| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/1180344 |
| Court | Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Decided On | Sep-16-2015 |
| Case Number | RFA No. 7108 of 2012 (O&M) |
| Judge | Rajesh Bindal |
| Appellant | Rampal and Others |
| Respondent | Land Acquisition Collector and Another |
1. This order will dispose of bunch of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 7108 to 7114 of 2012; RFA Nos. 477, 879 to 896, 1217, 1382 to 1389, 1406 to 1408, 1480, 1481, 1657, 1677, 2199, 2200, 2223, 2224, 2355, 2356, 2361, 2377, 2379, 2520 to 2527, 2549 to 2552, 2560, 2561, 2581 to 2585, 2612, 2875, 3326, 3327, 3330, 3331, 3362, 3363, 3374, 3379, 3541, 3920 to 3930, 4031 to 4033, 4280, 4281, 4314 to 4317, 4369, 4377, 4381, 4395, 4419, 4421, 4520 to 4523, 4527, 4647 to 4656, 4730, 4832, 4833, 4839 to 4844, 4864, 4865, 5075, 5082 to 5084, 5209 to 5215, 5227 to 5238, 5246, 5251 to 5260, 5267 to 5269, 5356 to 5366, 5435 to 5446, 5449 to 5454, 5462 to 5466, 5484, 5485, 5492 to 5495, 5588, 5596, 5597, 5599, 5600, 5602, 5623 to 5630, 5741, 5742, 5851, 6092, 6093, 6095 to 6097, 6101 to 6103, 6155, 6156, 6188, 6200 to 6206, 6268 to 6293, 6311 to 6322, 6341, 6342, 6361, 6374 to 6377, 6396, 6397, 6421, 6423, 6470, 6500, 6501, 6513, 6514, 6540, 6542, 6547, 6551, 6600, 6601, 6613 to 6615, 6665 to 6693, 6790 to 6799, 6802, 6803, 6838 to 6840, 6857, 6870, 6935, 6936, 6968 to 6974, 6979, 6987, 7097, 7122, 7123, 7208, 7209, 7236, 7238, 7260, 7261, 7274, 7276, 7374 to 7381, 7891, 7892, 7904 to 7908, 7996, 7997, 8003, 8045, 8046, 8051 to 8141 of 2013;
RFA Nos. 257 to 361, 370, 375, 380, 381, 379, 412 to 448, 459 to 464, 586, 812, 822, 825, 831, 842, 843, 851, 855, 860 to 862, 866 to 945, 973, 1015 to 1020, 1069 to 1071, 1107, 1122 to 1166, 1232, 1239, 1267, 1270, 1271, 1276 to 1278, 1473 to 1479, 1510, 1578, 1612, 1613, 1617 to 1620, 1655 to 1664, 2120, 2138, 2144, 2153, 2164, 2165, 2171, 2194, 2195, 2198, 2218, 2219, 2257, 2263, 2291, 2313, 2315, 2742, 2745, 2785, 2798, 2799, 2818, 2842 to 2851, 3038, 3276, 3277, 3335, 3336, 3366, 3367, 3372, 3391, 3407, 3410, 3614 to 3624, 3662, 3673, 3680 to 3682, 3690, 3728 to 3730, 3991 to 3996, 4199 to 4202, 4211 to 4215, 4241, 4387 to 4391, 4422, 4666, 4781 to 4784, 4990, 5252 to 5254, 5264, 5295, 5302, 5303, 5330 to 5332, 5335 to 5337, 5362 to 5367, 5405 to 5408, 5426, 5433, 5454 to 5456, 5548, 5550, 5556 to 5558, 5577, 5578, 6063 to 6067, 6135, 6280, 6324 to 6328, 6339, 6408 to 6411, 6507 to 6510, 6707, 6713, 6714 to 6716, 6940, 6941, 7200, 7207, 7219, 7240, 7242, 7320, 7372, 7375, 7397 to 7400, 7439 to 7442, 7661, 7662, 7674, 7675, 7681, 7687, 7690, 7700, 7712, 7767, 7848, 7849, 8056, 8064, 8068, 8070, 8080 to 8082, 8102, 8161 to 8163, 8464, 8465, 8631, 8635, 8668, 8699, 8700 to 8702, 8729 to 8731, 8764, 8818, 8870, 8972, 9003, 9053, 9058, 9064, 9087, 9090, 9094 to 9096, 9111, 9114, 9144, 9158, 9159, 9369 to 9371, 9418, 9550, 9551, 9559, 9560, 9562, 9596, 9597, 9654, 9664, 9716, 9840 to 9856, 10275 to 10301 of 2014;
RFA Nos. 43, 51, 277, 311, 333, 420 to 427, 434, 435, 439, 453 to 455, 478 to 505, 662 to 679, 681 to708, 734 to 737, 783 to 795, 819, 821, 822, 865 to 868, 888, 899, 904, 1112, 1399, 1400 to 1404, 2016, 2025, 2255 to 2258, 2296 to 2300, 2317, 2369, 2370, 2381, 2650 to 2665, 2667, 3059 to 3063, 3066, 3272, 3273, 3278, 3331 to 3336, 3338, 3339, 3405, 3415, 3563 to 3565, 4371 to 4375, 4403 to 4405, 4415, 4433, 4444, 4446, 4468 to 4470, 4472, 4473, 4512, 4532, 4867 to 4882, 4930 to 4957 of 2015;
Cross Objections Nos. 20-CI, 37-CI and 43-CI of 2014 and
Cross Objections No. 37-CI of 2015.
2. In the appeals and cross-objections filed by the landowners, they are seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land, whereas in the appeals filed by the State, the prayer is for reduction thereof.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 1.5.2006, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), State of Haryana sought to acquire the land, situated in the revenue estate of village Baroli, Hadbast No. 116, village Sihi, Hadbast No. 80, village Murtezapur, Hadbast No. 97, village Pehladpur, Hadbast No. 117, village Bhatola, Hadbast No. 115, Tehsil and District Faridabad for development and utilisation thereof as residential and commercial areas in Sectors 75 and 80, Faridabad. The same was followed by notification dated 30.4.2007, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector'), vide award dated 22.7.2008, assessed the compensation @ Rs. 16,00,000/- per acre. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections which were referred to the learned court below, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, determined the fair value of the acquired land Rs.585/- per square yard.
4. Vide another notification dated 7.2.2008, issued under Section 4 of the Act, State of Haryana sought to acquire the land, situated in village Bhatola, HB No. 115, village Murtezapur, HB No. 97, village Fajjupur Majra Neemka, HB No. 98, village Neemka, HB No. 96, village Faridpur, HB No. 99 and Baroli, HB No. 116, Tehsil and District Faridabad for development of residential and commercial areas in Sectors 76, 77 and 78, Faridabad. The same was followed by notification dated 6.2.2009, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector'), vide award dated 24.4.2009, assessed the compensation @ Rs.42,00,000/- per acre. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections which were referred to the learned court below, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, determined the fair value of the acquired land Rs.1,052/- per square yard.
5. Vide another notification 14.8.2008, issued under Section 4 of the Act, State of Haryana sought to acquire the land, situated in villages Murtezapur, HB No. 97, Nimka, HB No. 96, Faizpur Majra Nimka, HB No. 98, Bhatola, HB No. 115, Badoli, HB No. 116, Pahladpur Majra Badoli, HB No. 117, Budhena, HB No. 124, Kherikhurd, HB No. 114, Faridpur, HB No. 99, Kheerikalan, HB No. 113, Baselwa, HB No. 125, Riwazpur, HB No. 142, Badshahpur, HB No. 140, Palwali, HB No. 138, Wazirpur, HB No. 137, Mawai, HB No. 126, Bhupani, HB No. 143, Tikawali, HB No. 131, Faridabad, HB No. 123, Tehsil and District Faridabad for master plan roads of Sectors 75 to 89, Faridabad. The same was followed by notification dated 30.8.2008, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector, vide award dated 27.8.2010, assessed the compensation @ Rs.42,00,000/- per acre. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections which were referred to the learned court below, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, determined the fair value of the acquired land Rs.1,118/- per square yard.
6. Vide award dated 17.1.2014, the learned court below assessed the compensation @ Rs.1,118/- per square yard for the land pertaining to the revenue estate of village Faridpur.
7. Vide award dated 5.3.2015, the learned court below assessed the compensation @ Rs.2,900/- per square for the land pertaining to revenue estate of village Baselwa.
8. The aforesaid awards have been impugned by the landowners as well as the State before this Court.
9. It may be added here that with regard to notification dated 7.2.2008, pertaining to village Baroli, no appeal has been filed either by the landowners as well as the State. Similarly, with regard to notification dated 14.8.2008, pertaining to villages Budhena, Wazirpur and Mawai, no appeal has been filed by either of the parties.
10. It may also be added that the appeals filed by the State against the award pertaining to acquisition dated 1.5.2006 have been dismissed by this court vide order dated 4.3.2013, passed in RFA No. 1224 of 2013-The State of Haryana and another v. Rampal and others.
11. To put the record straight, it is also mentioned, as pointed out by learned counsel for the landowners, that the court below decided the references village-wise pertaining to the aforesaid acquisitions and references pertaining to village Wazirpur are stated to be pending before the learned court below.
Arguments on behalf of landowners regarding notification dated 1.5.2006
12. Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that assessment of compensation by the learned court below is not just and fair considering the location of the land and the sale deeds produced on record by the landowners pertaining to the same revenue estate. The land had great future potential for urbanisation. Private colonizers, like BPTP, Omaxe and SRS had built residential and commercial complexes surrounding the acquired land. On the western side of the acquired land, there is national highway bypass. The land dealt with in the sale deeds (Ex. P2 and Ex. P3 in LAC No. 486 of 2010) was a big chunk and the average sale consideration paid therein is L 2,892/- per square yard. The same were registered just eight days after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. In the sale deeds (Ex. P14 and Ex. P15 in LAC No. 486 of 2010), registered on 20.3.2006, the average sale consideration paid is Rs. 1,600/- per square yard. In fact, the land was being purchased by the builders in the area for residential and commercial use, hence, the aforesaid sale transactions were showing genuine value of the land in the area. The acquired land was some left out portion, which the landowners had not sold to the builders. In terms of the settled position of law, the sale deed showing highest value is to be relied upon for the purpose of assessment of compensation. Learned counsel further submitted that the appeals filed by the State against the award pertaining to this acquisition have been dismissed by this Court in Rampal's case (supra).
Regarding notification dated 7.2.2008
13. Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the learned court below has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it in terms of the settled position of law regarding assessment of compensation for the acquired land. The sale transaction showing the maximum value was required to be relied upon, but despite there being many, the sale transaction showing lesser value was relied upon for assessing the compensation. The mere fact that two years prior to the date of acquisition, the land was already acquired for development as Sectors 75 and 80 itself shows that there was pace of development activity in the area. Even in the sectors in question, substantial portion of land had already been purchased by the builders for use as residential and commercial purposes. The entire land was located within the controlled area, which had great potential for urbanisation. The reasons for rejection of sale deeds by the court below, namely, that the land had been purchased by the builders cannot stand in judicial scrutiny as any buyer will not pay price more than the market value at that time. In support of his arguments regarding fair assessment of compensation for the acquired land, reference was made to an agreement to sell (Ex. P16 in LAC No. 1192 of 2011) dated 29.10.2007 for the land measuring 18 kanals and 10 marlas at the price of Rs.1.50 crores per acre. Sale deeds in pursuance to the aforesaid agreement to sell were registered on 5.9.2008 (sale deeds Ex. P17 and Ex. P18 in LAC No. 1192 of 2011). Aks-shijra (Ex. P25 in LAC No. 1192 of 2011) on record shows that the land dealt with in the aforesaid sale deeds was just adjoining to the acquired land. To assess fair value of the acquired land, at the most cut of 25% to 30% can be applied with reference to the sale deeds. Even from the other sale deeds produced on record by the landowners, the prices of the land in the area is evident and the demand by the builders.
Regarding notification dated 14.8.2008
14. The purpose for which the land was acquired vide notification dated 14.8.2008 itself shows that the area around that was already developed, as the purpose is only for construction of sector roads. In fact, major part of Sectors 75 to 89 had already been purchased by the builders. The court below had gone wrong in assessing the compensation by merely relying upon the earlier award pertaining to the acquisition, where notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 7.2.2008 and granting increase for the time gap. The same is not the appropriate method considering the fact that there are sale-deeds available not only of the same revenue estate but even the acquired land itself. It was further submitted that all the sale deeds produced by the State deserve to be rejected and had rightly been rejected by the court below for the reason that sale consideration paid therein was far less than the award of the Collector.
Arguments in RFA No. 4647 of 2013-village Neemka
15. Regarding fair assessment of compensation for the acquired land, reference was made to sale deeds (Ex. P17/A and Ex. PW9/C dated 5.9.2008 in LAC No. 629 of 2011, as referred to Ex. P17 and Ex. P18 in LAC No. 1192 of 2011), vide which land measuring 11 kanals and 17 marlas was sold for L 2,22,18,750/-. The aforesaid sale deeds pertain to the revenue estate of village Neemka. The potentiality of the land has already been accepted by the court below in terms of the evidence led by the landowners. While referring to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Himmat Singh and others v. State of M. P. and another, 2014(1) RCR (Civil) 592, it was submitted that when the land was acquired only for the purpose of construction of roads, in fact, no cut was required to be applied, as in the aforesaid judgment for acquisition of land for laying down Railway Line, Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that no cut was required to be applied on the sale transactions relied upon.
Arguments in RFA No. 4403 of 2015-Village Baselwa
16. Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the learned court below in the case in hand placed reliance upon sale deed (Ex. P24 in LAC No. 245 of 2011) dated 28.12.2006, vide which land measuring 12 kanals and 13 marlas was sold at an average price of Rs.3,657/- per square yard. After granting increase for the time gap and applying a cut of rd, compensation of Rs.2,900/- per square yard was assessed. In fact, no cut was required to be applied, as the sale transaction relied upon was not of a small plot.
Arguments in RFA No. 4390 of 2014
17. Learned counsel for the landowner submitted that in evidence produced before the court below, the appellant in the present case had produced photo copy of the sale deed, vide which he had purchased the land. The sale deed was registered on 11.4.2007, vide which 17 kanals and 17 marlas of land was purchased at an average price of Rs.1,429/- per square yard. Along with the application seeking permission to lead additional evidence, certified copy of the aforesaid sale deed has been produced, which may be allowed. The Reference Court has merely awarded a sum of Rs.1,118/- per square yard for the land, which was acquired vide notification 14.8.2008, which was purchased by the appellant more than a year back @ Rs.1,429/- per square yard.
Arguments on behalf of the State
18. Draft Development Plan for the controlled area outside Municipal Corporation, Faridabad 2031-AD, as was produced by learned counsel for the State was taken on record. From the site plan, it is evident that substantial part of the land acquired for development as Sectors 75 and 80 and 76 to 78 had been purchased by the builders for development as residential and commercial area. The same has been marked with yellow colour in the site plan.
19. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the sale deeds, vide which the land was purchased by the builders cannot be said to be showing the fair value of the land in the area as their dealings are for commercial purpose to earn profits. With an object to make a compact block of land, after initial purchase, they may offer more and more prices to the neighbouring landowners. There may be unhealthy competition even amongst different builders. Their valuation of land is not relevant for the reason that the construction activity goes vertical. It also depends in which zone the land sought to be purchased is located, such as residential, commercial etc. He further submitted that earlier the land pertaining different villages for development as Industrial Model Township (IMT) was acquired vide notification dated 31.7.2006. Learned counsel further submitted that even the sale deeds produced by the landowners itself suggest lot of variation in the sale consideration paid, which clearly suggests the fact that rates varied either considering the location, or demand and supply and particular choice of the buyer for creating a big chunk of land, the same cannot be taken to be the fair value. He further submitted that the sale deeds produced by the State should also be taken into consideration to assess fair value of the acquired land.
20. With reference to acquisition of land, where notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 1.5.2006, learned counsel for the State submitted that the appeals filed by the State having been dismissed, he cannot pray for reduction in compensation, however, even from the material on record, no case for enhancement is made out as the transactions are not bona fide. These do not depict fair market value, rather, competitive value amongst businessmen.
21. With reference to acquisition of land, where notifications under Section 4 of the Act were issued on 7.2.2008 and 14.8.2008, while reiterating the earlier arguments, learned counsel for the State could not dispute the fact that even the State had produced the sale deed (Ex. R3 in LAC No. 292 of 2011) dated 31.1.2006 showing the value as Rs.1,240/- per square yard. The land pertaining to the aforesaid sale deed was acquired. In terms of the law laid down in Himmat Singh's case (supra), cut of 50% is required to be applied. If the same is considered, the value of the land will come out much less what has been assessed by the court below. Further reference was made to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Maj. Gen. Kapil Mehra and others v. Union of India and another, 2015(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 4 : (2015) 2 SCC 262 regarding application of cut for providing infrastructural facilities and development expenses. It was further submitted that after application of 50% cut on account of smallness of area dealt with in the aforesaid sale deed, then further cut for providing infrastructural facilities and development expenses is required. In fact, there was no development in the area, as the land was subsequently acquired for providing sector roads. With reference to the notification issued on 14.8.2008, it was submitted that as there is a time gap of about six months, increase for the same can be granted and not increase as is sought to be claimed by the landowners.
22. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record.
Discussion
Assessment of compensation regarding land acquired vide notification dated 1.5.2006
23. The acquired land is located beyond Agra Canal at Faridabad. Small portion of that falls within the limits of Municipal Corporation, whereas major chunk is located outside. The area on the other side of Agra Canal was already developed. As far as acquisition, where notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 1.5.2006, is concerned, it was made for the purpose of development as residential and commercial areas in Sectors 75 and 80. Part of land in those sectors had already been purchased by the builders for development. Vide subsequent notification dated 7.2.2008, the land was acquired for development as Sectors 76 to 78. In this area also, part of the land had been purchased by the builders for development. Vide third notification, i.e., 14.8.2008, the land was acquired for construction of roads from Sectors 75 to 89. In Sectors 79 to 89 as well, some part of the land had been purchased by the builders for development.
24. Towards Mathura side from the acquired land leaving two sectors in between, the land pertaining to villages Sotai, Nawada Tigaon, Mujeri, Machgar and Chandawali, was acquired for development as Industrial Model Township (for short, 'IMT') by HSIIDC, where notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 31.7.2006 and this court in RFA No. 2075 of 2012-Sohan Lal and another v. The State of Haryana and others, decided on 3.9.2014, had assessed the value thereof @ L 1,230/- per square yard. On Delhi side, close to Sectors 87 to 89 is the Defence land.
25. For the purpose of assessment of compensation for the land pertaining to the revenue estate of village Murtezapur, sale deed (Ex. P2 in LAC No. 486 of 2010) has been relied upon. In the aforesaid sale deed, land measuring 193 kanals was sold for Rs. 33,81,00,000/- at an average price of Rs.2892/- per square yard. There is no much difference in location of the land acquired almost at the same time for IMT by HSIIDC, which forms part of Sectors 68 and 69, as Sectors 75 and 80 for which the land in question was acquired and Sectors 68 and 69 are located beyond Agra Canal from the city of Faridabad in parallel line. In the opinion of the court, there are no special advantages or disadvantages attached to both the lands as these are comparable. Hence, for the land acquired vide notification dated 1.5.2006, the compensation is assessed @ Rs.1,230/- per square yard.
Assessment of compensation regarding land acquired vide notification dated 7.2.2008
26. Vide aforesaid notification, the land was acquired for development as Sectors 76 to 78. It is not in dispute that part of the land of this area had been purchased by the builders for development, whereas part was acquired by the State for development by HUDA. The aforesaid portion of land is located away from the city of Faridabad. The land pertaining to Sectors 75 and 80 is located just adjoining to Agra Canal, whereas the acquired land is located beyond that. The land pertains to revenue estates of villages Bhatola, Murtezapur, Fajjupur Majra Neemka, Neemka, Faridpur and Baroli. There is no special advantage or disadvantage to the land pertaining to the aforesaid revenue estates, as the acquired land is a big chunk except portions of land which were not acquired or may have been released on account of licences granted to the private builders. In different references, where evidence has been led by the landowners, different sale deeds pertaining to the revenue estates, land of which has been acquired, have been produced. Some sale deeds have been produced, which do not pertain to the revenue estates, the land of which has been acquired, hence, the same cannot be said to be relevant.
27. Pertaining to the revenue estate of village Bhatola, in LAC No. 292 of 2011, the landowners had produced on record various sale deeds showing sale of land, where the buyers are mostly the builders. The price range starting from first sale deed (Ex. P15) dated 27.4.2006 is Rs.1,798/- per square yard to L 2,583/- per square yard vide sale deed (Ex. P9) dated 4.1.2008. In between, there are sale deeds, where sale consideration was at an average price of Rs.1,446/- per square yard vide sale deed (Ex. P19) dated 27.11.2006 and higher being Rs.3,513/- per square yard vide sale deed (Ex.P6) dated 17.10.2007. As against that, the State had produced three sale deeds. One of them, i.e., Ex. R3 dated 31.1.2006 shows the average value @ Rs.1,240/- per square yard. Specific location of the land pertaining to the aforesaid sale deeds was not pointed out on any plan, but these are quite in number and pertaining to the revenue estate of village Bhatola. The price variation itself suggests the fact that purchase of land at different times had been at different rates, the builders being the buyers, hence, the factors such as location, the need for creating a big chunk of land for taking licence and development etc. may be the relevant factors as the maximum price paid in the sale deed (Ex. P6) dated 17.10.2007 was Rs.3,513/- per square yard for a small portion of land measuring 1 kanal and 1 marla.
28. Pertaining to the revenue estate of village Murtezapur in LAC No. 1250 of 2011, only one sale deed (Ex. P5) dated 9.5.2006, had been produced on record by the landowners, where 24 acres, 1 kanal and 4 marlas of land was sold at an average price of Rs.2,892/- per square yard.
29. Pertaining to the revenue estate of village Fajjurpur Majra Neemka in LAC No. 1192 of 2011, the landowners had produced on record various sale deeds showing sale of land, where the buyers are mostly the builders. The price range starting from first sale deed (Ex. P11) dated 12.4.2006 is Rs.2,641/- per square yard to Rs.3,020/- per square yard vide sale deed (Ex. P3) dated 29.3.2007. In between, there are sale deeds, where the minimum sale consideration was at an average price of Rs.2,272/- per square yard vide sale (Ex. P1) dated 10.5.2006 yard and the maximum being Rs. 3,307/- vide sale deed (Ex.P2) dated 27.10.2006. As against that, the State had produced three sale deeds. One of them, i.e., Ex. R4 dated 24.11.2006 shows the maximum average value @ Rs.246/- per square yard. Specific location of the land pertaining to the aforesaid sale deeds was not pointed out on any plan, but these are quite in number and pertaining to the revenue estate of village Fajjupur Majra Neemka.
30. Pertaining to the revenue estate of village Neemka in LAC No. 1093 of 2011, the only sale deed (Ex. P1) dated 25.10.2007, pertaining to the aforesaid revenue estate, had been produced on record by the landowners. In the aforesaid sale deed, land measuring 0 kanal and 19 marlas was sold at an average price of Rs.3,099/- per square yard. On the other hand, sale deeds (Ex. R1 and Ex. R2) dated 17.2.2006 and 13.10.2003, had been relied upon by the State, where the land was sold at an average price of Rs.76/- and Rs.62/- per square yard, respectively.
31. Pertaining to the revenue estate of village Faridpur in LAC No. 1263 of 2011, the landowners had produced on record various sale deeds showing sale of land, where the buyers are mostly the builders. The price range starting from first sale deed (Ex. P14) dated 16.2.2006 registered at an average price of Rs.1,921/- per square yard to Rs.2,479/- per square yard vide sale deed (Ex. P11) dated 19.3.2007. In between, there are sale deeds, where the minimum sale consideration was at an average price of Rs.1,835/- per square yard vide sale (Ex. P12) dated 17.5.2006 yard and the maximum being Rs.4,028/- vide sale deed (Ex.P4) dated 6.3.2007. As against that, the State had produced sale deed (Ex. R1) dated 26.3.2007, where 2 kanals of land was sold at an average price of Rs.190/- per square yard. Specific location of the land pertaining to the aforesaid sale deeds was not pointed out on any plan, but these are quite in number and pertaining to the revenue estate of village Faridpur.
32. There are always positive and negative factors in any sale transaction of land. The positive factors, which increase the value of the land and judicially accepted, are smallness of area, proximity to a road, frontage on a road, closeness to the developed area, regular shape and other special advantage, whereas the negative factors are considered as largeness of area, situation in the interior at a distance from the road, narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth, remoteness from developed locality or any other disadvantageous factor in the vicinity.
33. The above or other possible factors which may have played role in variation of sale consideration shown in various sale deeds produced on record by the landowners, as it is evident that the sale consideration in the sale deeds registered earlier in time was more as compared to the sale consideration paid in the sale deeds registered later in time. However, the trend shows that there had been development activity in the area and the main factor, therefore, is the earlier acquisition of land for development as Sectors 75 to 80 close to the acquired land and the development of IMT in Sectors 68 and 69 by HSIIDC. The land for both the aforesaid projects was acquired almost at the same time.
34. As has already been noticed above, the compensation for the land, where notification under Section 4 of the Act has been issued on 1.5.2006 has been assessed in paragraph No. 23 of the judgment @ L 1,230/- per square yard. The land pertains to five revenue estates. It would not be in the fitness of things to rely on sale transactions pertaining to any one revenue estate. However, considering the trend of prices, as is evident from the sale deeds produced on record and appreciation in the prices considering the development activity, in my opinion, the landowners in the case in hand deserve to be granted increase @ 20% per annum for the time gap of one year and nine months in two acquisitions. Adding the same, the amount of compensation comes out to Rs.1,697/- per square yard, which is rounded off to Rs. 1,700/- per square yard. The landowners whose land had been acquired vide notification dated 7.2.2008 shall be entitled to compensation @ Rs.1,700/- per square yard.
Assessment of compensation regarding land acquired vide notification dated 14.8.2008
35. Vide aforesaid notification, the land pertaining to villages Murtezapur, Nimka, Faizpur Majra Nimka, Bhatola, Badoli, Pahladpur Majra Badli, Dudhena, Kherkhurd, Faridpur, Kheerikalan, Baselwa, Riwazpur, Badshahpur, Palwali, Wazirpur, Mawai, Bhupani and Tikawali was acquired. The purpose was for master plan roads of Sectors 75 to 89, Faridabad. As per Draft Development Plan for the controlled area outside Municipal Corporation, Faridabad 2031-AD, produced by the State, it is evident that part of the acquired land falls within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Faridabad, whereas part is beyond that. As has already been noticed above, the land for development as Sectors 75 to 78 and 80 had already been acquired. Part of the land now being acquired was for Sector roads for the aforesaid sectors, whereas part was for Sectors 79, 81 to 89.
36. Pertaining to the revenue estate of village Murtezapur in LAC No. 583 of 2011, the landowners had produced only two sale deeds (Ex. P.18 and Ex. P19) dated 9.5.2006 and 3.8.2006, respectively pertaining to the same revenue estate. Vide sale deed (Ex. P18), land measuring 193 kanals and 4 marlas was sold at an average price of Rs. 2,892/- per square yard, whereas vide sale deed (Ex. P19), land measuring 11 kanals and 8 marlas was sold at an average price of Rs.2,746/- per square yard. As against that, the State had produced three sale deeds. One of them, i.e., sale deed (Ex. R2) dated 24.8.2005, shows the maximum average value @ Rs.206/- per square yard. Specific location of the land pertaining to the aforesaid sale deeds was not pointed out on any plan.
37. Pertaining to the revenue estate of village Neemka in LAC No. 629 of 2011, the landowners had also produced on record various sale deeds showing sale of land, where the buyers are mostly the builders. The price range starting from first sale deed (Ex. PW12/9) dated 8.3.2006 is Rs.1,984/- per square yard to Rs.2,000/- per square yard vide sale deed (Ex. PW12/4) dated 10.6.2008. In between, there are sale deeds, where the minimum sale consideration was at an average price of Rs.1,271/- per square yard vide sale deed (Ex. PW12/2) dated 20.4.2006 and the maximum being Rs. 3,103/- per square yard vide sale deed (Ex.P4) dated 25.10.2007. As against that, the State had produced three sale deeds. One of them, i.e., sale deed (Ex. R3) dated 21.11.2005 shows the maximum average value @ Rs.715/- per square yard. Specific location of the land pertaining to the aforesaid sale deeds was not pointed out on any plan, but these are quite in number and pertain to the revenue estate of village Neemka.
38. With regard to the revenue estate of village Fajjupur Majra Neemka in LAC No. 443 of 2011, the landowners had produced on record various sale deeds showing sale of land, where the buyers are mostly the builders. The price range starting from first sale deed (Ex. P4) dated 5.5.2006 is Rs.2,477/- per square yard to Rs.2,830/- per square yard vide sale deed (Ex. P1) dated 12.9.2006. In between, there are sale deeds, where the minimum sale consideration was at an average price of Rs.1,404/- per square yard vide sale deed (Ex. P11) dated 10.5.2006 and the maximum being Rs.2,995/- per square yard vide sale deed (Ex.P6) dated 12.1.2007. There are other sale deeds on record, but those are pertaining to other revenue estates. As against that, the State had produced three sale deeds. One of them, i.e., sale deed (Ex. R2) dated 13.10.2003 shows the maximum average value @ Rs.1,544/- per square yard. Specific location of the land pertaining to the aforesaid sale deeds was not pointed out on any plan.
39. Pertaining to the revenue estate of village Bhatola in LAC No. 1025 of 2011, the landowners had produced on record various sale deeds showing sale of land, where the buyers are mostly the builders. The price range starting from first sale deed (Ex. P31) dated 20.12.2005 is L 805/- per square yard to Rs.2,384/- per square yard vide sale deed (Ex. P5) dated 5.5.2008. As against that, the State had produced three sale deeds. One of them, i.e., sale deed (Ex. R3) dated 31.1.2006 shows the maximum average value @ Rs.1,232/- per square yard. Specific location of the land pertaining to the aforesaid sale deeds was not pointed out on any plan.
40. Pertaining to the revenue estate of village Badoli in LAC No. 1002 of 2011, the landowners have produced on record various sale deeds showing sale of land, where the buyers are mostly the builders. The price range starting from first sale deed (Ex. P9) dated 17.11.2005 is Rs.762/- per square yard to Rs.2,404/- per square yard vide sale deed (Ex. P20) dated 2.7.2008. In between, there are sale deeds, where the minimum sale consideration was at an average price of Rs.762/- per square yard vide sale deed (Ex. P9) dated 17.11.2005 and the maximum being L 3,068/- per square yard vide sale deed (Ex.P21) dated 3.7.2007. As against that, the State did not produce any sale deed on record. Specific location of the land pertaining to the aforesaid sale deeds was not pointed out on any plan.
41. Pertaining to the revenue estate of village Pahladpur Majra Badoli in LAC No. 864 of 2011, the landowners had produced on record various sale deeds showing sale of land, where the buyers are mostly the builders. The price range starting from first sale deed (Ex. P2) dated 30.12.2005 is Rs.805.78 per square yard to Rs.2,685.95 per square yard vide sale deed (Ex. P12) dated 25.7.2006. As against that, the State has produced two sale deeds. One of them, i.e., sale deed (Ex. R2) dated 12.12.2006 shows the maximum average value @ Rs.202.75 per square yard. Location of the land pertaining to the aforesaid sale deeds was not pointed out on any plan.
42. Pertaining to the revenue estate of village Kheri Khurd in LAC No. 482 of 2011, the landowners had produced on record various sale deeds showing sale of land, where the buyers are mostly the builders. The price range starting from first sale deed (Ex. P15) dated 16.3.2006 is Rs.2,066/- per square yard to Rs.3,512/- per square yard vide sale deed (Ex. P13) dated 23.5.2008. In between, there are sale deeds, where the minimum sale consideration was at an average price of Rs.1,765/- per square yard vide sale deed (Ex. P44) dated 12.6.2008 and the maximum being Rs.8,802/- per square yard vide sale deed (Ex.P10) dated 23.4.2008. As against that, the State did not produce any sale deed on record pertaining to the aforesaid revenue estate.
43. Pertaining to the revenue estate of village Faridpur in LAC No. 804 of 2011, the landowners had produced on record various sale deeds showing sale of land, where the buyers are mostly the builders. The price range starting from first sale deed (Ex. P9) dated 16.2.2006 is Rs.1,921/- per square yard to Rs.2,542/- per square yard vide sale deed (Ex. P19) dated 19.3.2007. In between, there are sale deeds, where the minimum sale consideration was at an average price of Rs.1,835/- per square yard vide sale deed (Ex. 24) dated 17.5.2006 and the maximum being Rs.4,028/- vide sale deed (Ex.P3) dated 6.3.2007. As against that, the State did not produce any sale deed pertaining to the aforesaid revenue estate.
44. Pertaining to the revenue estate of village Kheerikalan in LAC No. 524 of 2011, the landowners had produced on record various sale deeds showing sale of land. The buyers in most of the sale deeds are builders. The price range starting from first sale deed (Ex. P35) dated 10.4.2006 is Rs.3,471/- per square yard to Rs.3,543/- per square yard vide sale deed (Ex. P4) dated 5.6.2008. In between, there are sale deeds, where the minimum sale consideration was at an average price of Rs.1,694/- per square yard vide sale deed (Ex. P38) dated 16.3.2006 and the maximum being Rs. 5,950/- vide sale deed (Ex.P1) dated 18.4.2007. As against that, the State had produced only one sale deed, i.e., sale deed (Ex. R2) dated 10.5.2007, whereby 9 kanals and 11 marlas of land was sold at an average price of Rs.173/- per square yard. Specific location of the land pertaining to the aforesaid sale deeds was not pointed out on any plan.
45. Pertaining to the revenue estate of village Baselwa in LAC No. 245 of 2011, the landowners had produced on record various sale deeds showing sale of land, where the buyers are mostly the builders. The price range starting from first sale deed (Ex. P19) dated 11.11.2005 is Rs.1,440/- per square yard to Rs.2,861/-per square yard vide sale deed (Ex. P2) dated 14.8.2008. In between, there are sale deeds, where the minimum sale consideration was at an average price of Rs.1,240/- per square yard vide sale deed (Ex. P3) dated 15.12.2005 and the maximum being Rs.5,062/- vide sale deed (Ex.P10) dated 24.12.2007. As against that, the State had produced three sale deeds. One of them, i.e., sale deed (Ex. R3) dated 27.2.2008 shows the maximum average value @ Rs.833/- per square yard. Specific location of the land pertaining to the aforesaid sale deeds was not pointed out on any plan.
46. With regard to village Riwazpur in LAC No. 156 of 2011, the landowners have produced on record various sale deeds showing sale of land, where the buyers are mostly the builders. The price range starting from first sale deed (Ex. PW5/A) dated 8.5.2006 is Rs.2,066/- per square yard Rs.3,998/- per square (Ex. P1) dated 18.4.2007. In between, there are sale deeds, where the minimum sale consideration was at an average price of Rs.2,066/- per square yard vide sale deed (Ex. PW5/A) dated 8.5.2006 and the maximum being Rs.4,216/- vide sale deed (Ex.P2) dated 18.4.2007. As against that, the State had produced two sale deeds. One of them, i.e., sale deed (Ex. R2) dated 3.8.2007 shows the maximum average value @ Rs.157/- per square yard. Specific location of the land pertaining to the aforesaid sale deeds was not pointed out on any plan.
47. Pertaining to the revenue estate of village Badshahpur in LAC No. 608 of 2011, the landowners did not produce any sale deed on record pertaining to the aforesaid revenue estate. The learned court below, while assessing the compensation, relied upon the earlier awards, which are pertaining to the revenue estates of villages Nimka and Faizpur Majra Nimka. As against that, the State produced two sale deeds, one of them being Ex. R2 dated 23.7.2008, whereby 11 kanals and 11 marlas of land was sold at an average price of L 310/- per square yard.
48. With regard to village Palwali LAC No. 304 of 2011, the landowners have produced on record various sale deeds showing sale of land, where the buyers are mostly the builders. The price range starting from first sale deed (Ex. P5) dated 28.12.2006 is Rs. 4,396/- per square yard to Rs.5,062/- per square (Ex. P4) dated 24.12.2007. In between, there are sale deeds, where the minimum sale consideration was at an average price of Rs.4,241/- per square yard vide sale deed (Ex. P6) dated 18.4.2007 and the maximum being Rs.5,940/- vide sale deed (Ex.P3) dated 18.4.2007. As against that, the State produced sale deed (Ex. R2) dated 9.1.2008, wherein land measuring one kanal was sold at an average price of Rs.136/- per square yard.
49. Pertaining to the revenue estate of village Bhupani in LAC No. 164 of 2011, the landowners had produced on record various sale deeds showing sale of land, where the buyers are mostly the builders. The price range starting from first sale deed (Ex. P2) dated 12.4.2006 is Rs.1,476/- per square yard to Rs.2,000/- per square yard vide sale deed (Ex. P3) dated 16.7.2008. The other sale deeds produced on record in this case are pertaining to different revenue estates. As against that, the State had produced three sale deeds. One of them, i.e., Ex. R1 dated 24.1.2007 shows the maximum average value @ Rs.209/- per square yard. Specific location of the land pertaining to the aforesaid sale deeds was not pointed out on any plan.
50. Pertaining to the revenue estate of village Tikawali in LAC No. 1065 of 2011, the landowners had produced on record various sale deeds showing sale of land, where the buyers are mostly the builders. The price range starting from first sale deed (Ex. P16) dated 4.1.2006 is Rs.1,301/- per square yard to Rs.2,226/- per square yard vide sale deed (Ex. P2) dated 22.2.2007. In between, there are sale deeds, where the minimum sale consideration was at an average price of Rs.1,301/- per square yard vide sale deed (Ex. P16) dated 4.1.2006 and the maximum being Rs.2,900/- per square yard vide sale deed (Ex. P6) dated 19.7.2006. As against that, the State did not produce any sale deed on record.
51. As discussed above, the positive and negative or any other factor which may have played role in variation of sale consideration shown in various sale deeds produced on record by the landowners, as it is evident that the sale consideration in the sale deeds registered earlier in time was more as compared to the sale consideration paid in the sale deeds registered later in time. However, the trend shows that there had been development activity in the area and the main factor, therefore, is the earlier acquisition of land for development as 75 to 78 and 80 close to the acquired land. The land for the aforesaid projects was acquired almost at the same time. In my opinion, the land being of 19 revenue estates and acquired for construction of sector roads, it will not be safe to place reliance on any one sale deed or assess value village-wise. A composite view has to be taken.
52. As has already been noticed above, the compensation for the land, where notification under Section 4 of the Act has been issued on 7.2.2008 has been assessed in paragraph No. 32 of the judgment @ Rs.1,700/- per square yard. However, considering the trend of prices, as is evident from the sale deeds produced on record and appreciation in the prices considering the development activity, in my opinion, the landowners in the case in hand deserve to be granted increase @ 20% per annum for the time gap of six months in two acquisitions. Adding the same, the amount of compensation comes out to Rs.1,870/- per square yard.
53. The aforesaid shall be the compensation pertaining to the land which falls outside the municipal limits. As certain part of the land falls within the municipal limits of Faridabad, which certainly has some advantages. Increase for the time gap is required to be given thereon at a rate more than what has been granted for the land which is situated outside the municipal limits. In my opinion, increase @ 35% per annum for the aforesaid portion of land deserves to be granted. Increase @ 15% is granted on account of the fact that certain part of the land falls within the municipal limits. Adding Rs.297/- for a period of six months thereon, the value of the acquired land would come out to Rs.1,997/- per square yard, which is rounded off to Rs.2,000/- per square yard.
54. Accordingly, the landowners whose land had been acquired vide notification dated 14.8.2008 shall be entitled to compensation @ Rs.1,870/- per square yard for the land which falls outside the municipal limits and @ Rs.2,000/- per square yard for the land situated within the municipal limits.
55. To sum up, it is held that the landowners shall be entitled to compensation as under:
| (i) | For the notification dated 1.5.2006 | Rs.1,230/- per square yard |
| (ii) | For the notification dated 7.2.2008 | Rs.1,700/- per square yard |
| (iii) | For the notification dated 14.8.2008 for the land outside the municipal limits | Rs.1,870/- per square yard |
| (iv) | For the notification dated 14.8.2008 for the land within the municipal limits | Rs.2,000/- per square yard |
56. The impugned awards of the learned court below are modified to the extent mentioned above and the appeals and cross objections filed by the landowners as well as the appeals filed by the State are disposed of accordingly.