Ram Nath v. Haryana State & Ors.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 4.1.1990, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana acquired 63.6 acres of land in the revenue estate of village Qutabpur and 68.70 acres in the revenue estate of village Ramaan, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar for construction of 800/400/220 KV Hydro-Electric Power Sub Station at Hisar. The same was followed by notification dated 8.1.1990, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the R.F.A. No. 3321 of 2002 [2] Collector') vide two separate awards dated 19.4.1990 and 20.4.1990, awarded compensation @ ` 1,00,000/- per acre for Block A (adjacent to metalled road); ` 90,000/- per acre for Block B (on back of Block A) and ` 75,000/- per acre for Block C (on the rear side). 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 @ ` 1,00,000/- per acre. The land owners as well as the Power Grid Corporation of India (for short, `the Corporation') preferred appeals against the award of the learned court below. This Court in R.F.A. No. 1074 of 1993 –Power Grid Corporation of India v. Raghunath and others, decided on 10.2.2000 remanded the matters back with a direction to the learned court below for fresh determination of market value of the acquired land after affording appropriate opportunity to the Corporation for adducing evidence in accordance with law. On remand, the learned court below has assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 1,00,000/- per acre for the land falling within 500 feet from the National Highway and ` 95,000/- per acre for rest of the land. It is against this award, the land owners are in appeal before this Court. Learned counsel for the land owners raised two issues, namely, that the learned court below had gone wrong in discarding the sale deed (Ex. PW2/A). The land pertaining thereto was part of the acquired land. It was registered way back on 30.12.1985, whereby a big chunk of land measuring 35 kanals and 4 marlas was sold @ ` 1,35,000/- per acre. Though genuineness thereof could not possibly be doubted, but because of minor discrepancies in the oral evidence, the learned court below discarded the same. This being the best piece of evidence should have been relied upon for determination of fair value of the acquired land. Considering the fact that the sale deed was registered more than 4 years prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the land owners were even entitled to increase thereon @ 12% per annum. All the sale deeds produced by the State were not relevant for the reason that those were below the award of the Collector. He further submitted that even though there may be some minor discrepancies in the oral evidence of the vendor while appearing as PW-29, the vendee had categorically stated that the entire sale consideration money therein was paid, partly in cash before the sale deed was registered and partly before the Sub Registrar. He further submitted that there was no motive to have mentioned inflated price in the sale deed considering the fact that the land was acquired four years thereafter and that too by invoking emergency provisions. Even the other R.F.A. No. 3321 of 2002 [3] sale deeds produced by the land owners on record clearly established the prices in the area. It was further submitted that the learned court below had further gone wrong in awarding compensation by applying the belting method, whereby the land upto the depth of 500 feet from National Highway No. 10 has been assessed @ ` 1,00,000/- per acre, whereas rest of the land has been assessed @ ` 95,000/- per acre. Reliance for the purpose was placed upon Lila Ghosh (Smt.) (Dead) through LR Tapas Chandra Roy v. State of W.B., (2004) 9 SCC 337. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that sale deed (Ex. PW2/A), relied upon by the land owners, has rightly been rejected by the learned court below considering the discrepancies in the oral evidence of the vendor. It was further submitted that even in the sale deed (Ex. PW3/A) registered on 19.3.1987, the average price was merely ` 1,18,518/- per acre, though it was merely a small plot of one kanal and seven marlas. Similar is the position with regard to sale deed (Ex. PW6/A) registered on 20.12.1990, whereby one acre of land was sold for ` 1,20,000/-. This clearly shows that the sale deed was rightly discarded by the learned court below. Even otherwise, it is the admitted fact on record that the land pertaining to sale deed (Ex. PW2/A) was located on the National Highway and as is evident from site plan (Ex. PW35/M) on record, it is a very small portion of land, which is abutting the National Highway. Rest of the land is far off from the main road. Considering the aforesaid facts, no case can possibly be made out for enhancement of compensation. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. A perusal of the site plan (Ex. PW35/M) shows that a big chunk of land measuring 63.6 acres and 68.70 acres in the revenue estate of villages Qutabpur and Ramaan respectively, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar was acquired for construction of 800/400/220 KV Hydro-Electric Power Sub Station at Hisar. It is a compact block. However, in the site plan, it has been shown that a small portion of the acquired land is abutting the main road, i.e., about 3-4 acres. After going upto the depth of 5-6 acres like a passage, rest of the land is located in a rectangular shape parallel to the National Highway. The land upto the depth of five killas abutting the National Highway has not been shown to be acquired, which adjoins that rectangular shape. It is a small flag shape of land, as has been shown in the site plan. However, the shape of the acquired land, as has been shown in the site plan, is totally misleading. It is the case set up by the parties that the entire land forming part of the sale deed (Ex. PW2/A) had been acquired. In the sale deed R.F.A. No. 3321 of 2002 [4] (Ex. PW2/A), following khasra numbers had been purchased by 21st Century Synthetics Ltd.: “3/22 (8-0), 6//2 (8-0), 9(8-0), 12(8-0) and 19/1(3-4)” The site plan (Ex. PW35/M) is not showing above mentioned khasra numbers, as part of the acquired land. When the award of the Collector was referred to, it shows three blocks of the acquired land were formed. Block `A' was pertaining to the land, which abutted the road, i.e., National Highway No. 10, whereas Block `B' was ahead of Block `C', which was at the extreme end. To make the situation self explaining, I deem it appropriate to even extract the details from the award of the Collector: “Name of Block Khasra Nos. Remarks ................................................................................................................................. “A” 5 ----------------------------------- 6 --------------------------------------- 11, 12, 13, 16/1, 17/1, 18/1, 19/1, 20/1/1 7 ---------------------------------------------- 11/1, 12/1, 13/1, 14, 15, 16/1/1, 17/2/1 8 ------------------------------------------------ 6/1, 6/2, 7/1, 7/2, 8, 13/1/1, 13/2/1, 13/1/1, 14/1/1, 14/1/2,15/1 “B” “C” 5//11, 6//8/1, 8/2, 9, 10, 14, 15 7//6, 7, 8, 9, 10 8//, 3, 4/1, 4/2/1, 4/2/2, 5 1//13, 14/1, 14/2, 15, 16, 17/1, 1//17/2, 18, 23, 24/1, 24/2, 25, 2//16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 3//12, 13,14/1, 14/2, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24/1, 24/2, 25 4//11, 20, 6/1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6, 7/1, 7/2 7//1, 2, 3, 4, 5 On the front abutting to road. Behind block “A” and ahead block “C” Rear block A perusal of the aforesaid khasra numbers, if tallied with site plan (Ex. PW35/M), shows that the land forming part of Rect. Nos. 5, 6, 7, and 8, which is abutting the National Highway was acquired. However, the same has not been shown so in the site plan. If the khasra numbers, which have been dealt with in sale deed (Ex. PW2/A) are considered vis-a-vis the acquired land, then it would be established that the land dealt with therein had been acquired. Now coming to the issue for determination of fair value of the R.F.A. No. 3321 of 2002 [5] acquired land. The land, which has been dealt with in sale deed (Ex. PW2/A) is forming part of the acquired land. It was sold at an average price of ` 1,35,000/- per acre. It is not in dispute that the same is abutting National Highway No. 10. It is a big chunk of land measuring 35 kanals and 4 marlas. The sale deed was registered on 30.12.1985. The notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 4.1.1990 and thereafter emergency provisions were invoked and the acquisition process was completed on 19.4.1990. The learned court below held the aforesaid sale deed to be not genuine considering the discrepancies in the oral evidence of the vendor, wherein though in examination-in-chief, he stated that part of the sale consideration was received by him in cash at home, whereas in the cross-examination, he stated that nothing was received at home. As against that, there was evidence of the vendee, who appeared as PW-29 clearly stating therein that the entire sale consideration was paid to the vendor partly in cash and partly before the Sub Registrar. Considering the fact that the aforesaid sale deed was registered more than 4 years prior to the date of acquisition, no motive can be attached thereto for mentioning inflated price therein. Had it been a sale deed close to the date of acquisition and the parties to the sale deed, being claimants before the court, may be in a given circumstances in the facts of a particular case, the court could opine that the sale deed was not genuine, but mere that small discrepancy was not sufficient to hold that the sale transaction was not genuine. Another factor, which is relevant to opine in this direction is that the vendee in the aforesaid sale deed was a corporate entity. The sale deed, pertaining to the land, which is part of the acquired land, is always the best piece of evidence and this being a big chunk of land, even no cut is required to be applied thereon. Now the issue is as to whether any enhancement is to be granted on account of time gap of four years in the date of sale deed and the acquisition. In my opinion, various sale deeds produced by the land owners on record, though all of them have not been depicted in the site plan, show that the same were not showing rising trend in the value of the land to the extent it was sought to be claimed. However, still the fact cannot be lost sight of that unless there are certain exceptional circumstances, there is always increasing trend in the value of the land, which may not be to the extent of 12% per annum, as is sought to be claimed by the landowners. Still, in my opinion, it would be reasonable to grant increase of 40% thereon for the time gap of four years. After addition of that percentage in the consideration paid in the sale deed (Ex. PW2/A), the value shall come out to ` 1,89,000/- per acre. As the location of land forming part of aforesaid sale deed is on the main road, the amount of compensation payable to the landowners shall be R.F.A. No. 3321 of 2002 [6] ` 1,89,000/- per acre upto the depth of 500 feet from National Highway No. 10. The value of land behind 500 feet from the National Highway also deserves certain increase, which may not be in the same proportion, considering the fact that difference in the value of land on the Highway and in the rear is not 5% to 10%, rather, more than that. However, the fact remains that even in sale deed (Ex. PW2/A), the land dealt with had a depth of more than 4-1/2 acres from the National Highway. Still, in my opinion, for the assessment of value of the land in the rear, a thumb rule has to be applied and the same is assessed at ` 1,00,000/- per acre. As I have opined that the sale deed (Ex. PW2/A) is the genuine transaction, the land forming part thereof having been acquired, the land owner therein cannot be put at a disadvantageous position, considering the fact that the value of entire chunk of land is being assessed at a lower rate. Vide aforesaid sale deed, the appellant in RFA No. 96 of 2003 had purchased 35 kanals and 4 marlas of land, which had a width of one acre only on the road and rest of the land was behind that. The consideration paid by the land owner therein was at an average price of ` 1,35,000/- per acre. This Court had assessed the value of entire chunk of land placing reliance thereon while granting increase of 40% for a period of four years falling in between the date of registration of sale deed and issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, that value was granted for the land situated upto a depth of 500 feet from the National Highway, whereas the land of the appellant in the appeal, referred to above, is located even beyond 500 feet from the National Highway. As the appellant in this appeal had paid the consideration money of ` 5,94,000/- for the entire chunk of land, he cannot be put at a disadvantageous position considering the fact that value of the land beyond 500 feet from the National Highway has been assessed at ` 1,00,000/- per acre, it is directed that the appellant in RFA No. 96 of 2003 shall be paid compensation of ` 8,31,600/-, i.e., ` 5,94,000/- + 40% thereon for the entire chunk of land. Similar view was expressed by this Court in R.F.A. No. 69 of 2002—Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 22.9.2008.; R.F.A. No. 4778 of 2001 – The State of Haryana v. Ujjagar Singh (deceased) through LRs, decided on

16.12.2008 and R.F.A. No. 788 of 2006 –Kirpal Singh v. Government of Haryana and others, decided on 17.3.2009. The land owners shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available under the Act. R.F.A. No. 3321 of 2002 [7] The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above. August 13, 2010 (Refer to Reporter) (Rajesh Bindal) Judge R.F.A. No. 3321 of 2002 [8]