Bakshish Singh & Ors. v. The State of Haryana & Anr.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 2.4.1986, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana acquired 9.884 acres of land, situated in village Kulan, Tehsil Tohana, District Hisar for construction of 132 KV Sub Station, Dharsul at village Kulan. The same was followed by notification dated 1.8.1986, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') awarded compensation @ ` 45,000/- 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 @ ` 55,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the amount of compensation, as assessed by the learned court below, is not just and fair. The evidence led on record has not been appreciated properly. The land in question was located strategically, as it was merely at a distance of 15 killas from Dharsul Ananj Mandi. The area in the vicinity was well developed, as there was bank, police post, dispensary, school, shops near the bus stand and the acquired land is also located quite close to it. The acquired land was located on the road leading from Bhuna to Dharsul. In fact, the land owners were in the process of selling the land to M/s R.F.A. No. 1394 of 1992 [2] Shiv Rice Mills, who offered to purchase the same @ ` 4,00,000/- per acre. However, as the market value was more than that, the land owners demanded ` 6,00,000/- per acre. Before the deal could be finalised, the acquisition process started. Considering the location of the land, it had great future potential as expansion and development activities in any town or city take place near the roads. Sale deed (Ex. PW4/A), registered on 14.6.1985, was not given due weightage. Vide that sale deed, 16 marlas of land of the same village was sold for a sum of ` 10,000/-, i.e., ` 1,00,000/- per acre. The learned court below, though relied upon that sale deed as a piece of evidence for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land, but applied a cut of 45% while awarding compensation. The submission was that considering the strategic location and the purpose for which the land was acquired, the cut should not have been more than 10-15%. Reliance was placed upon Atma Singh (Dead) through LRS and others v. State of Haryana and another, (2008) 2 SCC 568. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the learned court below had already awarded compensation to the land owners much more than what they deserved. Considering the fact that in the sale deed (Ex. PW4/A), the area dealt with was merely 16 marlas and the acquired land being

9.884 acres, cut should have been more than 50% and if the same is applied, the award of the Collector was just and fair, as it had granted compensation @ ` 45,000/- per acre. However, still whatever has been awarded by the learned court below, the same does not call for any interference by this Court. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. A perusal of site plan (Ex. R1), placed on record, shows that the land, which has been acquired for the purpose of setting up of 132 KV Sub Station by the State Electricity Board is located on Bhuna to Dharsul road. The acquired land is located quite close to the crossing of the village, where number of commercial establishments and residential houses have been shown. It has also come on record that in the village, there was bank, dispensary, police post, school and other commercial establishments. Keeping in view the fact that the land was located on the main road, it had the potential for being used as commercial or residential purposes. It is stated to be located about 15 killas from Dharsul Ananj Mandi. The learned court below, while relying upon sale deed (Ex. PW4/A) had applied a cut of 45% and the consideration paid therein was an average price of ` 1,00,000/- per acre. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Atma Singh (Dead) through LRS and others v. State of Haryana and another (supra), while considering the R.F.A. No. 1394 of 1992 [3] issue of application of cut on the sale deed relied upon by the land owners, observed as under: “15. The question to be considered is whether in the present case those factors exist which warrant a deduction by way of allowance from the price exhibited by the exemplars of small plots which have been filed by the parties. The land has not been acquired for a housing colony or government office or an institution. The land has been acquired for setting up a sugar factory. The factory would produce goods worth many crores in a year. A sugar factory apart from producing sugar also produces many by-products in the same process. One of the by-products is molasses, which is produced in huge quantity. Earlier, it had no utility and its disposal used to be a big problem. But now molasses is used for production of alcohol and ethanol which yield lot of revenue. Another by-product begasse is now used for generation of power and press mud is utilised in manure. Therefore, the profit from a sugar factory is substantial. Moreover, it is not confined to one year but will accrue every year so long as the factory runs. A housing board does not run on business lines. Once plots are carved out after acquisition of land and are sold to public, there is no scope for earning any money in future. An industry established on acquired land, if run efficiently, earns money or makes profit every year. The return from the land acquired for the purpose of housing colony, or offices, or institution cannot even remotely be compared with the land which has been acquired for the purpose of setting up a factory or industry. After all the factory cannot be set up without land and if such land is giving substantial return, there is no justification for making any deduction from the price exhibited by the exemplars even if they are of small plots. It is possible that a part of the acquired land might be used for construction of residential colony for the staff working in the factory. Nevertheless, where the remaining part of the acquired land is contributing to production of goods yielding good profit, it would not be proper to make a deduction in the price of land shown by the exemplars of small plots as the reasons for doing so assigned in various decisions of this court are not applicable in the case under consideration.” R.F.A. No. 1394 of 1992 [4] Considering the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment and also the potential of the land, in my opinion, a cut of 1/3rd on the value as shown in the sale deed (Ex. PW4/A) would be quite reasonable. Accordingly, applying the same, the value of acquired land is determined at ` 67,000/- per acre as against ` 55,000/- per acre determined by the learned court below. The land owners shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available to them under the Act. The appeal is disposed of in the manner indicated above.

23.8.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) Judge