Smt. Chander Lather and ors. Vs. Haryana State Through Collector and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/632332
SubjectProperty
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnOct-21-1993
Case NumberRegular First Appeal No. 1197 of 1988
Judge N.C. Jain, J.
Reported in(1994)107PLR90
ActsLand Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 23
AppellantSmt. Chander Lather and ors.
RespondentHaryana State Through Collector and ors.
Appellant Advocate Rameshwar Malik and; Ram Chander, Advs.
Respondent Advocate H.L. Sibal, A.G. and; Gulab Singh, A.A.G.
DispositionAppeal allowed
Cases ReferredInder Singh v. State of Punjab
Excerpt:
- n.c. jain, j.1. this judgment of mine would dispose of r.f.a. nos. 1197, 1198 of 1988,1185 to 1191 of 1992. 1659, 2584 of 1991, 2788 of 1992, 2063, 2064 of 1991 1454 to 1457 of 1992, 1856 and 3922 of 1992 filed by the landowners as they arise out of the same notification issued by the state of haryana under section 4 of the land acquisition act (for short 'the act') on 13.3.1981.2. put shortly the facts of the case are that land measuring 160.97 acres situated within the revenue estate of karnal, hadbast no. 1 was acquired by the haryana state for a public purpose namely, for the development and utilization of the land for industrial and commercial area in sector 3 at karnal. the land acquisition collector by his award dated 23.9.1986 assessed the market value of nehri/chahi land at the rate of rs. 80,000/- per acre and gairmumkin at the rate of rs. 50,000/- per acre. on reference under section 18 of the act, the additional district judge, karnal, by his award under challenge before this court has determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate of rs. 33/- per square yard at a flat rate. the additional district judge has evaluated the land at the said rate on after relying upon an earlier award which was given by the land acquisition court in the case of acquisition of land in sector 6. the land in sector 6 was acquired by the state of haryana on 4th june 1980 granting compensation at the rate of rs. 30/- per sq. yard. since there was a time gap between the two dates of notifications the additional district judge in his award in the present cases has granted the necessary increase.3. i have heard the learned counsel for the parties and was made through the documentary and oral evidence produced by both the parties. the counsel for the claimants have argued that the claimants are entitled to the grant of much higher compensation on the basis of the sale deeds which have been produced by them particularly when the land acquired lies within the municipal limits of karnal and had great potentialities for being developed into residential area. it cannot be denied that the. land was situated within the municipal limits of karnal. it has further not been denied that there was developed around the acquired land as has been stated by the claimants and in view thereof the landowners are entitled to enhancement in the amount of compensation but the question arises as to how much enhancement has to be made keeping in view the evidence brought on the record of the case. the landowners and the state have produced as many as 9 sale deeds the chart of which is given below:-s.no. document date of area amount of rate persale consideration sq. yard1 2 3 4 5 61. ex.p.5 20.6.72 400 sq.yards rs. 14,000/- rs. 35/-ex.p.6 7.1.74 1 1/2 biswas rs. 3,000/- rs. 40/-(75 sq.yards) 3. ex.p.9 25.2.79 500 sq. yards rs. 20,000/- rs. 40/-4. ex.p.10 2.12.81 304 sq.i yards rs. 30,000/- rs. 40/-5. ex.p.7 8.5.82 300 sq. yards rs. 30,000/- rs. 100/-6. ex.p.8 25.5.82 5231 sq. yards rs. 40,000/- rs. 76/-7. ex.r.2 17.3.80 1b-6b rs. 10,000/- rs. 7.63p8. ex.r.l 13.5.80 4b-8b rs. 26,000/- rs. 5.86 p9. ex.r.3 22.1.81 ib-12b rs. 20,000/- rs. 12.40pexhibits r.1 to r.3 have been rejected by the additional district judge on the ground that they relate to small pieces of land and i concur with the finding of the additional district judge. moreover, the state has not filed any appeal against the valuation put by the additional district judge.4. adverting to the sale deeds produced by the landowners, this court is dis-inclined to rely upon the same for more than one reason. sale deeds exhibits p.7, p.8 and p.10 are dated 8.5.82, 25.5.82 and 2.12.81 respectively and, therefore, they being post-dated notification, the same are not relevant for determining the market value of the acquired land. moreover, by virtue of the afore-mentioned sale deeds small pieces of land were sold. sale deeds exhibits p.5, p.6 and p.9 do relate to a period before the notification in, question was issued by this court is of the considered view that the same would also not be safe guide to determine the market value of the acquired land because they also pertain to the sale of small pieces of land. by virtue of' exh. p.5 land measuring 400 sq. yards was sold on 20.6.72 whereas by virtue of exh. p.6, 75 sq. yards of land was sold. similarly, by virtue of exh. p.9, 500 sq. yards of land was sold. this court is further inclined to concur with the finding of the additional district judge that exh. p.9 dated 25.2.79 which is near the date of notitification could not be relied upon as the area sold has been shown at point 'c' in the site plan which is in the shape of a plot. moreover, in view of the smallness of the size of the area sold vide exh. p.9, a deduction of l/3rd has to be applied and after giving the necessary enhancement in view of the time lag between the sale deed exh. p.9 and the date of the protification in the present cases the valuation which is going to be put by me would come virtually at the same rate.5. after taking into consideration the entire oral and documentary evidence, i am of the view that it would be safe to place reliance upon the award given by the court in the case of acquisition of land in sector 4. it has come in the statement of pw.2 mohinder singh lather that sector 4 is situated opposite to sector 3. in the site plan also the land of sector 4 has been shown opposite to sector 3. only g.t. road, in fact, bifurcates the two sectors. consequently the award given in sector. 4 would be a very safe guide for evaluating the acquired land. the land in sector 4 was acquired on 17.10.1978. the land acquisition court assessed the market value of the acquired land of sector 4 at the rate of rs. 30/- per sq. yard which has further enhanced to rupees 32/- per sq, yard in rfa no. 1646 of 1986 parshotam dass v. state of haryana, decided on 7.11.1989. the land in the present cases has been acquired on 13.3.1981 and, therefore this court has to give the necessary enhancement in view of time lag between the dates of two notifications i.e. in the case of sector 4 and in the present cases. it has been held in various judicial pronouncements including on in inder singh v. state of punjab, (1988-2) 94 p.l.r. 190 that it could not be disputed that prices were increasing and that judicial notice of the increase could be taken to be 12 per cent per annum. following the law said down in inder singh's case (supra), i hereby give the increase of 12 percent per annum. since there is a time gap of 29 months between the dates of two notifications, i give an increase of 29 per cent. the market value of the acquired land thus stands determined at rs. 41.28/- which can he rounded off at rs. 42/- per square yard in view of high potentialities of the land.6. for the reasons given above, the appeals filed by the landowners are allowed to th extent indicated above with proportionate costs. the appellants are further held entitled to the grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended provisions of sections 23(1a), 23(2) and 28 of the act. deficiency in court fee, if any, be made good within two months from today.
Judgment:

N.C. Jain, J.

1. This judgment of mine would dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 1197, 1198 of 1988,1185 to 1191 of 1992. 1659, 2584 of 1991, 2788 of 1992, 2063, 2064 of 1991 1454 to 1457 of 1992, 1856 and 3922 of 1992 filed by the landowners as they arise out of the same notification issued by the State of Haryana Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') on 13.3.1981.

2. Put shortly the facts of the case are that land measuring 160.97 acres situated within the revenue estate of Karnal, Hadbast No. 1 was acquired by the Haryana State for a public purpose namely, for the development and utilization of the land for industrial and commercial area in Sector 3 at Karnal. The Land Acquisition Collector by his Award dated 23.9.1986 assessed the market value of Nehri/Chahi land at the rate of Rs. 80,000/- per acre and Gairmumkin at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per acre. On reference Under Section 18 of the Act, the Additional District Judge, Karnal, by his Award under challenge before this Court has determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 33/- per square yard at a flat rate. The Additional District Judge has evaluated the land at the said rate on after relying upon an earlier Award which was given by the Land Acquisition Court in the case of acquisition of land in Sector 6. The land in Sector 6 was acquired by the State of Haryana on 4th June 1980 granting compensation at the rate of Rs. 30/- per sq. yard. Since there was a time gap between the two dates of notifications the Additional District Judge in his Award in the present cases has granted the necessary increase.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and was made through the documentary and oral evidence produced by both the parties. The counsel for the claimants have argued that the claimants are entitled to the grant of much higher compensation on the basis of the sale deeds which have been produced by them particularly when the land acquired lies within the municipal limits of Karnal and had great potentialities for being developed into residential area. It cannot be denied that the. land was situated within the Municipal limits of Karnal. It has further not been denied that there was developed around the acquired land as has been stated by the claimants and in view thereof the landowners are entitled to enhancement in the amount of compensation but the question arises as to how much enhancement has to be made keeping in view the evidence brought on the record of the case. The landowners and the State have produced as many as 9 sale deeds the chart of which is given below:-

S.No. Document Date of Area Amount of Rate persale consideration sq. yard1 2 3 4 5 61. Ex.P.5 20.6.72 400 sq.yards Rs. 14,000/- Rs. 35/-Ex.P.6 7.1.74 1 1/2 Biswas Rs. 3,000/- Rs. 40/-(75 sq.yards) 3. Ex.P.9 25.2.79 500 sq. yards Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 40/-4. Ex.P.10 2.12.81 304 sq.i yards Rs. 30,000/- Rs. 40/-5. Ex.P.7 8.5.82 300 sq. yards Rs. 30,000/- Rs. 100/-6. Ex.P.8 25.5.82 5231 sq. yards Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 76/-7. Ex.R.2 17.3.80 1B-6B Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 7.63P8. Ex.R.l 13.5.80 4B-8B Rs. 26,000/- Rs. 5.86 P9. Ex.R.3 22.1.81 IB-12B Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 12.40P

Exhibits R.1 to R.3 have been rejected by the Additional District Judge on the ground that they relate to small pieces of land and I concur with the finding of the Additional District Judge. Moreover, the State has not filed any appeal against the valuation put by the Additional District Judge.

4. Adverting to the sale deeds produced by the landowners, this Court is dis-inclined to rely upon the same for more than one reason. Sale deeds Exhibits P.7, P.8 and P.10 are dated 8.5.82, 25.5.82 and 2.12.81 respectively and, therefore, they being post-dated notification, the same are not relevant for determining the market value of the acquired land. Moreover, by virtue of the afore-mentioned sale deeds small pieces of land were sold. Sale deeds Exhibits P.5, P.6 and P.9 do relate to a period before the notification in, question was issued by this Court is of the considered view that the same would also not be safe guide to determine the market value of the acquired land because they also pertain to the sale of small pieces of land. By virtue of' Exh. P.5 land measuring 400 sq. yards was sold on 20.6.72 whereas by virtue of Exh. P.6, 75 sq. yards of land was sold. Similarly, by virtue of Exh. P.9, 500 sq. yards of land was sold. This Court is further inclined to concur with the finding of the Additional District Judge that Exh. P.9 dated 25.2.79 which is near the date of notitification could not be relied upon as the area sold has been shown at point 'C' in the site plan which is in the shape of a plot. Moreover, in view of the smallness of the size of the area sold vide Exh. P.9, a deduction of l/3rd has to be applied and after giving the necessary enhancement in view of the time lag between the sale deed Exh. P.9 and the date of the protification in the present cases the valuation which is going to be put by me would come virtually at the same rate.

5. After taking into consideration the entire oral and documentary evidence, I am of the view that it would be safe to place reliance upon the Award given by the Court in the case of acquisition of land in Sector 4. It has come in the Statement of PW.2 Mohinder Singh Lather that Sector 4 is situated opposite to Sector 3. In the site plan also the land of Sector 4 has been shown opposite to Sector 3. Only G.T. road, in fact, bifurcates the two Sectors. Consequently the Award given in Sector. 4 would be a very safe guide for evaluating the acquired land. The land in Sector 4 was acquired on 17.10.1978. The Land Acquisition Court assessed the market value of the acquired land of Sector 4 at the rate of Rs. 30/- per sq. yard which has further enhanced to Rupees 32/- per sq, yard in RFA No. 1646 of 1986 Parshotam Dass v. State of Haryana, decided on 7.11.1989. The land in the present cases has been acquired on 13.3.1981 and, therefore this Court has to give the necessary enhancement in view of time lag between the dates of two notifications i.e. in the case of Sector 4 and in the present cases. It has been held in various judicial pronouncements including on in Inder Singh v. State of Punjab, (1988-2) 94 P.L.R. 190 that it could not be disputed that prices were increasing and that judicial notice of the increase could be taken to be 12 per cent per annum. Following the law Said down in Inder Singh's case (supra), I hereby give the increase of 12 percent per annum. Since there is a time gap of 29 months between the dates of two notifications, I give an increase of 29 per cent. The market value of the acquired land thus stands determined at Rs. 41.28/- which can he rounded off at Rs. 42/- per square yard in view of high potentialities of the land.

6. For the reasons given above, the appeals filed by the landowners are allowed to th extent indicated above with proportionate costs. The appellants are further held entitled to the grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended provisions of Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. Deficiency in court fee, if any, be made good within two months from today.