Chunian Pursharthi Cooperative v. State of Haryana

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate, for the landowners. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. RAJESH BINDAL, J This order will dispose of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 174, 252 and 253 of 1993, as common questions of law and facts are involved. The landowners have filed appeals seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land whereas by filing appeal the State of Haryana is seeking reduction of compensation. Briefly the facts are that vide notification dated 9.2.1988 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') the State of Haryana acquired land measuring 9 acres, 1 kanal and 7 marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Bazidpur, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, for the Wild Life Deer Park. The same was followed by notification dated 16.11.1988 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') assessed the market value of acquired land @ ` 26,000/- per acre for chahi, ` 19,500/- per acre for barani, ` 13,000/- per acre for banjar kadim and ` 6,500/- per acre for gair mumkin kinds of land.

Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference, the learned court below vide award dated 23.10.1992, determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 90,000/- per acre. Aggrieved against the award of learned Court below, the landowners as well as the State of Haryana are before this Court. Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that considering the strategic location of the land in question, the learned court below has not been able to appreciate the true value thereof. It is located on GT Road close to the Bus R.F.A. No.174 of 1993 -2- Stand of Pipli. It had great future potential. Sale-deed (Ex. P-2), dated 25.4.1988 produced on record by the landowners has not been given due weight age. It was not for a small piece of land as the area dealt with therein was 2 kanals. It was located just across the GT Road on the other side. It was sold for a sum of ` 30,000/- and the rate per acre comes to ` 1,20,000/- per acre.

Merely because it was registered about two months after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case, cannot be a ground to reject the same as such for the reason that the genuineness of the same cannot be doubted as the parties to the sale-deed had no relevance or interest in getting the same registered at that stage. The future potential value of the land in question cannot possibly be doubted considering its location and no cut is required to be applied while assessing the value of the acquired land. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the award of the Collector in the present case was just and fair. The sale transactions produced on record by the State as Ex. R-1 to R-4 clearly established this fact. The value of the land in these sale-deeds was ` 6,300/- per acre on the lower side and the maximum was ` 30,000/- per acre, whereas the award of the Collector was from ` 6,500 to ` 26,000/- per acre for different quality of land.

The acquisition of the land was not for commercial purpose. The State was not going to gain any profit out of it. It was for a public purpose where the State was to spend further money. In fact, there was no development activities as such in that area and the land was being merely put to agriculture use and even now the same is the position. The land is located on the GT Road. There was no special advantage attached to it. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. As far as the location of the land is concerned, the same is not in dispute. It is located quite close to the Bus Stand of Pipli on GT Road. The fact as noticed by the learned court below regarding location of the land pertaining to sale-deed, Ex. P-2, and also the sale-deeds, Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-4 are also not in dispute. It has been noticed by the learned court below that the land pertaining to sale-deeds, Ex.

R-1 to R-4 is located at a distance from GT Road and is not abutting the GT Road whereas it has been noticed that the land pertaining to sale- deed, Ex. P-2, is located just opposite the acquired land. Merely because it was registered two months after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, I do not find any reason to discard the same as there is nothing on record, which was pointed out at the time of hearing by the learned counsel for the State, that the R.F.A. No.174 of 1993 -3- transaction was not genuine between a willing buyer and a willing seller. There was nothing on record to suggest that there was immediate appreciation of prices between the period of two months. The future potentiality of the land cannot possibly be disputed considering the fact that the same was located on GT Road. The land can very well be used for commercial or industrial purposes. Even if a particular portion of the land at present is being used for agriculture purpose in fact it losses it significance to adjudge the same as chahi, nehri or barani when it can be used for other purposes.

In view of my aforesaid discussion, it can safely be opined that the sale-deeds, Ex. R-1 to R-4, which were pertaining to the land not comparable in location as located far off from GT Road were rightly rejected by the learned court below. However, while assessing the compensation the reliance was required to be place on sale-deed, Ex. P-2, which was for a comparable piece of land located just opposite to the acquired land on GT Road. Accordingly, while placing reliance thereon, the value of the acquired land is determined @ 1,20,000/- per acre. The landowners shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available unde the Act. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in recent judgment in Civil Appeal No. 6515 of 2009 Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation vs Pran Sukh and others decided on 17.8.2010, to ensure that the landowners are not fleeced by the middleman in the process of disbursement of enhanced compensation, issued certain directions.

I deem it appropriate to issue the same directions in the present set of appeals as well. The same are as under:-

With a view to ensure that the land owners are not fleeced by the middleman, we deem it proper to issue following further directions: (i) The Land Acquisition Collector shall depute officers subordinate to him not below the rank of Naib Tehsildar, who shall get in touch with all the land owners and/or their legal representatives and inform them about their entitlement and right to receive enhanced compensation. (ii) The concerned officers shall also instruct the land owners and/or their legal representatives to open saving bank account in case they already do not have such account. (iii) The bank account numbers of the land owners should be given to the Land Acquisition Collector R.F.A. No.174 of 1993 -4- within three months. (iv) The Land Acquisition Collector shall deposit the cheques of compensation in the bank accounts of the land owners.

In view of the above, the appeal filed by the State is dismissed and the appeals filed by the landowners are allowed.

24.9.2010. vs. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge