land owners are dismissed.

13.12.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) Judge R.F.A. No. 2413 of 2002 [4]