State of Haryana & Anr. v. Ram Niwas & Anr.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. K. S. Malik, Advocate for the land owners. Mr. H. S. Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of the above mentioned appeals, as the same arise out of a common award of the learned court below. R.F.A. No. 172 of 2009 [ 4] R.F.A. Nos. 172 to 184 of 2009 have been filed by the State for reduction in the amount of compensation awarded to the land owners. R.F.A. Nos. 1738 to 1746, 2246 and 2247 of 2009 have been filed by the land owners seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. The facts have been noticed from R.F.A. No. 172 of 2009. Briefly, the facts of the case are that State of Haryana acquired 2.50 acres of land, situated in village Gatauli, Tehsil Julana, District Jind, vide notification dated 19.8.2005, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for the purpose of excavating Gatauli Link Drain. The same was followed by notification dated 9.2.2006, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), vide award dated

24.4.2006, assessed the compensation @ Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre. Feeling aggrieved, the land owners filed objections. On reference, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 7,00,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the evidence produced by the land owners in the form of sale deed dated 6.11.2007 (Ex. P1). He further referred to memo dated

6.4.2007 issued by the State, whereby the State itself had enhanced the value of the land from Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre to Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre. The award in the present case was announced on 24.4.2006 and the aforesaid memo was issued on

6.4.2007. The benefit thereof can also be given to the land owners. Another contention raised is that on account of acquisition, the land of the land owners was divided into two parts, which made it difficult for them to cultivate the other portion of the land. They could not use the means of irrigation for the other part of the land. The bridges or passages had not been provided. The acquisition being for construction of a drain, the same being at a level higher than the land, made it even difficult for the landowners to take their cattles or tractors etc. across the same. He further submitted that some tubewells were existing on the acquired land, for which no compensation has been paid. On the other hand, learned Advocate General, Haryana submitted that the compensation, as was granted by the Collector on the basis of the instructions dated 28.4.2005 issued by the Government was already much more than the value of the land in the area. The same did not call for any enhancement. However, still without there being any material on record, the learned court below has awarded Rs. 7,00,000/- per acre as compensation as against Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre assessed by the Collector. A perusal of the award shows that it was apparently R.F.A. No. 172 of 2009 [ 5] on account of division of the land into two parts, but there is no detailed evidence on record to show how much land of which land owner has become useless or in cultivation of which, he is facing difficulty. In the absence of that, the land owners are not entitled to any compensation on account of severance. As regards tubewells are concerned, he submitted that appropriate compensation was paid to the persons on whose land the tubewells were existing. It was further submitted that reliance on memo dated 6.4.2007, is totally mis-placed as the award in the present case was announced prior thereto. The same did not have any retrospective effect. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. As far as reliance on sale deed (Ex. P1) is concerned, there is no site plan on record to show the location thereof vis-a-vis the acquired land. The sale deed was registered on 6.11.2007 for a plot measuring 500 square yards. The same even otherwise cannot possibly be relied upon, having been registered more than two years after the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. What is not in dispute in the present case is that except the above sale deed, no other material was produced on record by the land owners to show that market value of the acquired land on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, was much more than the award of the Collector. The assessment of compensation by the Collector was made not on the basis of transactions in the area, but as per the decision taken in a meeting by the Divisional Commissioner, Hissar Division, which is as per memo dated 28.4.2005, where minimum floor rates were fixed for compensation to the land owners for the acquired land situated in different parts of the State. The aforesaid instructions were revised on 6.4.2007, whereby the land of the area concerned was directed to be valued at Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre as against Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre, as was fixed by the Collector in terms of the rates fixed by the Committee headed by the Divisional Commissioner, Hissar Division. It was as per the rate fixed by the government vide memo dated 28.4.2005. In terms of that memo, for any award announced after the issuance of memo on 6.4.2007, was to be assessed @ Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre. The award in the present case was announced on 24.4.2006. It is not in dispute that acquisition in the present case was for excavation of Gatauli Link Drain, which necessarily bifurcates the land. The level of the distributory is always above the level of the land, which makes it difficult to irrigate or use the divided portions of the land to its optimum and also to approach the other portion of the land. The bridges are provided at a distance and the land owners have to take a longer route to reach other part of the land. On that account, R.F.A. No. 172 of 2009 [ 6] in my opinion, the land owners deserve to be compensated. The learned court below in the present case has increased the value of land from Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre to Rs. 7,00,000/- per acre. It cannot be disputed that assessment of value of the land in acquisition cases cannot be by way of mathematical exactitude. Some guess work is always applied. In the present case, in my opinion, there are two factors, which justify the award of the learned court below, namely, that award of the Collector is based upon the instructions of the government dated 28.4.2005. After a gap of two years, the value was increased to Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre. The award in the present case is just one year prior to the revision of the instructions, though after the issuance of the earlier instructions, and further on account of severance also, the land owners are also entitled to some compensation, as the acquisition in the present case was for the purpose of construction of a minor. If both the factors are considered, the increase granted by the learned court below from Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre to Rs. 7,00,000/- per acre can neither be said to be on the higher side nor on the lower side. For the reasons mentioned above, the award of the learned court below does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the land owners as well as the State are dismissed. May 14, 2010 (Rajesh Bindal) Judge