Santokh Singh v. The State of Punjab & Anr.

Shri Ram Singh Versus State of Punjab and another 14) R.F.A. No.1776 of 2000 (O&M) Shri Ram Singh Versus State of Punjab and another 15) R.F.A. No.1777 of 2000 (O&M) Shri Ram Singh Versus State of Punjab and another 16) R.F.A. No.1778 of 2000 (O&M) Preetu Versus State of Punjab and another 17) R.F.A. No.2146 of 2000 (O&M) .... Appellant ... Respondents .... Appellant ... Respondents .... Appellant ... Respondents .... Appellant ... Respondents Nirmal Kaur and others .... Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and another ... Respondents R.F.A. No. 1243 of 2000 [3] 18) R.F.A. No.2147 of 2000 (O&M) Ram Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another 19) R.F.A. No.2148 of 2000 (O&M) Sucha Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another 20) R.F.A. No.2149 of 2000 (O&M) Bakhshish Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another 21) R.F.A. No.2219 of 2000 (O&M) Bakhshish Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another 22) R.F.A. No.2280 of 2000 (O&M) Swinder Singh and another Versus State of Punjab and another 23) R.F.A. No.2428 of 2000 (O&M) .... Appellants ... Respondents .... Appellants ... Respondents .... Appellants ... Respondents .... Appellants ... Respondents .... Appellants ... Respondents Gurbachan Singh .... Appellant Versus The State of Punjab and another ... Respondents 24) R.F.A. No.1940 of 2001 (O&M) Satwinder Singh Versus State of Punjab and another .... Appellant ... Respondents 25) R.F.A. No.1941 of 2001 (O&M) Tarsem Singh .... Appellant Versus The State of Punjab and another ... Respondents 26) R.F.A. No.1942 of 2001 (O&M) Darshan Singh and others .... Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and another ... Respondents R.F.A. No. 1243 of 2000 [4] 27) R.F.A. No.1943 of 2001 (O&M) Darshan Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another .... Appellants ... Respondents 28) R.F.A. No.1948 of 2001 (O&M) Sohan Singh .... Appellant Versus The State of Punjab and another ... Respondents 29) R.F.A. No.1949 of 2001 (O&M) Avtar Singh Versus State of Punjab and another 30) R.F.A. No.1950 of 2001 (O&M) Sucha Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another 31) R.F.A. No.1846 of 2002 (O&M) .... Appellant ... Respondents .... Appellants ... Respondents Baldev Singh and others .... Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and another ... Respondents 32) R.F.A. No.1847 of 2002 (O&M) Rulia Ram and others .... Appellants Versus The State of Punjab and another ... Respondents 33) R.F.A. No.1848 of 2002 (O&M) Bakhshish Singh and others Versus The State of Punjab and another .... Appellants ... Respondents 34) R.F.A. No.2130 of 2002 (O&M) Bakhshish Singh (deceased) through L.R. .... Appellant Versus The State of Punjab and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. G. S. Jaswal, Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sunil Garg andMr. N. S. Rapri, Advocates for the land owners. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. R.F.A. No. 1243 of 2000 [5] Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of above mentioned 38 appeals, as common questions of law and facts are involved. The land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned court below for the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 1243 of 2000. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated

28.2.1991, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), land situated in villages Randhawa, Nussa, Ajmer and Berchha was acquired for the purpose of setting up Sugar Mill. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), vide award dated 5.3.1991, assessed the market value of the acquired land as under: “Village Kind of land Rate awarded ........................................................................................................................... Randhawa Chahi, Bagicha Chahi ` 40,315/- Barani, G.M. Abadi and G.M. Rasta ` 23,045/- Nussa Ajmer Jhungi Darakhtan Barani & G. M. Rasta Chahi Barani & G. M. Rasta ` 20,094/- ` 23,045/- ` 40,315/- ` 23,045/- Banjar Jadid and Jhungi Drakhtan ` 20,094/- Berchha Chahi Barani & G. M. Rasta ` 40,315/- ` 23,045/- 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 as under: “Village Kind of land Rate awarded ........................................................................................................................... Randhawa Chahi, Bagicha Chahi Barani, G.M. Abadi and G.M. Rasta Nussa Ajmer Jhungi Darakhtan Barani & G. M. Rasta Chahi Barani & G. M. Rasta ` 48,380/- ` 27,665/- ` 24,125/- ` 27,665/- ` 48,380/- ` 27,665/- Banjar Jadid and Jhungi Drakhtan ` 24,125/- Berchha Chahi ` 48,380/- R.F.A. No. 1243 of 2000 [6] Barani & G. M. Rasta ` 27,665/- Learned counsel for the land owners primarily relied upon two sale deeds (Ex. A10 and Ex. A15) and award of the learned court below (Ex. A23), pertaining to the land of village Terkiana. Relying upon the aforesaid evidence, out of number of sale deeds and other documents produced on record, the submission was that the land was strategically located connected with two roads, one of them being highway leading from Hoshiarpur to Pathankot. It was quite close to the municipal boundary of Dasuya. It had great future potential, as the area in the vicinity had already been developed or was fast developing. Number of industrial units had been set up close to the acquired land, besides the existence of commercial establishments and the residential area. A Fruit Research Centre of Punjab Agriculture University was at a distance of about one kilometer from the acquired land. It had great potential for being used as residential and commercial purposes. Referring to sale deed (Ex. A10), it was submitted that the land pertaining thereto was quite close to the acquired land and the area dealt with therein was one kanal and 1/2 marla. The aforesaid sale deed was registered on

19.6.1990, much prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. It pertains to land of village Ajmer only. The average value per acre comes out to ` 82,000/-. As far as sale deed (Ex. A15) is concerned, it was submitted that area of 8 kanals and 14 marlas in village Randhawa was dealt with therein for a total consideration of ` 50,500/-, i.e., ` 48,000/- per acre and the aforesaid sale deed was registered on 19.9.1989. Part of the acquired land pertained to village Randhawa as well. Regarding judgment (Ex. A23), it was submitted that for the land pertaining to village Terkiana, the value was assessed by the learned court below @ ` 74,400/- per acre. This portion of land is located four kilometers away from the city on the other side, i..e, the acquired land is situated on one side of the city, whereas the land of village Terkiana is situated on the other side. This portion of land is even inferior in quality and also the location, considering the fact that it is not located on any main road. The submission is that even if the aforesaid factors are ignored, the land owners are at least entitled to same amount of compensation for the acquired land. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the land owners have been adequately compensated for the acquired land. There is no material on record to justify any further increase, as is sought to be claimed by the land owners. The value of land cannot be determined merely on conjectures and surmises and while presuming certain facts. The land owners are required to prove R.F.A. No. 1243 of 2000 [7] on record and make out a case to show that assessment of the value of land by the Collector was not just and fair. The onus thereof is on the land owners. The area dealt with in sale deed (Ex. A10) is quite small, whereas the land pertaining to sale deed (Ex. A15) is located on other side of the road and close to the abadi of village Randhawa, as is evident from site plan (Ex. P4). Reliance on award (Ex. A23) is also totally misplaced, considering the fact that it pertains to a different village, which admittedly is situated almost 7 kilometers away from the acquired land and on the other side of Dasuya town in the opposite direction. He further submitted that quality of the land in the area was sandy. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. What can be opined from the material on record is that the land owners in the present case have failed to lead clinching evidence which could enable the Court to reach a conclusion that fair value of the acquired land was in terms of the claim made by them. Though they had produced various sale deeds on record, which in my opinion, is not enough as the onus to prove that the compensation as assessed by the Collector was not adequate is always on the land owners, who is in the position of a plaintiff. Reference for the purpose can be made to Para 28 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangunthala (Dead) through LRs. Vs. Special Tehsildar (L.A.) and Ors. 2010(2) Recent Apex Judgments 286. “28. It is settled that the burden of establishing/proving the market value of the lands is always on the claimants. In Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 1991(1) R.R.R. 427 : AIR 1990 SC 2192, this Court held that it is the duty of the Court to determine just and fair market value. It was further held that the claimants should produce necessary evidence on the value of land since the burden of proof is on them to establish the higher compensation claimed. While agreeing with the judgment in Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd (Supra), this Court in the case of Special Deputy Collector & Another v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao & Others, (1997) 6 SCC 41, held that in a claim for enhancement of compensation the burden of proof was on the claimants that land was capable of fetching higher compensation. Further in the case of Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad Development Authority and another, 2004(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 3 : (2004) 10 R.F.A. No. 1243 of 2000 [8] SCC 745, it was held that the burden of proving that the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector is inadequate lies upon the claimant and he is in the position of a plaintiff.” In case titled as Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (D) By LRs. Vs. State of Gujarat, 2005(2) RCR (Civil) 492, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down certain broad principles for determination of compensation for the acquired land. Relevant paras are reproduced hereunder:-

17.Section 23 of the Act specifies the matters required to be considered in determining the compensation; the principal among which is the determination of the market value of the land on the date of the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4.

18.One of the principles for determination of the amount of compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefor. It is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a willing and informed buyer would offer would be different in the cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the cases where he is not.

19.Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase. Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences have to be considered.

20.The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-a-vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. The positive and negative facts are as under :- R.F.A. No. 1243 of 2000 [9] _______________________________________________________ Positive facts Negative factors _______________________________________________________ (i) smallness of size (i) largeness of area (ii) proximity to a road (iii) frontage on a road (ii) situation in the interior at a distance from the (iii) narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth (iv) nearness to developed (iv) lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up (v) regular shape (vi) level vis-a-vis land under under acquisition (v) remoteness from developed locality (vi) some special disadvantageous factors which would deter a purchaser (vii)special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage. ____________________________________________________

21. Whereas a smaller plot may be within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed preparing a layout plan, carving out roads, leaving open spaces, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers and the hazards of an entrepreneur. Such development charges may range between 20% and 50% of the total price.” In case titled as Haridwar Development Authority, Haridwar Versus Raghubir Singh etc., 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 301, the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined as under:- “6. The question whether the acquired lands have to be valued uniformly at the same rate, or whether different areas in the acquired lands have to be valued at different rates, depends upon the extent of the land acquired, the location, proximity to an access road/Main Road/Highway or to a City/Town/Village, and other relevant R.F.A. No. 1243 of 2000 [10] circumstances. We may illustrate: (A) When a small and compact extent of land is acquired the entire area is similarly situated, it will be appropriate to value the acquired land at a single uniform rate. (B) If a large tract of land is acquired with some lands facing a main road or a national highway and other lands being in the interior, the normal procedure is to value the lands adjacent to the main road at a higher rate and the interior lands which do not have road access, at a lesser rate. (C) Where a very large tract of land on the outskirts of a town is acquired one end of the acquired lands adjoining the town boundary, the other end being two to three kilometers away, obviously, the rake that is adopted for the land nearest to the town cannot be adopted for the land which is farther away from the town. In such a situation, what is known as a belting method is adopted and the belt or strip adjacent to the town boundary will be given the highest price, the remotest belt with be awarded the lowest rate, the belts/strips of lands falling in between, will be awarded gradually reducing rates from the highest to the lowest. (D)Where a very large tract of land with a radius of one to two kilometres is acquired, but the entire land acquired is far away from any town or city limits, without any special Main road access, then it is logical to award the entire land, one uniform rate. The fact that the distance between one point to another point in the acquired lands, may be as much as two to three kilometres may not make any difference.” In case titled as Thakur Kuldeep Singh (D) Thr. L.R. & Ors. Versus Union of India and Ors., 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 372, the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined as under:- “6. Sections 23 and 24 of the Act speak about the matters to be considered and to be neglected in determining compensation. Let us consider whether the appellants are entitled to higher compensation than that of the one fixed by the High Court or Union of India is justified in seeking reduction of the market value/compensation for the acquired R.F.A. No. 1243 of 2000 [11] land. While fixing compensation, it is the duty of the Land Acquisition Collector as well as the Court to take into consideration the nature of the land, its suitability, nature of the use to which the lands are sought to be acquired on the date of notification, income derived or derivable from or any other special distinctive feature which the land is possessed of, the sale transactions in respect of land covered by the same notification are all relevant factors to be taken into consideration in determining the market value. It is equally to consider the suitability of neighbourhood lands as are possessed of similar potentiality or any advantageous features or any special characteristics available. The Land Acquisition Collector as well as the Court should always keep in their mind that the object of assessment is to arrive at a reasonable and adequate market value of the land. While doing so, imagination should be eschewed and mechanical assessment of evidence should be avoided. More attention should be on the bona fide and genuine sale transactions as guiding star in evaluating the evidence. The relevant factor would be that of the hypothetical willing vendor would offer for the land and what a willing purchaser of normal human conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market conditions prevailing in the open market in the locality in which the acquired lands are situated as on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. In other words, the Judge who sits in the armchair of the willing buyer and seek an answer to the question whether in the given set of circumstances as a prudent buyer he would offer the same market value which the court proposed to fix for the acquired lands in the available market conditions. The market value so determined should be just, adequate and reasonable.” Now the evidence led by the parties is required to be dealt with in view of pronunciation of law as above. As far as reliance on award (Ex. A23) pertaining to the land of village Terkiana is concerned, I do not find any reason to place reliance thereupon for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land in the present case. Admittedly, this portion of land is situated 7 kilometers away from the acquired R.F.A. No. 1243 of 2000 [12] land, on the other side of the city. Without there being any material on record to show that both the chunks of land were comparative in quality and location, it would not be safe to place reliance thereupon. On the face of it, it is a land pertaining to a different village located far off from the acquired land. As far as sale deeds (Ex. A10 and Ex. A15) are concerned, in my opinion, the same cannot be considered to be relevant even though these pertain to the village, the land of which has been acquired. Vide sale deed (Ex. A10) pertaining to the land of village Ajmer, a small plot measuring one kanal and ½ marla was sold at an average price of ` 82,000/- per acre. The location of this portion is a bit preferential, besides it being a small piece of land. Similarly, the land pertaining to sale deed (Ex. A15) is located close to the abadi of village Randhawa. The learned court below has already granted reasonable increase to the land owners while determining the value of Chahi kind of land @ ` 48,380/- per acre as against ` 40,315/- per acre, as assessed by the Collector. If the consideration paid in sale deed (Ex. A10), which was for Chahi kind of land is considered and a reasonable cut is applied thereon, it cannot be said that value of the land, as assessed by the learned court below, is on lower side. Similar remains the position with regard to other quality of land. The Collector was already quite reasonable while awarding 20% and 15% extra compensation for the land situated upto 40 karams on Dasuya-Hoshiarpur and Randhawa Bodal link road, respectively. I do not find any merit in the contention raised by learned counsel for the land owners to the effect that the entire land having potential for being used for industrial and commercial purposes should be assessed at the same rate, as in such a situation, the quality of land for commercial purposes looses its significance. It is for the reason that sufficient material is not on record to justify that there was any such kind of pressure of urbanisation on this portion of the land. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present set of appeals. Accordingly, the same are dismissed. July 23,2010 (Rajesh Bindal) Judge