Gulab Singh v. State of Haryana & Anr.

annum for the first year from the date of the award on the enhanced amount of compensation and at the rate of 15% per annum for subsequent period till the date of realisation of amount, in the light of the amended provisions of Section 28 of the Act. Still feeling dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the appellants have filed the present Regular First Appeals seeking further enhancement of the compensation as assessed by the Addl.District Judge, Panipat. Learned counsel for the appellants would mainly contend that while assessing the rate of land acquired to be Rs.81/- per square yard, the main reliance has been placed on the rate as assessed by the court in earlier acquisition in the vicinity of the area of the land acquired. It is pointed out that the area in the same village, i.e., Taraf Afgan was acquired through notification dated

15.12.1982, where the compensation as assessed by the Addl.District Judge, Panipat was determined as Rs.44/- per square yard, which has been taken as a base. 12% per year increase has been granted on this rate and thus rate as determined in the present acquisition has been assessed at Rs.81/- per square yard. The prayer made is very simple and straight-forward. The counsel would point out that sum of Rs.44/- per square yard, as assessed by Addl.District Judge, Panipat pursuant to the notification issued on R.F.A.No.19 of 1995 : 5 :

15.12.1982, was challenged before this court through Regular First Appeal and the court had enhanced the said compensation to Rs.72/- per square yard. The judgment of the learned Single Judge in this regard titled Rabinder Nath Kataiya and another Vs. Haryana State Through Collector, Karnal, (1996-1) Punjab Law Reporter 648 is so referred. Against the said decision of the Single Judge of this court, a Letters Patent Appeal was also filed and the rate of land acquired pursuant to the said notification dated 15.12.1982 was further enhanced to Rs.80/- per squire yard. This judgment is reported as Jogi Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, (1997-2) Punjab Law Reporter 303. It is accordingly prayed that the base which was taken as Rs.44/- per square yard while assessing the market value of the land now acquired is required to be taken as Rs.80/- per square yard and thereafter increase at the rate of 12% per year from the date of notification, i.e., 15.12.1982 should be assessed to arrive at the proper rate of compensation. The grievance is also made in regard to the action of the court in awarding additional compensation of 6% per annum from the date when the land remained under threat of acquisition from the earlier notification issued on 30.8.1977 to 14.12.1982. Plea is that the damage under Section 48 of the Act for this should also be assessed at the rate of 12% per annum and there is no justification for awarding additional compensation of 6% per annum for this period. In addition, it is also submitted that additional sum at the rate of 12% per annum should further be awarded from the year 1982 to year 1989 as an interest for the loss suffered by the appellants. R.F.A.No.19 of 1995 : 6 : Mr.H.S.Hooda, Learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Haryana would seriously contest the right of the appellants to claim interest in addition to the other claims made by them. He would say with justification that the appellants cannot have the advantage of having enhanced rate vis-a-vis earlier acquisition and still ask for interest on the ground that the land had been kept under threat of acquisition. The learned Advocate General had also disputed the claim made by the appellants seeking 12% interest in addition to the compensation from 1977 to 1982 by invoking the provisions of Section 48 of the Act. He would say that the 6% per annum awarded as additional amount would suffice in this regard. The learned Advocate General would also submit that the compensation as assessed by Addl.District Judge, Panipat is fair and reasonable and would not call for any enhancement. I have considered the rival submissions made before me by the learned counsel representing the respective appellants and the State. It is not disputed before me that market value of the land in this case has been assessed on the basis of the earlier award announced as the land situated is almost similar in these two revenue estates. It is also noticed that most of the land, now acquired through this notification, was originally notified for acquisition under Section 4 on 30.8.1977 and in this case the compensation was assessed Rs.39/- per square yard by the High Court. The land situated in the revenue estate of Taraf Afgan was assessed at Rs.42/- per square yard as on 30.8.1977. It is R.F.A.No.19 of 1995 : 7 : accordingly pleaded before the Addl.District Judge to determine the market value of the land so acquired pursuant to the present notification dated 23.10.1989 by allowing 12% over the market value so assessed. For this purpose, reference was also made to number of judgments before the court. This fact is not seriously disputed that the appellants should be entitled to increase of 12% per annum on the market value as determined by earlier judicial pronouncements with respect to the land which was sought to be acquired or was acquired through the same notification. It can, thus, be said that the land presently acquired is comparable to the land which was earlier acquired through notifications and the rate of which was assessed at Rs.42/- per square yard as on 30.8.1977 or Rs.44/- as determined with respect to notification dated 15.12.1982. Having so stated, the Addl.District Judge took Rs.44/- per square yard as the base price. This was the price determined in respect of notification dated

15.12.1982. Thereafter, an increase of 12% per annum was allowed for a period of seven years and accordingly the price of the land acquired was assessed at Rs.81/- per square yard. The counsel for the appellants would now only want this enhanced price of the land acquired through notification dated 15.12.1982 at the rate of Rs.80/- per square yard to be taken as a base on the date of notification dated 15.12.1982 and for assessment of the market price of the land by giving increase of 12% per annum over this price as determined. There is good and valid justification in the plea made by the counsel for the appellants. The approach adopted by the Addl.District Judge, Panipat to take the price of Rs.44/- per square yard, which was price R.F.A.No.19 of 1995 : 8 : determined of the land acquired through notification dated

15.12.1982, is a fair one and the appellants now want this court to take the enhanced price of the land acquired through this notification into consideration while assessing the value of the land acquired through the present notification dated 23.10.1989. This plea made by the counsel for the appellants is well founded and merit acceptance. It is not disputed before me that the land, which is situated in the same revenue estates and acquired through notification dated

15.12.1982, was assessed at the rate of Rs.80/- per square yard, besides the entitlement of grant of all statutory benefits of the amended provisions of Sections 23(1-A) 23(2) and 28 of the Act as per Jogi Ram's case (supra). It would, thus, be fair to take this as the base price for determining the market price of the land acquired through the present notification. Taking this as the base price as on

15.12.1982, the market price of the land acquired would work out to be Rs.147.20 by giving increase of 12% per annum on Rs.80/- which was the price assessed of the land in terms of notification dated

15.12.1982. This will stand rounded off to Rs.147/- per square yard. I also see justification in the submission made by the counsel for the appellants that they are entitled to the damage at the rate of 12% per annum from the year 1977 to 1982 as the present land remained under threat of acquisition through a notification, but was not subsequently acquired till the year 1989. The Addl.District Judge, Panipat has allowed additional compensation at the rate of 6% per annum for this period. The counsel for the appellants would draw my attention to the ratio of law laid down in Smt.Bharpai Vs. State of R.F.A.No.19 of 1995 : 9 : Haryana, (1999-2) Punjab Law Reporter 721 to say that a compensation at the rate of 12% under Section 48 instead of 6% was allowed by this court under similar circumstances. The relevant observations of this court in this regard are as under:- “I am unable to reconcile myself with the view taken by the learned Additional District in awarding 6% compensation in face of compensation of 12% as stipulated under the Act. The learned Additional District (Judge) ought to have applied the principle as such stipulated in the statute itself. There is no dispute before me that notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued between 30th August, 1977 and 14th December, 1982. Section 23(1-A) was inserted by an amendment Act 68 of

1984. In other words the statute stood amended much prior to the pronouncement of the judgment and even adjudication of right of the parties by the learned Additional District Judge. Thus, I have no hesitation in holding that in addition to the relief granted by the Letters Patent Appeal in regard to the enhancement of compensation payable for the acquired land, the present appellants-applicants would also be entitled to compensation at the rate of 12% under Section 48 read with Section 23(1-A) of the Act, instead of 6%, as allowed by the Ld.Judge in the impugned judgment.” The appellants,thus, have made out a case for grant of R.F.A.No.19 of 1995 : 10 : compensation at the rate of 12% under Section 48 read with Section 23(1-A) of the Act, instead of 6% as allowed by Addl.District Judge. It would be pertinent to notice that Smt.Bharpai's case (supra) is concerning the same area acquired through earlier notifications. However, I am not impressed with the submission made by the counsel for the appellants that they would be entitled to an additional sum at the rate of Rs.12% as interest from the year 1982 to 1989. While assessing the value of the land acquired, the rate as determined in the year 1982 and awarded in respect of similarly situated land has been taken as a base. The rate as assessed in the year 1989 has been arrived at by giving increase of 12% per annum over this rate. The appellants would get double benefit in case interest is awarded to them. No case for award under this head, as such, is made out and the prayer made in this regard is declined. In the result, the appeals filed by the appellants are allowed to the extent that they are held entitled to compensation of their acquired land at the rate of Rs.147/- per square yard. They are further held entitled to grant of all statutory benefits of the amended provisions under Section 23(1-A) 23(2) and 28 of the Act. In addition, the appellants are also held entitled to additional compensation of 12% per annum from 30.8.1977 to 14.12.1982. The appeals filed by the State would stand dismissed. July 24, 2008 ramesh ( RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE R.F.A.No.19 of 1995 : 11 :