Haryana State & Anr. v. Ram Partap & Ors.

Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the learned court below had failed to consider the evidence produced on record by the land owners R.F.A. No. 3873 of 2009 [3] which clearly established that value of the acquired land was not less than ` 10,00,000/- per acre at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Referring to sale deeds (Ex. P1 to Ex. P9), it was submitted that boundaries of the acquired land as well as the land pertaining to the aforesaid sale deeds have been pointed out on the site plan Ex. P15/A. The land pertaining to the sale deeds is located quite close to the acquired land and the same should have been relied upon as such for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land, as the land dealt with in the aforesaid sale deeds was also not very small. The entire land which is in continuity should be assessed at the same rate. The acquisition in the present case was for the purpose of construction of a channel. It is a small strip of land, which was acquired and is located adjoining to an existing path leading from Hisar to Ganga Nagar via Bhadra. As a result of the acquisition, it has become difficult for the land owners to cultivate the portion of the land which is now located beyond the channel. Earlier they had clear excess to their land from the path. Now they have to use longer route. It was further submitted that along with the channel on the other side, no path has been provided. It has diminished the value of the land, as earlier it had the approach directly from the path, but now that approach has been taken away. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the sale deeds produced by the land owners cannot possibly be relied upon. All those sale deeds have no relevance for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land. The land dealt with therein is located far off from the acquired land. Some of them are located quite close to the road and were purchased for commercial purposes, whereas the land in question was being used for agricultural purposes and was in fact acquired for the benefit of the land owners, as with the construction of channel, they could have better supply of water for irrigation. In fact, the award pertaining to villages Chuli Khurd and Chuli Kalan was just and fair and the land owners could not claim more compensation in comparison thereto. The acquisition of land in the present case is in continuity. To enable the land owners to approach their land from the passage along with which the land has been acquired, bridges have been provided. It is not the case where the land of the land owners has been divided into two parts on account of which they could claim damages on account of severance. In fact, the State itself was quite generous as a supplementary award was passed enhancing the value of the acquired land from ` 1,40,000/- per acre for Nehri land and ` 1,00,000/- per acre for Tal kind of land to ` 5,00,000/- per acre for all categories. The land owners should have felt satisfied with that as no case was made out for enhancement of compensation. R.F.A. No. 3873 of 2009 [4] Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. Site plan Ex. P15/A produced by the land owners on record shows the location of the acquired land as well as the land pertaining to the sale deeds produced on record by the land owners. A perusal thereof shows that only two sale deeds (Ex. P2 and Ex. P3) pertaining to the land of village Arya Nagar, which can be said to be relevant for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land. Prima facie, it can be opined that the sale consideration paid therein would be the actual amount paid by the vendee to a vendor. The aforesaid sale deeds were registered on 28.2.2000, i.e., 45 months prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The vendee in both the sale deeds is same. The area dealt with therein collectively is 4 acres 5 kanals and 18 marlas, which is not a small chunk. The acquisition in the present case is also for 17.13 acres (Arya Nagar), which is in the form of a small strip, where small-small portions of land of various land owners have been acquired. The learned court below while referring to the entire evidence produced on record had assessed the compensation @ ` 7,00,000/- per acre. The land pertaining to sale deeds (Ex. P2 and Ex. P3) is located on road, whereas the acquired land is adjoining a path leading from Hisar to Ganga Nagar via Bhadra. Except the aforesaid sale deeds, no other sale deed can be said to be relevant for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land, as those pertained to small plots located on road. After adding increase @ 12% per annum on the sale consideration paid in sale deeds (Ex. P1 and Ex. P2) for the time gap from the registration of sale deed till the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, its value shall come out to ` 10,87,500/-. Considering the locational advantage attached to it, in case a cut of 35% is applied, the value would come out to approximately ` 7,00,000/- per acre. Accordingly, in my opinion, no illegality has been committed by the learned court below while assessing the compensation @ ` 7,00,000/- per acre. As far as contentions of learned counsel for the land owners for award of damages on account of severance is concerned, in my opinion, it may not be a case strictly of severance of land, but still the land owners in the present case have suffered damages on account of acquisition of land. As it is the admitted position on record, the entire strip of land which has been acquired, is abutting a path leading from Hisar to Ganga Nagar via Bhadra. Meaning thereby that the land owners had the excess from a path to approach their respective chunks of land. The path was connected to the main road. With the construction of channel, the advantage of direct excess from the path has been taken away. It is claimed by the R.F.A. No. 3873 of 2009 [5] State that at a certain distance, bridges have been provided to enable the land owners to cross over to approach their land. It has not been pointed out that any other path has been provided on the other side of the channel so as to enable the different land owners whose land is located at a distance in between the bridges to access their land. Not only this, the value of their land has been diminished in a way that direct excess from a path has been taken away. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the land owners deserve to be awarded damages on that account, which should be at least 20% of the value of the acquired land. Accordingly, it is directed that the land owners shall be entitled to 20% of the value of acquired land on account of damages of the kind, as referred to above. They shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available to them under the Act. Regarding villages Chuli Khurd and Chuli Kalan As far as the land pertaining to villages Chuli Khurd and Chuli Kalan is concerned, the contention raised by learned counsel for the land owners was that the land in question is also located adjoining to the land pertaining to villages Patan and Arya Nagar. The purpose for which it was acquired is also the same. Merely because this land pertained to different revenue estates, the Collector had discriminated in awarding compensation. Though initially same amount of compensation was awarded by the Collector for the land pertaining to all the four villages. However, subsequently for the land pertaining to villages Patan and Arya Nagar, a supplementary award was passed assessing the value @ ` 5,00,000/- per acre. The land of the land owners in the present case having been acquired at the same time and for the same purpose, they should also be awarded same amount of compensation. In addition to the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the award in the present case was announced by the Collector on 24.11.2004. The instructions were issued by the Government of Haryana on 28.4.2005 (Ex. P5) fixing minimum rates to be awarded for acquisition of land in different area. The same was fixed at ` 5,00,000/- per acre for the land of the type and the area in question. There being small gap in the award of the Collector and the issuance of the said instructions, even considering that the land owners should be awarded minimum ` 5,00,000/- per acre as the compensation. It was further submitted that the acquired land is adjoining an already existing path leading from Hisar to Sirsa via Adampur-Mandi, Chuli Khurd-Nathusari Chopta, as is evident from site plan (Ex. P7) produced on record in LAC No. 79 of 2007. As a result of the acquisition, it has become difficult for R.F.A. No. 3873 of 2009 [6] the land owners to cultivate the portion of the land which is now located beyond the channel. Earlier they had clear excess from the path to their land. Now they have to use longer route. It was further submitted that along with the channel on the other side, no path has been provided, which has diminished the value of the land, as earlier it had the approach directly from the road, but now that approach has been taken away. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the value of land should be assessed considering its location. Supplementary award was just pertaining to land of villages Patan and Arya Nagar finding that there was error in assessing the compensation initially. The land in question falls in Tehsil Adampur, whereas the land pertaining to villages Patan and Arya Nagar falls in Tehsil Hisar, which is quite close to the city. However, he could not deny the fact that the Government had issued instructions dated 28.4.2005 fixing minimum rates for the acquisition of land in different areas in the State, but the submission was that the aforesaid instructions having been issued on 28.4.2005 and the notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case having been issued on 17.11.2003 and the award of the Collector being dated 24.11.2004, the same should not be applied as the instructions do not provide for its retrospective effect. To enable the land owners to approach their land from the passage along with which the land has been acquired, bridges have been provided. It is not the case where the land of the land owners has been divided into two parts on account of which they could claim damages on account of severance. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. As far as the location of the land is concerned, from the site plan (Ex. P7), it is evident that it is adjoining an already existing path which is leading from Hisar to Sirsa via Adampur-Mandi-Chuli Khurd and Nathusari Chopta. It was acquired for the purpose of a channel. The land pertaining to villages Patan and Arya Nagar was also acquired for the same purpose. However, it has come in evidence that the land of villages Patan and Arya Nagar is located quite close to Hisar city and falls in Tehsil Hisar, whereas the land in question belonging to villages Chuli Khurd and Chuli Kalan falls in Tehsil Adampur, which is at a distance from Hisar city. Certainly, the value thereof would be different as compared to the value of the land which is close to city Hisar. The compensation, which has been assessed for the land pertaining to villages Patan and Arya Nagar cannot possibly be relied upon as such for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land on account of its location and also the fact that in the cases R.F.A. No. 3873 of 2009 [7] pertaining to villages Patan and Arya Nagar, the land owners had led evidence on record which was quite relevant for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land therein. It was in the form of sale deeds for a big chunk of land, the genuineness of which was not in doubt. In the present case, the land owners have not led any evidence in the form of sale deeds. The reliance is sought to be placed on the awards passed by the Collector for land pertaining to different villages including Patan and Arya Nagar and also the instructions issued by the Government on 28.4.2005 and 6.4.2007, whereby minimum rates were fixed for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land in the State in different areas. Though in the instructions dated 28.4.2005, there is no cut off date as such, which has been provided which is to be considered for the purpose of assessment of value, namely, as to whether on the date of issuance of instructions, it is the notification under Section 4 of the Act, which is to be considered or the date of award by the Collector. However, the guiding factor pertaining thereto is available if we peruse the instructions dated 6.4.2007 revising the instructions issued earlier on 28.4.2005. It has been specifically mentioned therein that for all the awards announced by the Collector from the date mentioned therein that revised rates are to be applied. Further even the award pertaining to villages Arya Nagar and Patan, the Collector himself had revised the amount of compensation on the basis of policy dated 28.4.2005 and awarded compensation @ ` 5,00,000/- per acre. Meaning thereby even vide instructions dated 28.4.2005, the government had fixed minimum rates for the acquired land on the date of issuance of instructions in all the cases, where the award was announced by the Collector on or after that date. In the present case, the award of the Collector is dated 24.11.2004, whereas the instructions were issued by the Government on 28.4.2005 with a time gap of nearly six months in between. Considering that, in my opinion, if for the awards announced on or after 28.4.2005, the value of the land can be ` 5,00,000/- per acre, for the award announced on 24.11.2004, the same can very well be assessed at ` 4,00,000/- per acre. Accordingly, for the land acquired pertaining to villages Chuli Khurd and Chuli Kalan, the amount of compensation is assessed at ` 4,00,000/- per acre. The land owners also be entitled to severance @ 20% of the value of acquired land. The land owners shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available to them under the Act. In view of the above, it is held that for the land acquired in villages Patan and Arya Nagar, the land owners shall be entitled to compensation @ ` 7,00,000/- per acre, whereas for the land acquired pertaining to villages Chuli Khurd and Chuli Kalan, the land owners shall be entitled to compensation @ ` R.F.A. No. 3873 of 2009 [8] 4,00,000/- per acre. They shall also be entitled to severance @ 20% of the value of acquired land along with other benefits available to them under the Act. The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above. December 23, 2010 (Rajesh Bindal) Judge