Banta Singh & Ors. v. The State of Haryana

Smt. Ranjit Kaur and others ....... Respondents (60) R.F.A. No. 761 of 1997 (O&M) State of Haryana ..... Appellant Versus Mal Singh and others ....... Respondents (61) R.F.A. No. 762 of 1997 (O&M) State of Haryana ..... Appellant Versus Harbans Singh and others ....... Respondents (62) R.F.A. No. 763 of 1997 (O&M) State of Haryana ..... Appellant Versus Smt. Karnail Kaur and others ....... Respondents (63) R.F.A. No. 766 of 1997 (O&M) State of Haryana ..... Appellant Versus Koda Ram and others ....... Respondents R.F.A. No. 233 of 1997 [ 9] (64) R.F.A. No. 767 of 1997 (O&M) State of Haryana ..... Appellant Versus Smt. Ram Piari and another ....... Respondents (65) R.F.A. No. 768 of 1997 (O&M) State of Haryana ..... Appellant Versus Jagnandan Singh and others ....... Respondents (66) R.F.A. No. 802 of 1997 (O&M) State of Haryana ..... Appellant Versus Prithvi Raj and others ....... Respondents (67) R.F.A. No. 803 of 1997 (O&M) State of Haryana ..... Appellant Versus Het Ram and another ....... Respondents (68) R.F.A. No. 847 of 1997 (O&M) State of Haryana ..... Appellant Versus Balwinder Singh and others ....... Respondents (69) R.F.A. No. 849 of 1997 (O&M) State of Haryana ..... Appellant Versus Inderjit ....... Respondent (70) R.F.A. No. 852 of 1997 (O&M) Jagnandan Singh and others ..... Appellants Versus The State of Haryana and others ....... Respondents (71) R.F.A. No. 857 of 1997 (O&M) State of Haryana ..... Appellant Versus Mani Ram and others ....... Respondents R.F.A. No. 233 of 1997 [ 10] (72) R.F.A. No. 889 of 1997 (O&M) State of Haryana ..... Appellant Versus Nihal Singh and others ....... Respondents (73) R.F.A. No. 890 of 1997 (O&M) State of Haryana ..... Appellant Versus Amar Singh and others ....... Respondents (74) R.F.A. No. 923 of 1997 (O&M) State of Haryana ..... Appellant Versus Om Parkash and another ....... Respondents (75) R.F.A. No. 1210 of 1997 (O&M) State of Haryana ..... Appellant Versus Bagan Bai and others ....... Respondents (76) R.F.A. No. 1211 of 1997 (O&M) The State of Haryana ..... Appellant Versus Karam Chand and others ....... Respondents (77) R.F.A. No. 1212 of 1997 (O&M) The State of Haryana ..... Appellant Versus Surinder Pal Singh and others ....... Respondents (78) R.F.A. No. 1217 of 1997 (O&M) The State of Haryana ..... Appellant Versus Desh Raj and others ....... Respondents (79) R.F.A. No. 1218 of 1997 (O&M) State of Haryana ..... Appellant Versus Pehlwan Chand and others ....... Respondents R.F.A. No. 233 of 1997 [ 11] (80) R.F.A. No. 1511 of 1997 (O&M) Karam Chand and others ..... Appellants Versus The State of Haryana ....... Respondent (81) R.F.A. No. 1512 of 1997 (O&M) Pehlwan Chand and others ..... Appellants Versus The State of Haryana ....... Respondent (82) R.F.A. No. 1513 of 1997 (O&M) Surinder Pal Singh and others ..... Appellants Versus The State of Haryana ....... Respondent (83) R.F.A. No. 1666 of 1997 (O&M) Des Raj and others ..... Appellants Versus The State of Haryana ....... Respondent (84) R.F.A. No. 1667 of 1997 (O&M) Bagan Bai and others ..... Appellants Versus The State of Haryana ....... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Gorakh Nath and Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocates for the land owners. Mr. H. S. Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of the bunch of the above mentioned appeals, as common questions of law and facts are involved. In R.F.A. Nos. 233, 269 to 271, 276, 281 to 287, 348 to 353, 355, 362 to 378, 852, 1511 to 1513, 1666 and 1667 of 1997, the land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation on account of acquisition of land. R.F.A. Nos. 735 to 745, 747, 750 to 763, 766 to 768, 802, 803, 847, 849, 857, 889, 890, 923, 1210 to 1212, 1217 and 1218 of 1997 have been filed by R.F.A. No. 233 of 1997 [ 12] the State seeking reduction in the amount of compensation awarded to the land owners for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that State of Haryana acquired 40.89 acres of land, situated in village Burj Bhangu, Tehsil and District Sirsa, vide notification dated 1.2.1993, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for the purpose of construction of Rori Ghaggar Drain from RD 0 to 31500. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 1,10,000/- per acre for Nehri, Chahi and Gair Mumkin kind of land and Rs. 66,000/- per acre for Barani land. The land owners, being not satisfied with the award filed objections, which were referred to the learned court below, who considering the material brought on record by the parties, assessed the compensation at Rs. 1,40,000/- per acre for Nehri, Chahi and Gair Mumkin land and Rs. 84,000/- per acre for Barani kind of land. Vide same notification, the Government of Haryana acquired 21.17 acres of land, situated in village Saharan, Tehsil and District Sirsa for the same purpose. The Collector assessed the market value @ Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre for Nehri and Chahi land. On reference, the learned court below assessed the value @ Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre for Nehri and Chahi kind of land. As far as acquisition of land pertaining to village Saharan is concerned, learned counsels for the land owners raised very brief arguments. They submitted that four sale deeds were produced by the land owners on record, namely, Ex. P1 to Ex. P4, which were registered for big chunks of land measuring 4 kanals 11 marlas to 8 kanals in May, 1992. In three sale deeds (Ex. P1 to Ex. P3), the average price per acre was Rs. 1,50,000/-, whereas in the fourth sale deed (Ex. P4), the same was Rs. 1,44,366/- per acre. Though the learned court below has awarded compensation to the land owners in the present case @ Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre, but it had failed to take judicial notice of the fact that there was a gap of more than 8 months in the dates of sale deeds and the date of acquisition. The land owners were entitled to increase @ 8% on the value shown in the aforesaid sale deeds @ 12% per annum. Learned counsels further submitted that it has been noticed by the learned court below that the land pertaining to the aforesaid sale deeds was situated within the radius of 4-5 killas from the acquired land, meaning thereby the aforesaid sale instances, which pertain to the land of the same village, are relevant piece of evidence. This finding has not been challenged by the State by filing any appeal. R.F.A. No. 233 of 1997 [ 13] Learned counsels for the land owners in the appeals pertaining to village Burj Bhangu submitted that land in the present case was acquired along with the land pertaining to village Saharan. Both are adjoining villages. He further submitted that the land owners were unable to produce any sale deed for the land pertaining to the village for the reason that no sale transaction had been registered in the previous years. This fact has even been noticed by the Collector in his award as referred to in para 16 of the award. Considering the aforesaid fact, the sale instance of the land of the neighbouring village can very well be relied upon, as both are similarly situated. The acquisition is also for the same purpose and location-wise also, there is no difference. Even though the learned court below had recorded such a finding, but still granted less amount of compensation. For Nehri, Chahi and Gair Mumkin kind of land, the land owners in the present set of appeals are also entitled to the same amount of compensation as the land owners for the land pertaining to village Saharan are entitled to and for other kind of land a proportionate increase be granted. On the other hand, learned Advocate General, Haryana submitted that whatever was demanded by the land owners has already been awarded by the learned court below. The evidence on record does not justify any increase, rather, the award of the Collector deserves to be upheld. Considering the acquisition for a big chunk of land, a cut was required to be applied even on the value shown in the sale deeds. The sale deeds produced by the State have not been considered at all. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. In my opinion, the sale deeds produced on record as Ex. P1 to Ex. P4 in the evidence recorded by the court below, which is subject-matter of R.F.A. No. 1512 of 1997, are the relevant piece of evidence, the details of which are as under: ............................................................................................................................................ Sr. No. Area sold Date Total consideration Rate per acre ............................................................................................................................................

1. Ex. P1

2. Ex. P2

3. Ex. P3

4. Ex. P4 8 kanals 6K-7M 4K-11M 7K-2M

14.5.1992 Rs. 1,50,000/- Rs. 1,50,000/-

18.5.1992 Rs. 1,19,062.50 Rs. 1,50,000/-

21.5.1992 Rs. 85,312.50 Rs. 1,50,000/-

22.5.1992 Rs. 1,28,125/- Rs. 1,44,366/- .......................................................................................................................................... A perusal of the aforesaid sale deeds shows that those were registered in May, 1992 for quite a big chunk of land and the rate per acre in three of them was Rs. 1,50,000/-, whereas in the fourth, it was Rs. 1,44,366/- per acre. The finding regarding location of land pertaining to the sale deeds vis-a-vis the R.F.A. No. 233 of 1997 [ 14] acquired land has neither been challenged nor the location of land pertaining to the neighbouring village. The notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 1.2.1993. There was a gap of more than 8 months. For this period, the land owners certainly deserve to be granted some increase. It has been judiciously accepted that increase @ 12% per annum can be granted. The average price of the four sale deeds comes to Rs. 1,48,591/- per acre. If 8% increase is granted for the period of 8 months, the value of the acquired land would come out to Rs. 1,60,478.82 per acre, which is rounded off to Rs. 1,60,000/- per acre. As far as land pertaining to village Burj Bhangu is concerned, even the land owners therein shall also be entitled to same amount of compensation for Nehri, Chahi and Gair Mumkin kind of land, whereas for Barani kind of land, they shall be entitled to Rs. 90,000/- as against Rs. 84,000/- per acre granted by the land owners. The land owners shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available to them under the Act. The appeals filed by the land owners are disposed of in the manner indicated above, whereas the appeals filed by the State are dismissed.

27.4.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) Judge