Mai Lal v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Present: Mr. Bikram Chaudhary, Advocate for the land owners. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 1177 and 1178 of 1992, as common questions of law and facts are involved. The land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned court below for the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 1177 of 1992. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 3.5.1988, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), land measuring 32 kanals and 10 marlas, situated in village Palwan, District Jind was acquired by the State of Haryana for construction of bus stand. The same was followed by notification dated 10.6.1988, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 1,20,000/- 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 @ ` 1,30,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that land in the present case was acquired for the purpose of construction of a bus stand at Uchana, which itself is sufficient to hold and take judicial notice of the fact that the land must be strategically located and had great future potential. Otherwise location thereof is on main Jind-Narwana road near Tehsil Office. Various residential and R.F.A. No. 1177 of 1992 [2] commercial establishments were located just close to the acquired land. Just opposite the acquired land, there were shops. Office of the Haryana State Electricity Board and the Power Colony was also located quite close to the acquired land. Office of District Development and Panchayat Officer and Naib Tehsildar and other government establishments were not located far of from the acquired land. Site plan (Ex. P5) was referred to show the location. It was even admitted by RW1-Om Parkash Gauttam, Building Clerk, Haryana Roadways in his cross-examination that office of the Electricity Board and Tehsil Office were located nearly half kilometer from the acquired land. An eye-hospital was at a distance of one kilometer. Coming to the issue of determination of fair value of the acquired land, the submission of learned counsel for the land owners was that vide sale deed (Ex. P4) registered on 25.5.1983, two kanals of land was purchased by Bhag Chand and Sarupa sons of Roop Chand for a sum of ` 40,000/- at an average price of ` 1,60,000/- per acre. Out of the aforesaid land, leaving merely one marla thereof, the entire land was acquired by the State. Considering the fact that the aforesaid sale deed was registered on 25.5.1983 and notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 3.5.1988, the land owners are entitled to increase @ 12% per annum thereof. If the same is added for a period of 5 years, the value of the acquired land would come out to ` 2,56,000/- per acre. Considering the fact that the sale deed also pertained to two kanals of land and the acquired land was also not for a very big chunk, its location and also future potentiality, no cut as such is required to be applied. He further submitted that even if sale deed (Ex. P3) dated 28.5.1986 is considered, whereby one kanal and 17 marlas of land was sold for a sum of ` 44,400/-, at an average price of ` 1,92,000/- per acre, and increase thereon is awarded @ 12% per annum for the time gap, the value of the land will come out close to the value as is determined with regard to the land purchased by one of the appellants vide sale deed dated 25.5.1983. He further submitted that the damages awarded by the learned court below on account of severance, as only one marla of land owned by Bhag Chand and Sarupa was left out of acquisition and also for boundary wall existing on the acquired land was quite meagre. In fact, one marla of land had become totally useless. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that just and fair compensation has already been awarded by the learned court below to the land owners. In fact, the award of the Collector was quite reasonable even if the sale deed pertaining to the acquired land is considered and increase @ 10% per annum is added thereon. To arrive at a reasonable figure, a cut of 50% would be R.F.A. No. 1177 of 1992 [3] required to be applied considering that acquisition was for 32 kanals and 10 marlas of land, whereas the sale deed was pertaining to merely two kanals of land. The learned court below had already awarded ` 10,000/- per acre more to the land owners without there being any basis. The land owners should feel satisfied with that amount of compensation. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. Learned counsel for the parties have not pointed out as to whether any other appeal arising out of the acquisition in question has already been decided by this court. As far as location of the land and its future potentiality is concerned, in my opinion, the same cannot be disputed. The facts pertaining thereto have been noticed in the preceding paragraph of the judgment. For the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land, in my opinion, the best piece of evidence would be the sale deed (Ex. P4) pertaining to the acquired land. Vide aforesaid sale deed, two kanals of land was purchased by Bhag Chand and Sarupa for a sum of ` 40,000/- at an average price of ` 1,60,000/- per acre. The same was registered on 25.5.1983, i.e., 5 years prior to the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Considering the time gap and the period, in my opinion, increase @ 10% per annum would be reasonable to be added to arrive at fair value, as depicted in the aforesaid sale deed, on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Adding 50% on ` 1,60,000/- per acre, the consideration paid in the sale deed,would come out to ` 2,40,000/- per acre. Considering the fact that the area dealt with in the sale deed was two kanals and the acquisition was also for 32 kanals and 10 marlas, the location of the land being on State Highway and considering its future potentiality, in my opinion, cut of 20% thereon would be quite reasonable. Applying the same, the value of the acquired land would come out to ` 1,92,000/- per acre. For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned award of the learned court below is modified to the extent that the value of the acquired land is assessed at ` 1,92,000/- per acre. The land owners shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available to them under the Act. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6515 of 2009 – Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation v. 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 same directions in the present set R.F.A. No. 1177 of 1992 [4] 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 appropriate 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 savings 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 within three months. (iv) The Land Acquisition Collector shall deposit the cheques of compensation in the bank accounts of the land owners.” The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above.

28.9.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) Judge