Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2011

Briefly the facts of the case are that the State of Haryana vide notification dated 9.9.1996 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), sought to acquire land situated within the revenue estate of village Daryapur, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, for construction of Gurgaon-Bahadurgarh Road. The same was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 8.10.1996. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector’) assessed the fair market value of the acquired land @ ` 1,10,000/- per acre for chahi, nehri, gair mumkin chaha land and ` 95,000/- per acre for barani, banjar and gair mumkin kinds of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide impugned award assessed the compensation for the acquired land @ ` 3,02,700/- per acre for chahi, ` 2,22,222/- per acre for nehri and ` 1,75,000/- per acre for barani, barani gair mumkin and gair mumkin kinds of land. Still dissatisfied, the landowners have challenged the award of the learned court below before this court. RFA No. 2113 of 2002 (2) Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the sale- deeds produced on record by the landowners have not been considered. Vide sale-deed, Ex. P-2 dated 25.6.1993, land measuring 4 kanals 12 marlas was sold for a consideration of ` 1,52,000/-. Vide sale-deed, Ex. P-3 dated

29.4.1994, agricultural land measuring 7 kanals 8 marlas was sold for a consideration of ` 2,80,000/-. These sale-deeds are the most appropriate piece of evidence. In case the same are considered, the value of the land as assessed by the learned court below deserves to be enhanced further. The location of the land pertaining to the aforesaid sale-deeds has even been shown on the site plan, Ex. P-5, which was prepared by PW2 Krishan Chand Patwari of the circle. He further submitted that the fact that in the award, the Collector himself had noticed that the value of the land at the time of acquisition was much more than he ultimately awarded, itself falsify the award of the Collector. The learned court below has awarded compensation to the landowners on the basis of the rates as mentioned in the award of the Collector but still there being sale-deeds produced by the landowners on record, they should have been awarded the compensation placing reliance thereupon once those were showing value much more than what was mentioned in the award of the Collector. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that if the sale-deed, Ex. P-1, produced by the landowners on record is considered, the value shown therein for 3 kanals 4 marlas of land is at an average price of ` 1,53,000/- per acre of increase @ 12% per annum is added thereon, the same would have been come out to ` 2,64,450/- per acre. The award of the learned court below is much more than that. He further submitted that evidence produced by the State in the form of sale certificate, Ex. R-1, and sale-deed, Ex. R-2, have not been considered at all which fully justify the award of the Collector. Vide Ex. R-1, land measuring 1 kanal 18 marlas was sold in an auction for a sum of ` 4,800/- in the month of February 1987. Vide sale-deed, Ex. R-2, land measuring 58 kanals 8 marlas was sold for a consideration of ` 7,30,000/- on 17.4.1997. Though rates of land as have been mentioned in the award of the Collector had been picked up by the learned court below for the purpose of award of compensation to the landowners, however, as far as barani kind of land is concerned, the RFA No. 2113 of 2002 (3) same have been wrongly taken and arbitrarily enhanced by the learned court below. Summing up his arguments, he submitted that allegedly the landowners claimed before the learned court below that the possession of the land has been taken way back in the year 1975 whereas notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 9.9.1996. In fact, no material evidence was produced on record by the land owners to justify that the possession of the land was taken earlier. In the absence thereof, the award of interest to the landowners for the period prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act on account of the fact that the possession had allegedly been taken in the year 1975 is patently erroneous and deserves to be set aside. In response to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the landowners submitted that sale instance, Ex. R-1, had been rightly ignored. It is merely a sale certificate pertaining to the land sold in an auction in February 1987, whereas sale-deed, Ex. R-2, was registered on 17.4.1997 i.e. much after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Further the location of the land pertaining thereto, as has been shown in Ex. R-4, is also far off from the acquired land. He further submitted that there is sufficient evidence produced on record by the landowners to show that the possession of the acquired land was taken in the year 1975 as the road had been laid there. Nothing lies in the mouth of the State to contradict the facts which have been produced on record rather the State should have been fair enough to admit that the road had been laid there in the year 1975 and notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued later on. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. As far as the value of the land is concerned, in my opinion, the award of the learned court below does not call for any interference. The land pertaining to sale-deed, Ex. P-2, is located at a far off place from the acquired land and further it is surrounded by roads on two sides as located at a corner. The site plan, Ex. P-5, otherwise also does not show as to on which side of the acquired land the populated area is. But the fact remains that this portion of the land being on road cannot be compared with the acquired land. Similar is the position with regard to the land pertaining to RFA No. 2113 of 2002 (4) sale-deed, Ex. P-3. This portion of land is also located adjoining to the road. As far as evidence led by the State is concerned, none of them can be said to be relevant. Ex. R-1 is the sale certificate issued by the Tehsildar (sales), Rohtak, pertaining to land measuring 1 kanal 18 marlas sold in an auction for a sum of ` 4,800/- in the month of February 1987 under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The aforesaid sale certificate had been issued by the Tehsildar (Sales), Rohtak, in favour of Banwari Lal on the basis of an open auction held on 25.2.1987, much before the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Accordingly, the same is totally irrelevant for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land. As far as Ex. R-2 is concerned, the same also deserves to be ignored for the reason that the land pertaining thereto is located far off from the acquired land. The learned court below has assessed the compensation placing reliance on the award of the Collector himself where in para 6 thereof, he had mentioned the rates of land in terms of the inquires made by him and considering six sale transactions which took place during the last three years period from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Even after recording this fact in the award, the Collector awarded compensation for the acquired land on the basis of rates supplied by the Collector, Rohtak. The compensation for chahi and nehri kinds of land has been assessed strictly in terms of the rates so supplied by the Collector, however, for barani, banjar and gair mumkin kinds of land, the learned court below awarded compensation @ ` 1,75,000/- per acre as against ` 95,000/- per acre recorded in the award. Though learned counsel for the State had sought to argue that the aforesaid amount is more than what has been mentioned in the award of the Collector, even to that extent as well no interference is called for in the impugned award considering the fact that the barani kind of land is less than an acre. Contention raised by learned counsel for the State regarding award of interest to the landowners for the period from 1975 till the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, was that firstly there is no material on record to prove that the possession was taken in the year 1975 and secondly there was no question of award of interest for that period, there being no enabling provisions in the Act. RFA No. 2113 of 2002 (5) The contention of learned counsel for the State to some extent is meritorious. It has been claimed that possession of land was taken in 1975, whereas the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on

9.9.1996. The court below awarded interest @ 12% per annum for the intervening period, whereas there is no specific provision to that effect in the Act. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Karigowda and others, (2010) 5 SCC 708, held that the land owners are entitled for damages from the date of dispossession till the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The relevant part of the said judgment is extracted below: “We are bound by the decision of the larger Bench, in R. L. Jain case, which had considered Satinder Singh, on which the reliance has even been placed by the claimants in the present appeal. The larger Bench after detailed discussion on the subject rejected the claim for payment of interest claimed by the respondents in those cases prior to the date of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. As is evident from the above dictum of the Court, despite dispossession, the title continues to vest in the landowners and it is open for the land owners to take action in accordance with law. Once notification under Section 4(1) of the Act has been issued and the acquisition proceedings culminated into an award in terms of Section 11, then alone the land vests in the State free of any encumbrance or restriction in terms of provisions of Section 16 of the Act. The court, in situations where possessions have been taken prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, can direct the Collector to examine the extent of rent or RFA No. 2113 of 2002 (6) damage that the owners of land would be entitled to, the provisions of Section 48 of the Act would come to aid and the court would also be justified in issuing appropriate direction. This was the unequivocal view expressed by the Court in R. L. Jain case as well. This legal question is no more open to controversy and stands settled by this court. We would follow the view taken and accept the contention of the appellant-State that the reference court as well as the High Court could not have granted any interest under the provisions of the Act, for a date anterior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, following the dictum of the Bench in R. L. Jain case, we direct the Collector to examine the question of payment of rent/damages to the claimants, from the period when their respective lands were submerged under the back water of the river, till the date of issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, from which date, they would be entitled to the statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation.” In view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Karigowda's case (supra), the land owners are entitled for compensation from the date of their dispossession till the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The land owners shall file application before the Collector concerned to claim damages for their dispossession from the land for the aforesaid period. These applications may be filed upto 31.3.2011 and if such applications are filed then the Collector shall consider the same and shall award such amount to the appellants as may be payable in accordance with law. The applications shall be disposed of finally before 30.6.2011, after affording personal hearing to the parties. RFA No. 2113 of 2002 (7) As far as the dispute raised by learned counsel regarding possession having been taken in the year 1975, the parties shall be at liberty to lead evidence. However, the best evidence would be available with the State in case the road had, in fact, been laid there and was in use may be as katcha path. In view of the aforesaid discussion, as far as the value of the land is concerned, the award of the learned court below is upheld whereas for the dispute regarding award of compensation –damages for the period the possession of the land was allegedly taken by the State prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the matter is remitted back to the Collector to be dealt with in terms of the observations made above.

10.1.2011 The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge