Dr. Adarsh Kumar Sachdeva v. Union of India

Acquisition. On the pleadings of the parties, two issues were framed, out of which, issue No.1 was with regard to market value of the acquired land. Both the parties led their respective evidence. The learned Court below, while determining the compensation, took into consideration 8 sale deeds relied upon by both claimants as well as the respondents for calculating the average price. The relevant finding recorded by the learned Court below is as under: - “9. There is thus no dispute about the potentiality of the acquired land. The primary dispute is about the rate of compensation. Coming to the question of market price of the acquired land, there are quite a good number of sale transactions relied upon by the parties. The only point of difference between the learned counsel for the claimants and the learned Govt. Pleader is that while the learned counsel for the claimants asserts that all these transactions should be taken into consideration and the claimants be awarded compensation at their average, the learned Govt. Pleader insists that the sale transactions, which relate to small area after the issue of the notification cannot be taken FAO No.878 of 1985 -3- ***** as the basis of indicia for determining the price of the land measuring 5.64 acres. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in case Mirza Nausherwan Khan and another Vs. The Collector (Land Acqusiiton) Hydrabad., A.I.R. 1974 Supreme Court, 2247, wherein it has been observed: - “There is a well established distinction between the value of a tinny plot as being no measure when a large area is acquired.” No possible fault can be found with the submission of the learned Govt. Pleader. It has been ruled in a number of cases by the final court that the sale transaction relating to small and insignificant areas cannot normally be made the basis for the determination of the market price of huge chunk of land. In this view of the matter, while ignoring all these transaction which relate to an area less then 8 marlas after the issuance of the notification, the following transactions are relevant to the determination of the market price of the acquired land: Sr. No. Mutation Date Khasra Amount Average per No. No. K - M ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A11 R2 R3 R4 A20 A21 A14 2524 2489 2365 2503 -- -- --

30.11.77 8-0 49,000/- 49,000/-

19.04.77 12-6 15,000/- 9,756/-

25.05.77 10-14 20,000/- 14,960/-

04.11.77 7-6 2,600/- 2,249/-

20.02.78 1-11 14,100/- 72,774/-

15.02.78 1-1 9,000/- 68,571/-

12.12.73 0-8 ½ 45,000/- 8,00,000/- --

27.09.74 0-8 ½ 45,000/- 8,00,000/- A15 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 41-15 1,99,700/- 38,265.86p s. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total FAO No.878 of 1985 -4- ***** The average price of these transaction being 38,265.86p per acre, I determine the market price of the land in question at round figure of 39,000/- per acre.” Still not satisfied, the claimants/appellants have filed the present appeals in this court. During the pendency of the appeals, application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short “CPC”] was also filed in order to place on record a decision of the learned Reference Court in LA Case No.65 of 1987 as well as a decision of this Court in RFA No.2715 of 1989 titled as 'Nand Lal Dhingra Vs. Collector land Acquisition and another' decided on

12.09.1990. The said application was ordered to be taken up with the main case. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since the aforesaid two orders are the judicial orders and subsequent to the date of decision of the impugned order, therefore, they need to be taken into consideration as they are per se admissible. No objection was raised by learned counsel for the State to the application and, hence the application is allowed and the documents Annexures A-1 and A-2 are taken on record. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that his entire argument is based upon the additional evidence. He has submitted that in the case of Nand Lal Dhingra (supra), this Court had assessed the compensation @ `19.56/- per square feet or `176.04/- per square yard for the land of the same village pertaining to its acquisition of 06.08.1973, therefore, the appellants in this case also are entitled to the same compensation. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, however, has submitted that the judgment in the case of Nand Lal Dhingra (supra) is on altogether different facts and is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. She has also submitted that the appellants themselves have relied upon the sale deed Ex.A-11 dated

30.11.1977 pertaining to 08 Kanals of land which was sold for a sum of FAO No.878 of 1985 -5- ***** `49,000/-, therefore, the acquired land cannot be equated with the land under acquisition in the case of Nand Lal Dhingra (supra). I have heard both learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record carefully. The question involved in this case is as to “whether the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Nand Lal Dhingra (supra) is really applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case or not?' In order to find out the answer, the facts of that case are required to be noticed. In the case of Nand Lal Dhingra (supra), land measuring 35 Acres, 02 Kanals and 01 Marla of village Panchhawali, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur was acquired with the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short “the Act of 1894”] dated 06.08.1973 for the establishment of a New Mandi Township at Fazilka. The urgency provisions were invoked and possession was taken on 20.08.1973. The said notification was challenged by the claimants by filing CWP No.3465 of 1973 which was allowed on 19.11.1976 and the notification issued under Section 4 was quashed. The Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State of Punjab too was dismissed on 08.08.1978. According to the order of this Court, the claimants in that case were to get back the possession of their land after refunding the compensation received by them on 23.01.1974 in pursuance of the award of the Collector, but admittedly, neither the amount of compensation was refunded nor the possession was delivered back, rather a fresh notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 was issued followed by notification issued under Section 6 of the Act of 1894. The Collector pronounced his award on 23.02.1983 assessing compensation @ `90,000/- per acre (`2.06/- per square feet). Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, objections were filed, which were allowed by the learned Additional District Judge by enhancing compensation @ `1,84,888.88/- per acre (`4.24/- per square feet). In the said case, aggrieved against that order, Shri Nand Lal Dhingra filed RFA No.2715 of 1989 for further enhancement of compensation, in which this Court had allowed FAO No.878 of 1985 -6- ***** compensation @ `19.56/- per square feet or `176.04/- per square yard by relying upon the auction sale price of the small plots which were carved out from the land meant for grain market which was initially acquired along with the land of Shri Nand Lal Dhingra which was released by the Writ Court. The resume of the aforesaid facts shows that the value of the land determined by this Court in the case of Nand Lal Dhingra (supra) was on the basis of the price of small plots which were carved out on the acquired land. However, question would arise as to “whether the small plots, inter alia meant for the commercial purposes sold by way of auction, could be equated with the land which is acquired in the present case for the purpose of sewerage treatment plant”. This is the matter of common knowledge that the sewerage treatment plants are not located in the heart of the city and are rather located on the outskirts. Moreover, the appellants themselves have placed on record the evidence by way of sale deeds showing the value of the land to be `49,000/- per acre exactly near the date of its acquisition. The learned Court below had even included the sale deeds of the years 1973 and 1974 in the aggregate while calculating the average in which sale deeds Ex.A14 and A15 pertains to an area measuring 8-½ Marlas each. Besides this, the learned Court below has also awarded solatium and interest under the Act. Thus, to my mind, there is no error in the order of the learned Court below by which the compensation has been assessed as the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant in the case of Nand Lal Dhingra (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. In view of the above discussion, the present appeals are found to be without any merit and as such, the same are hereby dismissed, however, without any orders as to costs. December 10, 2010. vinod* (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE