M.M. Punchhi, J.
1. Almost a decade ago the State of Haryana, as would be evident, went on an acquiring spree in the revenue estate of Panipat, a Sub-Divisional town in district Karnal (Haryana). Taking aid of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') it took within a span of about 10 months large tracts of urban land in three strokes by issuance of three successive notifications under Section 4 of the Act. These are referred to in the succeeding paragraphs.
2. On Oct. 29, 1976, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued to acquire 5 Acres 5 Kanals and 5 Marlas of land to build a Handloom Complex. On Nov. 4. 1976, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued to acquire 11 Bighas 14 Biswas of land (approximately 2 Acres and 3 Kanals of land) for the purpose of building Staff Quarters for the Market Committee. Panipat. Lastly, on Aug. 30, 1977, notification tinder Section 4 of the Act was issued to acquire a large chunk of land measuring 64.50 Acres and 173.39 Acres, total 237.89 Acres, to be utilised for residential, commercial and industrial purposes for floating Urban Estates. The lands involved were either in Taraf Rajputan of Taraf Afghana. These terms had some revenue significance but for present purposes they are of no significance.
3. For the acquisition beginning on Oct. 29, 1976 (Hereinafter referred to as First Acquisition), the Land Acquisition Collector vide award dt. Sept. 30, 1977 awarded Rs. 10/-per square yard as compensation to the landowners. The aggrieved landowners had the matter referred to the District Court. Shri Gorakh Nath, Additional District Judge, vide award dt. Nov. 19, 1981, assessed the market value of the land acquired at the rate of Rs. 257- per square yard.
4. Keeping apart for the moment, the acquisition initiated on Nov. 4, 1976 (hereafter referred to as the 'Second Acquisition') it would serve better to take first into account the acquisition initiated on Aug. 30, 1977 (hereafter referred to as the 'Third Acquisition'). Yet the Land Acquisition Collector for the Second Acquisition had awarded Rs. 4.50 per square yard as the market value of the land. For the Third Acquisition, the Land Acquisition Collector, however, vide his award dt. Feb. 14, 1979, awarded Rs. 7.23 per square yard as the market value of the acquired land. The Collector in fact had passed simultaneously on Feb. 14, 1979, two awards; one pertaining to 64.50 Acres in Taraf Rajputan and the other to 173.39 acres in Taraf Afghana, both carrying the same market value at the rate of Rs. 7.23 per square yard.
5. The aggrieved landowners approached the District Court for enhancement of the compensation. The cases of the Third Acquisition, at it appears, came to be decided by two different officers -- Shri B. L. Gulati and Shri K. C. Gupta, both Additional District Judges, Karnal. The cases of the Second Acquisition, however, came to be decided by Shri B. L. Gulati. In order of time, while dealing with a case of the Third Acquisition, on Oct. 29, 1982, he raised the market value of the land to Rs. 17/- per square yard. In another decision relating to the third acquisition, Shri B. L. Gulati, on Mar. 15, 1983, gave Rs. 21/- per square yard as market value; apparently the average of Rs. 25/- per square yard granted by Shri Gorakh Nath, Additional District Judge, in the First Acquisition and Rs. 17/- per square yard granted by him in one of the cases of the Third Acquisition. Shri B. L. Gulati, however, while dealing with the cases relating to the Second Acquisition on Aug. 29, 1983, and Nov. 29, 1983, awarded Rs. 25/- per square yard as the market value of the land keeping in view the rates awarded in the decisions earlier made by him.
6. The third Presiding Officer, Shri K. C. Gupta, Additional District Judge, Karnal, vide decision dt. May 18, 1984, taking into account the decisions of his colleagues, afore-referred to, in reference applications of some landowners awarded Rs. 25/- per square yard of land abutting the G. T. Road and Rs. 21/-per square yard for land away from G. T. Road. Vide decision dt. May 22, 1984, Shri K. C. Gupta, Additional District Judge, awarded Rs. 21/- per square yard in some reference applications, for the land was away from the G. T. Road. Then in subsequent decisions of Mar 11, 1985, April 14, 1985, May 2, 1985, and Oct. 7, 1985, Shri K. C. Gupta awarded a uniform rate of compensation at the rate of Rs. 25/- per square yard irrespective of the location of the land.
7. Against the respective awards of the District Court, the landowners have filed appeals and a few appeals have been filed by the State of Haryana. Some have attracted cross-objections. There would be occasion later to give these in details as also the limit of claim in those respective appeals, but for the present we need to explain how these matters were placed before us.
8. 46 Regular First Appeals were placed before J. V. Gupta, J. for disposal. On Jan. 16, 1987, the Hon'ble Judge ordered the listing of those appeals before the First Bench because it was brought to his Lordship's notice that decisions regarding compensation in RFAs Nos. 654 and 655 of 1982 would have a bearing towards deciding LPA Nos. 675 to 677 of 1985. Those three LPAs were at the instance of the claimants against the judgment and order of a Single Judge of this Court passed in RFA Nos. 622, 623 and 895 of 1983 preferred by the landowner-claimants and the connected three State appeals, RFAs Nos. 892, 893 and 894 of 1983. These RFAs had arisen from the award of Shri B. L. Gulati, Additional District Judge, Karnal, dt. Mar. 15, 1983, enhancing the compensation due to the landowner-claimants at the rate of Rs. 21/- per square yard. The land acquired was part of the Third Acquisition. Shri B. L. Gulati had, while framing the said award, taken into account the earlier award of Nov. 19, 1981, passed by Shri Gorakh Nath, Additional District Judge, Karnal, fixing Rs. 25/- per square yard as the market value for the First Acquisition and also his own award dated Oct. 29, 1982, in relation to land forming part of the Third Acquisition, fixing market value at Rs. 17/- per square yard. Though Shri B. L. Gulati did not specifically say as to how he arrived at the figure of Rs. 21/- per square yard as the market value, the Hon'ble single Judge disposing of the Regular First Appeals spelled out that he drew the mean from the earlier two awards.
9. The position which emerges is this. The State of Haryana has abandoned its effort to have the compensation reduced as affirmed in Regular First Appeals Nos. 622, 613 and 895 of 1983, for it did not prefer appeals against decisions in RFAs Nos. 892, 893 and 894 of 1983. In other words, the award of Shri B. L. Gulati, Additional District Judge, dt. Mar. 15, 1983, fixing Rs. 21A per square yard as the market value for some portion of the land involved in the Third Acquisition has been affirmed by an Hon'ble single Judge of this Court and the State has virtually submitted to it. This award, as said before, is based upon the two earlier awards dt. Nov. 19, 1981, passed by Shri Gorakh Nath, Additional District Judge, relating to the First Acquisition, and dt. Oct. 29, 1982, passed by Shri B. L. Gulati, Additional District Judge, relating to part of land in the Third Acquisition. Thenceforth, all the three awards dt. Nov. 19, 1981, Oct. 29, 1982, and Mar 15, 1983, did, in one way or the other, influence the fixation of the market value of the acquired land relating to the Second Acquisition as well as the remaining part of the Third Acquisition. This being the situation, we chose to hear these appeals together on their placement before us and we propose to dispose them of sequentially by a common judgment, for we have noticed that these matters are almost interconnected, inter-dependent and inter se supportive of each other.
10. Now the time is ripe to take up these appeals in manageable sets, as best as they can be, in order of time. But before that the topography of the acquired land may broadly be depicted.
11. In the First Acquisition, almost a rectangular piece of land on the Grand Trunk Road was acquired. Some portion of the land of the landowners was severed thereby and left behind the acquired portion. The Grand Trunk Road connecting Panipat City to Delhi runs from North to South. The acquired land is on the Western side of the road. From the G. T. Road, a road bifurcates on the Western side to Gohana, known as Gohana Road. From that fixed point, the acquired land is approximately 250 yards as per scale.
12. The land in the Second Acquisition is not on the Grand Trunk Road. From the fixed point Gohana Road it is towards North-East. It is about 40 metres away from the Grand Trunk Road. The land in front of the acquired land is said to have belonged to the Market Committee. Otherwise, as revealed from the relevant plans in the respective cases, it is not far from the fixed point Gohana Road.
13. The land in the Third Acquisition in Patti Rajputan and Afghanan is a vast tract of land, most of which is distant from the G. T. Road but a small portion touches the G. T. Road. Unfortunately, there is no comprehensive plan available on the files to show all the threeacquisitions together. From the respective plans available on the cases in the Third Acquisition, it is evident that the land towards North-East of the G. T. Road was involved in acquisition going downwards towards South-West barely touching the G. T. Road, while remaining on Us Eastern side. Towards the North of the acquired land is situated Panipat town.
FIRST ACQUISITION FIRST SET :
RFA No. 654 of 1982 by the claimants and Cross-Appeal No. 928 of 1982 by the State :
RFA No. 655 of 1982 by the claimants and Cross Appeal No. 927 of 1982 by the State :
RFA No. 929 of 1982 by the State and Cross-Objection No. 159-C-I of 1982 by the Claimants; and
RFA No. 930 of 1982 by the State and Cross-Objection No. 45-C-I of 1985 by the claimants.
14. The claimants in RFA Nos. 654 and 655 of 1982 have throughout claimed Rs. 100/- per square yard as compensation. The Cross-objector in RFA No. 929 of 1982 claimed Rs. 80/- per square yard as compensation. The Cross-Objector in RFA No. 930 of 1982 claimed Rs. 65/- per square yard as compensation. As mentioned earlier, Shri Gorakh Nath, Additional District Judge, had awarded Rs. 25/- per square yard as compensation.
15. The crucial issue, as is always, in the First Acquisition was -- as to what was the market value of the land at the time of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. To determine that question, the Additional District Judge rightly focussed his attention on the potential of the acquired land. His finding was that the acquired land had the potential for being used for residential, commercial and industrial purposes. Neither party has challenged this finding before us. The land was within the municipal limits and the Additional District Judge observed that it was enough for holding that it had the potential for the aforementioned purposes. With regard to the condition of the land, the finding of the Additional District Judge was that there was a johar in the acquired land and it was uneven at the time of its acquisition. This finding was recorded because the oral evidence of the claimants was discrepant and Kharaiti Lal PW-2 had admitted that there was a Johar in the acquired land and further that the land was higher in level towards the adjoining Gandhi Mandi and lower in level on the opposite side in the shape of a slope. Since the condition of land had the likelihood of causing reduction in the price of land, Mr. H. L. Sibal, learned counsel for the appellants, was first at pains to explain that the re was no low-lying area in the acquired land and for the purpose he referred to the oral evidence.
16. Narinder Kumar PW-1 said that the acquired land was of normal level and had no pits in it and there was no Johar. Kharaiti Lal PW-2 said that the acquired land was on a higher level towards Gandhi Mandi and was on the lower level on the opposite side. He further said that there was a johar also in the land and that too had been acquired by the Government and that the acquired land was in a slope. Ashok Kumar PW-3 said that there was a johar adjacent to the acquired land but not in it. PW-4 Jamna Dass Patwari is silent about it. PW-5 Satish Kumar petitioner said that the land which was acquired was not low-lying but the land which had been left unacquired was low-lying. PW-6 Shankar Dass petitioner said that there was no johar in the acquired land, but there was one many years ago and had been filled by the landowners much before acquisition. As against this, RW-1 Ravinder Parkash, Project Officer, stated that the land was marshy and uneven at the time of the acquisition and that a lakh of rupees would be required for levelling the land and for reclaiming it. From such state of evidence, we find it difficult to dislodge the finding of the learned Additional District Judge that the land was uneven and that in fact there was a johar in the acquired land. This means that the land was in depression and in order to have proper access to the G. T. Road required to be filled by debris-earth brought from outside.
17. The next question which engaged the attention of learned Additional District Judge, and as engages ours, is -- what was the market value of the land? He took some help from some of the transactions cited by the claimants, but rejected altogether the instances quoted by the State. His view was that none of the instances relied upon by the State could be made the basis for working out the market value of the land because the lands covered by those instances was situated at far off places from the acquired land. The learned Advocate-General, Haryana, appearing for the State, did not challenge this part of the finding, and thus we need not go into the instances cited by the State for determining the market value of the land.
18. In para 13 of the award, the learned Additional District Judge has tabulated six sales termed by the claimants as comparable. Out of them, five instances relate to the year 1973, a period of three years or above prior to the date of the notification under section 4 of the Act. One instance is almost a year thereafter of the year 1977. Unfortunately, we have no comparable sale which can guide us to determine as accurately as possible the market value of the acquired land, But since the market value has to be determined, inevitably we have to import the rule of thumb, obviate as far as possible the element of arbitrariness and arrive at a rate which is as just and fair as is possible.
19. Parties' counsel were agreed that instances covered by sales Exhibits P-1 and P-4 relate to sales made out of Khasra No. 3574 and though part of this Khasra Number has been acquired, but the land covered by these sales was not acquired and that has been left out. The doubt which one gathers on reading the award of the learned Additional District Judge stands removed accordingly by observing that there is no comparable sale out of the land acquired.
20. Section 51A of the Act, introduced by Parliament Act No. 68 of 1984, permits the certified copies of the registered documents to be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document. Exhibit P-l is a certified copy of a registered sale deed relating to the sale on Dec. 31, 1973, of 250 square yards of land for Rs. 16,000/- and the approximate price per square yard comes to Rs. 64/-. Exhibit P-4 is a certified copy of the sale deed dt. Mar 1, 1973, whereby 272 square yards of land was sold for Rs. 16,320/- and the approximate price per square yard comes to Rs. 60/-. The plots in these sales were adjacent to the acquired land and on the G. T. Road. In sale Exhibit P-1 only Rs. 11,000/- were paid before the Sub-Registrar. In sale deed Exhibit P-4 only Rs. 13,320/- were received before the Sub-Registrar. Though section 51A of the Act permits the Courts to accept as evidence the transaction recorded in the certified copy of the document, yet it lies within the discretion of the Court to cast doubt on suspicious portions of it for valid reasons. We need to express this because it is not unknown that sale considerations are inflated in order to scare away pre-emptors and at the time when these sales were gone into the Punjab Pre-emption Act, as applicable to Haryana, was operative. The claimants did not produce the vendors. Though Ashok Kumar PW-3 appeared to introduce sale deed Exhibit P-4 claiming it to be in favour of his father, he was not in a position todeposeas to the terms of the transactions.
21. The instances available in Exhibits P-2 and P-3 disclose the rate to be Rs. 44/-per square yard. These relate to land on the G. T. Road but towards Delhi. Each of them is of 682 square yards and for Rs. 30,000/-. They are of June 19, 1973, and Mar. 1. 1973, respectively. Instance Exhibit P-16 is of Oct. 24, 1973, disclosing sale of 500 square yards for a sum of Rs. 88,600/- and the approximate price par square yard comes to Rs. 177/-. This is near a Cinema towards Panipat town quite far from the site acquired Sales Exhibits P-2, P-3 and P-16 cannot thus be called at all comparable. Sale Exhibit P-7 dt. Sept. 29, 1977, disclosing that about 58 square yards of land was sold for Rs. 10,000/- at the approximate rate of Rs. 173/- per square yard is also not comparable. This land is on Gohana. Road and is away from the acquired land. Besides, this instance is of very small area and much after the notification.
22. Mr. Sibal, learned counsel for the appellants, strongly urged that the instances in Exhibits P-l and P-4 must be treated as comparable sales suitably increased in the spirit of Section 23(1A) of the Act, especially when these relate to the land which was adjacent to the land acquired and these sales should provide a working basis to determine the compensation. He also pointed out that the learned Additional District Judge having discarded these sales without any reason had abruptly come to the conclusion that small parcels of land in that area could fetch Rs. 50/- per square yard at the time of the acquisition. He urged that there was no basis for such a finding. He further urged that the reasoning adopted for excluding therefrom 1/3rd of the price on the supposition that a large area was being acquired was without any basis when at best 1/4th could have been deducted. In the same strain, he urged that in no case could Rs. 9/- per square yard be reduced further for levelling charges and then to ultimately come to the conclusion that the fair market price of the acquired land was Rs. 25/- per square yard.
23. It is true that the learned Additional District Judge did not wholly rely on any of the transactions cited by the claimants to support their cause, yet he kept all the instances in his mind to gather the impression that the market value of a small piece of land meant for construction of a house or for commercial premises could not be less than Rs. 50/- per square yard at the time of the acquisition of the land.
24. On March 1, 1973 vide Exhibit P-4 the price was suggestedly Rs. 60/- per square yard and on Dec. 31, 1973, vide exhibit P-1 it was Rs. 64/- per square yard. As observed earlier, the entire consideration money was not paid before the Sub-Registrar at the time when the sale deeds were registered and a sizeable part of the ostensible consideration was allegedly shown to have been received by the vendors earlier to the sale. As expressed earlier, the possibility of the price being inflated on account of scaring away pre-emptors could not be ruled out. These small parcels of land were not likely to fetch any agricultural or other income and in the event of pre-emption the vendees while parting with title could get no more than the ostensible consideration. The process of preemption in the normal circumstances could have involved two to three years, for limitation for filing a suit for pre-emption is one year and even if it is not hotly contested some more time is involved till the finalisation and execution of the decree. So on a broad conspectus of things we have to come to the view that though sales Exhibits P-l and P-4 are not comparable sales but these do provide a working basis to this extent that on Oct. 29, 1976, the plots of land involved in Exhibits P-l and P-4 could actually be sold at the rate between Rs. 60/- to Rs. 64/- per square yard and to make it a workable average say at the rate of Rs. 63/- per square yard.
25. The argument of Mr. Sibal to suitably increase the price in the spirit of Section 23(1A) of the Act cannot be accepted. That provision reads as follows : --
'(1A) In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market-value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, Sub-section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier.'
This provision has no direct applicability when determining the market value of the land. As suggested, we cannot hypothetically determine the market value of the land as on Oct. 29, 1976, and therefrom cause deduction of 12 per cent per annum till we date back to the date of sales Exhibits P-l and P-4 and the face value revealed therefrom. The said legislative measure cannot be applied in the reverse. For the view expressed in the earlier paragraph, weare inclined though toconcede this much that on the date of the notification under Section 4 on Oct. 29, 1976, small portions of land abutting the G. T. Road meant for residential or commercial purposes could be sold at the rate of Rs. 63/- per square yard and the figure of Rs. 50/- per square yard arrived at by the learned Additional District Judge need be substituted accordingly.
26. On the possibility of arriving at such a view, the question of belting was also canvassed. The front portion abutting the G. T. Road up to a suitable depth could be given a higher rate and the remaining a lesser rate. We examined the feasibility and desirability from all possible angles. The learned counsel for the parties advised us against such a step and contended that Courts have been shirking from adopting such a method, for it introduces lot of arbitrariness. It was also maintained that when the entire land had the potential of being used for residential and commercial purposes, there was no point in belting it for the purposes of determining the market value of the land. This argument was made not only in the instant case but also for all other cases. Having pondered over the matter, we are inclined to accept the advice of the learned counsel and give up the idea to belt the area.
27. It is well settled that in determining compensation the value of small plots of land cannot be applied to the lands covering a very large tract and that large area of land cannot possibly fetch price at the same rate at which small plots are sold See Collector of Lakhimpur v. Bhuban Chandra Dutta. AIR 1971 SC 2015, Smt. Padma Uppal v. State of Punjab AIR 1977 SC 580 and Prithvi Raj Taneja v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1977 SC 1560. This is the first principle relating to the matter of fixation of compensation. Thus, Rs. 63/- per square yard cannot be taken as the real basis for determining the compensation for the entire area. The second principle is that for determining the market value of a large property on the basis of a sale transaction of a smaller property, a reduction should be given. In Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore v. T. Adinarayana Shetty, AIR 1959 SC 429 a reduction of 25 per cent was indicated, while in certain other cases, the view which has come to crystalise is that the reduction should be to the extent of 1/3rd See in this connection Smt. Kausalya Devi Bogra v. Land Acquisition Officer. Aurangabad AIR 1984 SC 892 and Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana 1980 Pun LJ 77. So, applying the second principle, having abandoned the idea of belting, the uniform rate of the land acquired after causing deduction of l/3rd should be Rs. 42/- per square yard. But from this very rate further deduction would have to be made due to the condition of the land, for the finding is that it was uneven and slopy. According to Ravinder Prakash, Project Officer, Haryana State Handloom and Handicraft Corporation, Panipat, RW-1, an amount of Rs. 1 lakh would be required for levelling the land and for reclaiming it. This statement was made by him on Aug. 27, 1981. The statement went unchallenged so far as the estimate was concerned In cross-examination he stated that to arrive at the figure of Rs. 1 lakh he had consultations with the Executive Engineer Tourism Department, Faridabad. He did not say a word about raising the level of the land to that of the G. T. Road, for it is obvious that unevenness and slopiness of the land 1989 P. & H./3 II G--37 was mentioned in comparison with the level of the G. T. Road. The acquired land is ardund 27375 square yards and according to the Project Officer would cost about Rs. one lakh to level and reclaim it. Approximately it would then cost Rs. 4/- per square yard in the year 1981. It would be right to assume that it would have cost Rs. 3/- per square yard when the notification under section 4 of the Act was issued. Accordingly, in our view, the market value of the acq(sic) date of the notification under section 4 of the Act should have been Rs. 39/- per square yard and we determine it accordingly.
28. Since the claimants were awardedseverance compensation at the rate of 5 percent on the amount of cpmpensation whichthey were to get for their acquired land,rateably the severance compensation wouldstand enhanced on the enhancement ofcompensation for the acquired land.
29. The end result is that RFA Nos. 654 and 655 of 1982 and Cross-Objections Nos. 159-C-I of 1982 in RFA No. 929 of 1982 and No. 45-C-I of 1983 in RFA No. 930 of 1982 are allowed, raising the compensation of the acquired land to Rs. 39/- per square yard State Appeals, RFA Nos. 927 to 930 of 1982 are dismissed. In addition, the claimants shall get 30 per cent solatium on such market value besides interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the enhanced amount from the date on which the Collector took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Court for one year and thereafter at the rate of 15 per cent per annum till the date of payment as per amended Section 28 of the Act and as interpreted by a Full Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Krishan Lal, AIR 1987 Punj & Har 222. The award of the Collector being prior to the 30th day of April, 1982, no additional compensation is due to the claimants under Section 23(1A) of the Act.
SECOND ACQUISITION- SECOND SET
RFA Nos. 1418, 1419 and 1420 of 1983;
RFA Nos. 316 and 494 of 1984 filed by the claimants.
RFA No. 1515 to 1517 of 1983 and RFA Nos. 335, and 1129 of 1984 preferred by the State as Cross-appeals to the appeals of the claimants.
RFA No. 1130 of 1984 preferred by the State and Cross-objections No. 28-C-I of 1984 filed by the claimant-Cross-Objector and Civil Misc. No. 2304-C-I of 1986 for being impleaded as parties.
30. The claimants in RFA Nos. 1418, 1419 and 1420 of 1983 and RFA Nos. 316 and 494 of 1984 and Cross-Objector in Cross-Objections No. 28-C-I of 1984 have uniformally asked for a compensation of Rs. 100/- per square yard. As mentioned earlier, Shri B. L. Gulati, Additional District Judge, Karnal, awarded to the claimants Rs. 25/- per square yard as compensation.
31. In this acquisition, it is undisputed that the finding recorded by the learned Judge about the potential of the land is correct. It has been held that the acquired land had the potential for being developed into residential as well as commercial area. The acquired land is a sizeable tract measuring approximately 19 Kanals. It is shown yellow in colour in site Exhibit P. 1. It is shown to be 40 metres from the G. T. Road and is at the back of the Market Committee's Officer Panipat. The acquired land is now adjacent to the Haryana Urban Development Authority Colony Panipat, where plots have already been carved out and roads have been laid It is conceded that this development by the Haryana Urban Development Authority took place as a result of the Third Acquisition and was not there when the notification under Section 4 in the instant case of the Second Acquisition was issued on Nov. 4,1976. Thus, what is left to be determined is -- what is the market value of the land acquired?
32. The claimants relied upon sale deeds Exhibits P-2 to P-5 and P-8. Besides, they relied upon awards Exhibits P-6 and P-9. Sale deeds Exhibits P-2, P-3, P-5 and P-8 are the same as relied upon by the claimants in the First Acquisition and have been dealt with earlier. Exhibits P-3 and P-5 are Exhibits P-1 and P-4 of the First Acquisition, for land adjacent to the area involved in the First Acquisition. The area of the First Acquisition is almost 300 yards from the land of the Second Acquisition, but the acquired land is towards Panipat side. Exhibit P-8 in the instant acquisition is the same as Exhibit P-16 of the First Acquisition and the said land is far away but near Kamal Cinema closer to Panipat town. Sale transaction Exhibit P-2 dt. June 19,1973, is of land far away from the acquired land. It is on the G. T. Road but towards Delhi side. 682 square yards of land was sold for a sum of Rs. 30,000/-, disclosing rate per square yard of Rs. 44/-. That was Exhibit P-2 in the First Acquisition. All these sales are of no assistance in the instant case. The only sale worth consideration is sale transaction Exhibit P-4 which is close to the site acquired. It is discloses that on July 22, 1974, 480 square yards of land was sold for Rs. 12,000/-. The approximate price would work out to be less than Rs. 30/- per square yard. This site is about 20 metres from the acquired land. But this sale is about 2 years 4 months prior to the date of the acquisition.
33. Exhibit P-6 is the award of the same Additional District Judge dt. Mar. 15, 1983, relating to part of the land in the Third Acquisition, whereby he had given Rs. 21/-per square yard as compensation and this award is the subject matter of LPA Nos. 675 to 677 of 1985, Exhibit P-9 is the award of Shri Gorakh Nath, Additional District Judge, dated November 18, 1981, relating to the First Acquisition, whereby Rs. 25/- per square yard was awarded. That has been enhanced to Rs. 39/- per square yard in the earlier part of the judgment. This entirely is the documentary material on record besides oral evidence, which is not much of assistance.
34. The instances cited by the State were ruled out by the learned Additional District Judge. They were not even relied upon by the Land Acquisition Collector. The State of Haryana has not relied upon these instances and resort has to be made only to the material placed by the claimants on record.
35. The learned Additional District Judge based both his awards of instance of sale in Exhibit P-4 and taking it to be sale of a small plot of land, took the tentative view that the acquired land being a larger chunk could be had at Rs. 20/- per square yard on July 22, 1974, but since it was taken 2 years4 months later about 10 per cent increase per year was justifiable. On this reasoning, he arrived at a tentative price of less than Rs. 25/- per square yard, but then relying upon Exhibit P-9 relating to the First Acquisition, he came to the final conclusion that Rs. 257-per square yard would be the correct market value of the land in dispute. This he held in both his awards dt. 29-8-1983 and 29-11-1983.
36. Since we have enhanced the compensation in the First Acquisition to Rs. 39/- per square yard, we are of the view that the same rate of compensation need be awarded in the instant acquisition i.e. Second Acquisition as well As has been observed earlier, both the acquisitions took place within a span of few days. These tracts are only 300 metres apart. Both the sites, subject to a small variation here and there, should have fetched the same price if sold in the chunks as they are. The land in the First Acquisition was uneven and slopy though on the G. T. Road. The land in the Second Acquisition, though 40 metres away from the G. T. Road was even. On the former land expending was necessary to make it even, though both the lands had in terms of value advantages and disadvantages equivalent in terms of money. Therefore, we fix the market value of the land acquired in the Second Acquisition too at Rs. 39/- per square yard.
37. The result is that RFA Nos. 1418, 1419 and 1420 of 1983, RFA Nos. 316 and 494 of 1984 and Cross-Objection No. 28-C-I of 1984 in RFA No. 1130 of 1984 as also Civil Misc. No. 2304-C-I of 1986 filed by the claimants to be impleaded as parties are allowed. Conversely, the State Appeals, RFA Nos. 1515 to 1517 of 1983, 335, 1129 and 1130 of 1984 are dismissed. Besides, the market value of the land, the claimants shall get 30 per cent solatium on such market value besides interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the enhanced amount from the date on which the Collector took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Court for one year and thereafter at the rate of 15 per cent per annum till the date of payment as per amended Section 28 of the Act and as interpreted by a Full Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Krishan Lal, AIR 1987 Punj & Har 222. The award of the Collector being prior to the 30th day of April, 1982, no additional compensation is due to the claimants under section 23(1A) of the Act.
THIRD ACQUISITION:
38. The Third Acquisition was initiated on Aug. 30, 1977, almost 10 months after the First Acquisition. In Taraf Rajputan 64.50 acres were acquired and in Taraf Afghana 173.39 acres was acquired. The Land Acquisition Collector on Feb. 14, 1979, prepared a separate award No. 14 for the land acquired in Taraf Rajputan and fixed Rs. 7.23 per square yard as the market value. Similarly, on the same date he gave the same market value vide award No. 15 relating to Taraf Afghana. On the references at the instance of the claimant-landowners various awards on different dates were passed by S/Shri B. L. Gulati and K. C. Gupta, Additional District Judges. Against those some of the landowners have preferred appeals and in some cases there were Cross-appeals by the State. The Claimant-appellants in the various appeals have claimed compensation at a rate ranging from Rs. 507-per square yard to Rs. 100/- per square yard. It would be appropriate to tabulate the cases:
SET III-A
RFA No. 127 of 1983 preferred by the claimant and Cross-appeal No. 128 of 1983 preferred by the State against the award dt. 29-10-1982 passed by Shri B. L. Gulati, Additional District Judge, Karnal, fixing the market value at the rate of Rs. 17/- per square yard of a portion of land involved in the Third Acquisition.
SET III-B
LPA Nos. 675 to 677 of 1985 preferred by the landowners against the order of the learned single Judge of this Court passed in RFA Nos, 622, 623 and 895 of 1983 which in turn were against the award of Shri B. L. Gulati, Additional District Judge, Karnal, dt. 15-3-1983 awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 21/- per square yard. This related to part of the land involved in the Third Acquisition.
(Cross-State appeals No. 892 to 894 of 1983 were dismissed by the Hon'ble single Judge and there is no further Letters Patent Appeal).
SET III-C
RFAs Nos. 1745 and 1754 of 1984 against the award dt. 18-5-1984 passed by Shri K. C. Gupta, Additional District Judge, Karnal, awarding Rs. 25/- per square yard in respect of land abutting G. T. Road and Rs. 21/- per square yard for land away from the G. T. Road, relating to part of the land involved in the Third Acquisition.
SET III-D
RFAs Nos. 1746 to 1753 of 1984 by theclaimants-landowners against the awarddt. 22-5-1984 passed by Shri K. C. Gupta,Additional District Judge, Karnal, awardingRs. 21/- per square yard as the market value of a part of the land involved in the Third Acquisition which was away from the G. T.Road.
SET III-E
RFA Nos. 1019 to 1025 of 1985 by the claimant-landowners against the award of Shri K. C. Gupta, Additional District Judge, Karnal, dt 11-3-1985 whereby he awarded a sum of Rs. 25/- per square yard as the market value for a part of the land acquired in the Third Acquisition, applying a uniform rate irrespective of the location of the land.
SET III-F
RFA Nos. 1026 to 1037 of 1985 by the claimant-landowners against the award of Shri K. C. Gupta, Additional District Judge, Karnal, dt. 14-4-1985 whereby he awarded Rs. 25/- per square yard as the market value for a part of the land involved in the Third Acquisition, applying a uniform rate irrespective of the location of the land.
SET III-G
RFA Nos. 1523 and 1524 of 1985 by the claimant-landowners against the award of Shri K. C. Gupta, Additional District Judge, Karnal, dt. 2-5-1985 whereby he awarded a sum of Rs. 25/- per square yard as the market value for a part of the land acquired in the Third Acquisition, applying a uniform rate irrespective of the location of the land.
SET III-H
RFA Nos. 75 to 78 of 1986 by the claimant landowners against the award of Shri K. C. Gupta, Additional District Judge, Karnal, dt. 7-10-1985 whereby he awarded a sum of Rs. 25/- per square yard as the market value for a part of the land involved in the Third Acquisition, applying a uniform rate irrespective of the location of the land.
39. In the earlier part of the judgment, we have broadly given the location of the land acquired. A very small portion of it touches the G. T. Road on the side. The other side is closer to Panipat town. The connecting area of these two points is a vast tract of land on one side of which, closer to the G. T. Road, urbanisation had started. Shri B. L. Gulati, Additional District Judge, Karnal in the case involved in SET III-A gave Rs. 17/- per square yard as the market value. This was in order of time the first. Then while dealing with the cases in SET III- B he gave the average of Rs. 257- per square yard awarded by Shri Gorakh Nath, Additional District Judge in the First Acquisition and Rs. 177- per square yard by himself in SET III-A of the Third Acquisition, awarding Rs. 21/- per square yard for SET-III-B. A learned single Judge of this Court affirmed that rate. The State submitted to that rate is not questioning it further in Letters Patent Appeals. The learned single Judge observed that no fault could be found if the Additional District Judge had drawn the mean between the two awards. In SET-III-C Shri K. C. Gupta, Additional District Judge, adopted the rate of Rs. 25/- per square yard awarded in the First Acquisition for the land abutting the G. T. Road and the rate of Rs. 21/- awarded in cases of SET-III-B in the Third Acquisition for the land away from G. T. Road. He repeated the same rate of Rs. 21/- in the cases involved in SET-III-D for the land was away from the G. T. Road. Thereafter, he in SETs III-E, F, G and H cases uniformally gave Rs. 25/- per square yard irrespective of the location of land. From the pattern of fixation of compensation, it is abundantly clear that though the acquisition was one and of the same date, different rates got awarded by the Court because the awards were made on different dates. To begin with the Courts were inclined to give a lesser rate but gradually came to stabilise the rate at Rs. 25/- per square yard. Significantly, it is the same rate as was awarded in the First Acquisition. It is not difficult to read between the lines that when two major acquisitions i.e. the First Acquisition and the Second Acquisition, had taken place towards the urbanisation of the area, hopes and expectations of the people and the prices in the area did show an upward trend And when came the Third Acquisition, the reasonable market value of the land involved therein did develop the potential of being of the rate as was awarded for the First and the Second Acquisition. It is primarily for this reason, besides that of prudence, that we have decided to indulge in some amount of arbitrariness, for in the scheme of the Act it cannot be avoided. See in this regard, Kaushalya Devi Bogra's case (AIR 1984 SC 892) (supra). It was observed : 'Again in the very scheme for fixation of compensation provided by the Land Acquisition Act there is bound to be some amount of arbitrariness.'
40. It is significant to mention that the later awards of the Additional District Judge crystalised a uniform rate of Rs. 257- per square yard irrespective of the location of land. To this aspect of the case, the State did not file any appeal. In other words, the State did not challenge the uniformity of the rate (whatever be the rate) of the lands involved in the acquisition irrespective their location. This is all the more important when the uniform finding has been recorded in all these cases that the land had the potential for being used for residential and commercial purposes. Nobody disputes this. It is even more significant that the land in one piece was acquired avowedly for such purpose by the Haryana State Urban Development Authority, The development of the area by the Haryana Urban Development Authority can by no means be expected to be graded in the area. All these factors too combine to impel us to grant a uniform rate for the acquisition and do away with even the prospect of belting the area abutting the G. T. Road and the other area closer to the Panipat town. It also obviates the necessity of discussing evidence in each individual case, which is mostly overlapping and repetitive. This would also do away with the haunt of various awards/in the field and to marshal the reasoning. And lastly, this would obviate the element of unfairness amongst the landowners inter se if diversity of rates is applied.
41. Having set our mind in that direction, we would similarly enhance the rate for the Third Acquisition to Rs. 39/- per square yard for reasons which are not difficult to perceive from discussion in the earlier part of the judgment while dealing with the First and the Second Acquisition.
42. The end result is that LPA Nos. 675 to 677 of 1985 are allowed and the Letters Patent appellants are awarded Rs. 39A per square yard as compensation and accordingly the order of the learned single Judge is modified. Similarly, RFA Nos. 127 of 1983, 1745 and 1754 of 1984, 1745 to 1753 of 1984, RFA Nos. 1019 to 1025 of 1985, RFA Nos. 1026 to 1037 of 1985, RFA Nos. 1523 and 1524 of 1985 and RFA Nos. 75 to 78 of 1986 are allowed awarding to the claimant landowners a sum of Rs. 39/- per square yard as compensation for their acquired land. Conversely, State Appeal, RFA No. 128 of 1983 preferred by the State is dismissed Besides the market value of the land the claimants shall get 30 per cent solatium on such market value besides interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the enhanced amount from the date on which the Collector took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Court for one year and thereafter at the rate of 15 per cent per annum till the date of payment as per amended section 28 of the Act and as interpreted by the Full Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Krishan Lal AIR 1987 Punjab & Haryana 222. The award of the Collector being prior to the 30th day of April, 1982, no additional compensation is due to the claimants under Section 23(1A) of the Act.
43. In all the cases covered by the First, Second and Third Acquisitions the claimants-appellants shall have their costs. The matters are disposed of in the manner set out above.