Mangal Singh & Anr. v. The State of Haryana & Anr.

Mr. M.S. Virk, Advocate for the appellants in RFA Nos.2969, 3908 and 3909 of 1992. Mr. J.S. Thind, Advocate for the appellants in RFA Nos.681 and 841 to 843 of 1993. Ms. Kamalpreet, Advocate for the appellants in RFA Nos.3910 and 2482 of 1993. Mr. D.D. Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) -.-

1. The appeals are at the instance of the land owners seeking for enhancement of compensation for property acquired to an extent of

20.80 acres after notification issued under Section 4 of the Land RFA No.2162 of 1992 -2- Acquisition Act on 22.11.1988. The purpose of acquisition was for construction of a parallel channel right side along with northern Ghaggar Canal from R.D. No.2700 to R.D. No.9500 taking off at Ottu Lake. The Land Acquisition Collector had through his award passed on 02.01.1990 provided for ` 55,000/- per acre as the compensation while by a Section 18 reference to the Additional District Judge, Sirsa, the compensation was retained as the same and rejected the reference for enhancement by its order dated 01.05.1992.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the land owners have placed on record before the Reference Court two documents of sale under Ex.P7 and P8 executed on the same date, one for an extent of 1 marla for ` 25,000/- and another for 4 ½ marlas of land for ` 30,000/-. The land owners also relied on Ex.P2 and P-3, which are the awards passed by the Reference Court through two different notifications made in the year 1988 and 1990 acquired for the purpose of installing 132 KV Power House by the Electricity Board. The counsel states that Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 could not have been discarded by a mere reference to the fact that they were post notification without minding the important issue that it was in respect of a transaction immediately following the notification issued under Section 4 and it provides the best evidence. Ex.P7 for an extent of 1 marla would show the value of the property to be in the range of ` 40 lacs per acre and Ex.P8 would show the value of the property at ` 12,00,000/-. The counsel would urge that although the said properties were small pieces of land, there is no ground for rejecting them wholesale but appropriate deductions could have been made. The learned counsel would also contend that at any RFA No.2162 of 1992 -3- rate the value of the property could not have been anything less than ` 2 lacs which incidentally were the amounts awarded as compensation for the acquisitions made for establishing the KV Power House for the benefit of the Electricity Board. The said acquisitions were also with reference to notifications issued in the year 1988 and 1990 respectively in respect of the very small village and as a matter of fact the property, which was covered under Ex.P2 was with reference to an item of property which fell in hadbast No.137, which incidentally was also the property which is acquired in the instant notification.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State would contend that Ex.P7 and P8 could not have been the basis for determination of compensation not merely by virtue of the fact that these were post-notification sales but they were also with reference to very small extents of property, which showed a clear user of the property for non-agricultural purpose. A post-notification sale is invariably relied on more as Hobson's choice in a situation where no other evidence was available and a certain amount of deduction made on a roll back basis to the period of notification. I have no reason to take this document, for a post-notification sale may not at all times reflect the correct market price and it is not possible to really gather the intention of parties for bringing about a sale. It is not unknown that the transactions are made for benefit of securing better compensation and it shall be a risky proposition to rely on the same if there are other documents which are available.

4. Ex.P2 and P3 being the judgments passed in relation to properties acquired from the same village would not obtain relevance if RFA No.2162 of 1992 -4- the value and location of the property which was acquired through the respective notifications also had a bearing and relevance to the property acquired in the instant notification. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State would contend that the purpose of acquisition for Ex.P2 and P3 was for establishing a power house and the properties were in the immediate proximity to the abadi and it will be possible to take compensation determining the said compensation as appropriate exemplars for determining the compensation in the instant acquisition since the property which was acquired was to an extent of 20.80 acres was fairly a long stretch of land along the village for a canal. The acquisition of the property itself was for an agricultural purpose to aid and improve the agricultural output and the valuation for such property acquired cannot be same as the valuation for a property which is acquired in the immediate vicinity of the abadi for relatively smaller extents for a non-agricultural purpose.

5. The purpose of acquisition itself may not at all times be relevant in terms of Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Supreme Court itself cautioned that reference to the purpose of notification ought not to be stretched in the decision in Subh Ram Vs. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 444. The purpose, however, becomes relevant if we examine it from the context of a development making provision for deduction of development charges. The issue then would be whether the property acquired through yet another notification was in respect of similar quality and value of land. It can also be a matter of inference that a power house which is set up to serve the consumers for domestic and industrial purposes is located in the town itself and they RFA No.2162 of 1992 -5- are seldom established in any far away agricultural land. A canal literally cuts across the various agricultural fields and in this case, the canal starts from the place near the abadi to the farther end till the next village. It goes alongside yet another canal and also in some way proximate to a road that runs all along but the predominant location of the property is all along agricultural land and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the land owners would contend that the abadi itself proliferated till the field No.244 and went as far as field No.152 on the other end and it must be taken that the property had immense potential for user for non-agricultural purposes also.

6. I find the quality of evidence offered by the land owners to be grossly lacking but still I will not find that the decision of the Reference Court could be supported by mere reference to Ex.R2 which was placed by the Government. There was a transaction of sale of 7 kanals 7 marlas of land for ` 49,000/- which was shown to be about 1000 hundred feet from the acquired land. Ex.R2 probably shows one end of the spectrum relating to how the prices ruled over a period of time at the time of acquisition and if in the same village for a non-agriculture purpose in location to a property for establishing a power house, the compensation could be ` 2 lacs, I would take the value for an agricultural purpose to be half of that value and would take the value of the property that could be properly assessed at ` 1 lac per acre. There results a certain proximation but it is inevitable in all cases where the best of evidence is not brought and hence, some amount of guess work would require to be done. I would, therefore, hold that the rejection of the reference itself for an enhancement was not proper. The value of RFA No.2162 of 1992 -6- the property would require to be enhanced from ` 55,000/- to ` 1 lac per acre.

7. The awards passed by the Reference Court would require to be modified and the compensation is enhanced to ` 1 lac per acre with statutory benefits. All the appeals filed by the land owners are allowed to the above extent. September 26 , 2012 Pankaj* (K. KANNAN) JUDGE