Hans Raj v. State of Haryana

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Mahavir Sandhu, Mr. Ranjit Saini, Mr. S. S. Dinarpur, Mr. Ashok Khubbar, Advocates for the land owners. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 2386, 2511, 2771 to 2792, 3352, 3355, 3359 to 3379, 3443, 3694, 4026, 4110, 4682, 4821 of 1998; R.F.A. Nos. 2669, 2670, 2690, 2691 and 3205 of 1999; R.F.A. Nos. 252, 267, 268 of 2000; R.F.A. No. 865 of 2004; R.F.A. No. 2904 of 2008 and Cross Objections No. 22-CI of 1999 as common questions of law and facts are involved. In the appeals filed by the land owners, they are seeking further enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned court below for the acquired land, whereas in the appeals filed by the State, the prayer is for reduction thereof. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated

15.8.1995, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), land, situated in village Arrianwala, Chhachhrauli, Kalesar, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar was acquired by the State of Haryana for construction of Hathni Kund Barrage on Jagadhri-Ponta road. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of Barani land @ ` 35,000/- per acre and Gair Mumkin land @ ` 8,750/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On R.F.A. No. 2386 of 1998 [2] reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 1,05,400/- per acre. It is this award which is impugned by both the parties before this court. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the court below has not considered the evidence produced by them on record in its totality.

Merely one sale deed (Ex. P5) has been considered, whereas there were other sale deeds showing that the value of the land in the area at the time of acquisition was much more. The land was located on Yamuna Nagar-Ponta Sahib road, which is a State Highway. It is close to Tajewala, which is a famous tourist place. It had great future potential as with the increase of tourists in the area, the commercial activities also progressed with construction of hotels/motels and other facilities for them. On a query by the court as to whether there is any site plan on record showing the location of the land pertaining to the sale deeds sought to be relied upon by them, the answer was in negative. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that in the absence of a site plan on record, the sale deeds produced by the land owners cannot be considered. The land dealt with in the sale deeds being small portions must be located in some abadi area or close to that area on main road.

These cannot possibly be made basis for assessment of compensation for a large chunk of land. Even if sale deed (Ex. P5) is to be relied upon, a reasonable cut should be applied considering that it was for one acre of land, whereas the acquired land was a big chunk. Reliance was placed on judgment of this court in R.F.A. No. 161 of 1999—State of Haryana v. Puran Singh, decided on 23.8.2010. He further submitted that the sale deeds produced by the State were ignored merely on the ground that vendors and vendees were not produced, whereas certified copies of the sale deeds are admissible as such in evidence. However, on a query by the court as to whether the land pertaining to the sale deeds produced by the State has been pointed out on any site plan produced by the State on record, the answer was in negative. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. As far as reliance on the judgment of this court in Puran Singh's case (supra) on the issue regarding application of cut is concerned, the same is distinguishable on facts.

In that case, the sale deed was pertaining to the land which was registered four months after the acquisition. The land forming part thereof was located on the road, whereas the acquired land had not been pointed out on any site plan. Applying a thumb rule, this court directed for application for R.F.A. No. 2386 of 1998 [3] 1/3rd as cut. Even otherwise, the land in that case had been acquired way back in the year 1984 and the award of the learned court below was upheld while observing that even if there was some marginal difference, considering the fact that the land had been acquired 26 years back, this court would not like to interfere with the award of the learned court below. As far as the evidence led in the present case is concerned, sale deed (Ex. P1) was produced whereby two kanals of land was sold for ` 28,500/- at an average price of ` 1,50,000/- per acre. Even in the oral evidence of PW1-Singh Ram and PW2-Banu Ram, it had come that value of the acquired land at the time of acquisition was about ` 1,50,000/- per acre.