State of Haryana v. Ibrahim alias Chuhra

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State. Mr. R. K. Dhiman, Advocate for the land owners in R.F.A. Nos. 1483 and 1503 of 1992. Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate for the land owners in R.F.A. Nos. 3259, 3509 of 1992 and 561 of 1993. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 1483, 1503, 3259, 3509 of 1992 and 561 of 1993, as common questions of law and facts are involved. In the appeals filed by the land owners, they are seeking further enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned court below for the acquired land, whereas in the appeals filed by the State and Municipal Committee, Naraingarh, the prayer is for reduction thereof. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated

17.4.1985, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), land measuring 1.763 acres, situated in village Panjlasa was acquired by the State of Haryana for construction of Field Hostel for Drainage Sub Division, Naraingarh. The same was followed by notification dated 12.2.1986, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), vide award dated 26.3.1987, assessed the market value of chahi land @ ` 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 @ ` 1,15,000/- per R.F.A. No. 1483 of 1992 [2] acre. Vide another notification dated 14.10.1986, issued under Section 4 of the Act, land measuring 8 kanals and 6 marlas in the same village was acquired for construction of disposal head for sullage water at Naraingarh. The Collector vide award dated 30.7.1990, assessed the market value of barani land @ ` 15,400/- 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 @ ` 1,29,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that value of the acquired land, as assessed by the learned court below, is not just and fair. The evidence produced by the land owners in the form of sale deeds (Ex. PA, Ex. PF and Ex. PH) though referred to by the learned court below in the impugned award, has not been given due weightage. The consideration paid therein was ranging from ` 2,08,000/- per acre to ` 2,40,000/- per acre. The area dealt with therein was also not very small as it was 10 marlas in two sale deeds and in the third one, it was one kanal. Even the acquired land was also a small piece of 1.763 acres only. Considering the aforesaid facts, the formula adopted by the learned court below in relying upon the aforesaid sale deeds and applying a cut of 50% thereon was not just and fair. The area dealt with in the sale deeds vis-a-vis the acquired land was not very small. In fact, vide sale deed (Ex. PA) registered on 4.5.1985, 10 marlas of land was sold out of the adjoining khasra number located on the main road itself, where the land in question was situated. The acquired land had the front of one acre and rest of the land was located behind that. Considering the same, the cut of 50% was not called for. As far as acquisition of land vide notification dated 14.10.1986 is concerned, the submission was that whatever compensation is assessed for the land acquired vide notification dated 17.4.1985, increase @ 15% per annum be awarded thereon considering the fact that the land is situated within the municipal limits, though at the boundary thereof. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that value of the land, as has been assessed by the learned court below, is unreasonably high. The State had produced on record sale deeds showing the value of the land in the area @ ` 20,000/- per acre, which is strictly in consonance with the award of the Collector. Barring one sale deed (Ex. PA), which was registered after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the location of land pertaining to other two sale deeds is not known. In fact, for the purpose of averaging, the learned court below was required to add the sale deeds produced by the State as well and R.F.A. No. 1483 of 1992 [3] then apply a cut, which should have been at least 70% to 75%. As far as acquisition vide notification dated 14.10.1986 is concerned, it was submitted that location of the acquired was not on the main road, as was in the case of acquisition vide notification dated 17.4.1985. The increase awarded by the learned court below during the year 1985-86 @ 12% per annum is quite on higher side and it should not have been more than 6% to 8%. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. As far as valuation of the land is concerned, in my opinion, sale deed (Ex. PA) would be the best piece of evidence. It is pertaining to the land located on the main road just adjoining the acquired land. The aforesaid sale deed was registered few days after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The land in question is located on Naraingarh-Kalpi road beyond the municipal boundaries. Though at the time of hearing, it was not pointed out as to how much is the distance from Naraingarh town, however, still considering the fact that it is located outside the municipal boundary, the distance from the city can be considered as 2-3 kilometers. The consideration paid in the aforesaid sale deed was at an average price of ` 2,40,000/- per acre, where a plot of 10 marlas was sold. Considering the aforesaid fact and location of the land, in my opinion, a cut of 50% applied by the learned court below for valuation of the entire chunk of land cannot be said to be on higher/lower side. The contention raised by learned Assistant Advocate General that the sale deeds produced by the State should have been given due weightage deserves to be noticed and rejected for the reason that in site plan (Ex. R5), it has been shown that the land pertaining thereto is located far of from the acquired land and that too not on the road. Accordingly, the same cannot be said to be comparable piece of evidence. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I do not find any illegality has been committed by the learned court below in assessing the value of land @ ` 1,15,000/- per acre acquired vide notification dated 17.4.1985. As far as valuation of the land acquired vide notification dated

14.10.1986 is concerned, the location thereof is not on main Naraingarh-Kalpi road, but it is on one side. The learned court below has awarded increase @ 12% per annum on the value, as assessed for the land acquired vide notification dated

17.4.1985. The contention of learned counsel for the State that increase, if any, to be granted should not be @ 12% per annum, whereas learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the aforesaid land formed part of municipal limits and R.F.A. No. 1483 of 1992 [4] increase thereon should have been awarded @ 15% per annum. In my opinion, award of increase for the time gap in the two notifications @ more than 12% per annum in the absence of any clinching evidence to show that increase in the prices in the area was at fast pace would not be justifiable. As far as contention of learned counsel for the State regarding award of increase at a lesser rate is concerned, the same also deserves to be rejected for two reasons, namely, the land falls within the municipal limits, the acquisition is for a small area of 8 kanals and 6 marlas and further the acquisition was carried out about 24 years back. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeals are dismissed. September ,2010 (Rajesh Bindal) Judge