Luxmi Narayan v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Judgment

1. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 459 to 501, 1437, 1812 to 1816, 5640, 5641, 5645, 5762, 5763, 5769, 5770 of 2008 and 316, 940, 1283, 1284 and 1345 of 2009, as common questions of law and facts are involved.

2. The land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned court below for the acquired land.

4. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 459 of 2008. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated

24.2.2000, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana acquired land of different villages, namely, Pataudi, Narhera, Dadawas, Mojabad; Bir Khurd, Brijpura, Heraheri and Khor/Hasaka for construction of Pataudi Distributory. The same was followed by notification dated

20.7.2000 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') awarded compensation @ ` 3,20,000/- per acre for chahi land and ` 2,70,000/- per acre for Barani/Gair Mumkin kind of land.

5. 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: R.F.A. No. 459 of 2008 [ 2] “Village Amount awarded per acre in ` ......................................................................................................................

1. Pataudi

2. Narhera

3. Bir Khurd

4. Khor

5. Pahari

6. Mozabad

7. Brijpura

8. Dadawas

9. Heraheri 11,00,000/- 11,00,000/- 11,00,000/- 11,00,000/- 9,00,000/- 9,00,000/- 9,00,000/- 9,00,000/- 9,00,000/-”

Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the court below had failed to appreciate the evidence led by the land owners on record considering the prime location of the land, which is located in the vicinity of industrial area of Gurgaon, Manesar, Dharuhera and Pataudi. In fact, the market value of the land on the date of acquisition was not less than ` 20,00,000/- per acre. It was a contiguous block. The entire land was acquired for the same purpose. It had come in the oral evidence of the official witnesses that the entire land formed part of the National Capital Region and the value thereof was not less than ` 18,00,000/- to ` 20,00,000/- per acre.

7. Reliance was placed upon the sale deeds Ex. P16 to Ex. P19, Ex. P21 to Ex. P27. The submission was that vide sale deeds (Ex. P16 to Ex. P19 and Ex. P21), registered prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the land was sold at an average price of ` 14,40,000/- per acre. Vide sale deeds (Ex. P22 to Ex. P24), the land was sold at an average price of ` 16,00,000/- per acre. The consideration paid in sale deed (Ex. P25) was ` 17,06,666/- per acre. In sale deed (Ex. P26), the average price paid, though for a small plot, was ` 1,14,00,000/- per acre. The submission was that the land pertaining to the aforesaid sale deeds was located in the revenue estate of Pataudi, to which the part of the acquired land pertained to. These were generally comparable sale transactions.

8. As regards other villages, sale deed (Ex. P56) pertaining to land of village Mozabad was referred to, whereby the land was sold at an average price of ` 10,28,571/- per acre. Sale deeds (Ex. P57 and Ex. P63) pertaining to land of village Pahari were referred to. The average sale consideration paid therein was ` R.F.A. No. 459 of 2008 [ 3] 16,00,000/- per acre.

9. The submission was that if the aforesaid sale deeds, where the average value was ranging from ` 14,40,000/- to ` 1,44,00,000/- per acre are considered, the assessment of compensation by the learned court below is certainly on the lower side and the same deserves to be increased. The genuineness of none of the sale deeds was doubted by the State.

10. On a specific query by the court as to whether the land pertaining to any of the sale deeds, relied upon by them, was pointed out on any of the site plans produced on record by the land owners, the categoric reply of learned counsel for the land owners was that there is no site plan on record.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State taking lead from the query put by this court to learned counsel for the land owners, submitted that in the absence of a site plan on record showing the location of the land/ plots pertaining to the sale deeds, sought to be relied upon by the land owners, it will not be possible to compare the same with reference to the acquired land, unless it is pointed out by the land owners, who are in position of a plaintiff, that value of the land in the area, which has similar kind of advantages/ disadvantages is more than the award of the Collector or as determined by the Reference Court, it cannot be opined that the award of the learned court below deserves interference by this court. He further submitted that in fact, it is a case of no evidence. The learned court below while merely referring to the sale deeds produced by both the parties on record, applied a thumb rule which, in fact, has no basis. The sale deeds produced by the land owners on record merely pertained to village Pataudi.

12. He referred to sale deed (Ex. P15), produced by the land owners, whereby 2 kanals and 8 marlas of land pertaining to the revenue estate of village Pataudi was sold @ ` 5,00,000/- per acre. The sale deeds (Ex. P1, Ex. P2, Ex. P4 and Ex. P5) pertaining to village Narhera were referred to submit that the average consideration paid therein was merely ` 4,80,000/- per acre. Sale deeds (Ex. P61 and Ex P62) pertaining to land of village Pahari were referred to, where 6 kanals and 6 marlas of land was sold at an average price of ` 5,07,936/- per acre. The submission was that if these sale deeds are considered, which were for a reasonable size of land, the award of the learned court below, being on much higher side, in fact deserves to be set aside and the amount of compensation reduced. However, the submission was that he is handicap as the State has not filed any appeal against the impugned award.

13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. R.F.A. No. 459 of 2008 [ 4]

14. The details of the sale deeds, relied upon by both the parties, at the time of arguments are enumerated as under: “ Sale deed Date Area Consideration Average price paid in ` per acre in ` ......................................................................................................................................... Ex. P1 4,80,000/- 9,000/-

8.6.1999 3 marlas Ex. P2 Ex. P4 Ex. P5 Ex. P15 Ex. P16 Ex. P17 5 marlas 4 marlas 5 marlas

18.6.1999

20.1.2000

17.1.2000

7.6.1999

8.6.1999 15,000/- 4,80,000/- 12,000/- 4,80,000/- 15,000/- 2 kanals 8 marlas 1,50,000/- 4,80,000/- 5,00,000/- 7 marlas 63,000/- 14,40,000/-

10.6.1999 6 marlas 54,000/- 14,40,000/- Ex. P19

18.6.1999 10 marlas 90,000/- 14,40,000/- Ex. P19 Ex. P20 Ex. P21 Ex. P22 Ex. P23 Ex. P24 Ex. P25 Ex. P26 Ex. P56 Ex. P57 Ex. P61 Ex. P62 Ex. P63

19.8.1999

24.8.1999 8 marlas 8 marlas 30,000/- 6,00,000/- 72,000/- 14,40,000/-

1.9.1999 3 marlas 30,000/- 16,00,000/-

11.1.2000

13.1.2000

17.1.2000 3 marlas 4 marlas 6 marlas 30,000/- 16,00,000/- 30,000/- 16,00,000/- 64,000/- 17,06,666/-

20.1.2000 1 marla 90,000/- 1,44,00,000/-

4.2.2000 16 marlas 1,50,000/- 15,00,000/-

17.6.1999 7 kanals 17 marlas 4,95,600/- 5,05,070/-

18.6.1999 6 marlas 60,000/- 16,00,000/-

6.11.1996 6 kanals 6 marlas 4,00,000/- 5,07,936/-

6.11.1996 6 kanals 6 marlas 4,00,000/- 5,07,936/-

18.6.1999 6 marlas 60,000/- 16,00,000/-”

15. It is not in dispute that the land pertaining to none of the aforesaid sale deeds has been pointed out on any of the site plans produced on record. In the absence thereof, this court is not in a position to opine that the land sold therein was comparable with the acquired land. For the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land, sale transactions of comparable pieces of land with regard to its location, size and other factors are required to be considered. The argument that the land pertained to the same revenue estate would be too vague to accept. Even to show the location of the acquired land, as is sought to be claimed, no site plan has been produced on record by the land owners. Considering the aforesaid facts, it cannot possibly be opined that the value of the land, as determined by the learned court below, calls for further increase in the appeals filed by the land owners.

17. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. Before parting with the judgment, this court is constrained to comment upon the working of the office of the Collector as well as the persons, R.F.A. No. 459 of 2008 [ 5] who represented the State before the court below. As is evident, in the present case, the Collector had determined the value of the acquired land @ ` 3,20,000/- per acre for chahi land and ` 2,70,000/- per acre for Barani/Gair Mumkin kind of land. The State produced various sale deeds on record, the details of which is as under: Sale deed Date Area Consideration Average price paid in ` per acre in ` ......................................................................................................................................... Ex. R1 2,75,000/- 2,75,000/-

24.3.1999 8 kanals Ex. R2 Ex. R3 Ex. R4 Ex. R5 Ex. R6 Ex. R7

27.6.2000 8 kanals 2,60,000/- 2,60,000/-

21.9.2000 5 marlas 45,000/- 14,40,000/-

16.8.2000 8 kanals 4,00,000/- 4,00,000/-

13.11.2002 4 marlas 73,000/- 29,20,000/-

16.8.2002 3 marlas 20,000/- 10,66,666/-

25.5.2000 Ex. R8

17.3.1998 Ex. R9

20.1.1999 Ex. R10

25.7.2001 Ex. R11

6.11.2000 9 kanals and 15 marlas 13 kanals and 11 marlas 14 kanal and 2 marlas 23 kanals and 6 marlas 12 kanals and 4 marlas 3,10,000/- 2,54,358/- 4,41,000/- 2,60,369/- 4,49,500/- 2,55,035/- 7,86,375/- 2,82,160/- 4,14,000/- 6,31,350/- Ex. R12

17.10.2002 8 kanals 2,80,000/- 2,80,000/- Ex. R13

1.6.2000 Ex. R14

27.4.2001 4 kanals and 14 marlas 7 kanals and 14 marlas 1,18,000/- 2,60,851/- 2,51,000/- 2,60,779/- Ex. R15

8.6.2001 13 marlas 39,000/- 4,80,000/-

18. A perusal of the consideration paid in the aforesaid sale deeds show that the same is ranging from ` 2,55,035/- to ` 29,20,000/- per acre. As to why the aforesaid sale deeds were not considered at the time of pronouncement of award by the Collector is not forthcoming. Invariably in all the land acquisition cases, all what is produced on record by the State are the sale deeds, which are below the award of the Collector. What was the reason for not considering the sale deeds which were produced before the court in evidence by the State at the time of pronouncement of the award by the Collector is not forth coming.

19.s Another factor, which is disturbing, is that though in land acquisition cases where the announcement of award by the learned court below is strictly R.F.A. No. 459 of 2008 [ 6] based on the evidence led by the land owners or is quite marginal or even based on certain settled principles, which may not call for any interference, still the State would like to file appeals adding to the burden of the courts. However, in the present case, even though the enhancement by the learned court below was from ` 2,70,000/- to ` 11,00,000/-, but still the State considered it appropriate not to challenge the same before this court. If the concerned authorities consider it appropriate, the reasons may be enquired into and appropriate action taken.

1.9.2010 (Refer to Reporter) ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge