Bhura alias Bhura Singh vs State of Haryana and Others

Swatanter Kumar, J.—I propose to dispose of R.F.A. No. 1704 to 1710, 1957, 2080 to 2082, 2181 to 2187, 2208 to 2211, 2315, 2316, 2433 to 2435 and 2700 of 1994, which arise from common judgment and award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, dated 1.4.1994.

The facts giving rise to the present Regular First Appeal fall within a very narrow compass. The land belonging to various claimants/appellants was acquired. The notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued by the concerned Government on 11th of March, 1981. Notification u/s 6 of the Act was issued on 14.12.1983. The award in regard to the land in question being award No. 9 was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Panchkula on 12th of September, 1986. The learned Collector awarded Rs. 28,640/- per acre for Chahi land while Rs. 11,360/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land. In addition thereto awarded 30 per cent compulsory acquisition charges and 12 per cent per annum additional amount from 11.3.1981 to 12.9.1986. The claimants filed references u/s 18 of the Act on 14.2.1991 which were duly considered by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra and he finally passed the award as aforestated awarding a sum of Rs. 91,312/- per acre plus solatium at the rate of 30 per cent per annum and additional amount at the rate of 12 per cent per annum under Sections 23-A of the Act from 11.3.1981 to 12.9.1986. Further also awarded 9 per cent per annum as interest on the amount of compensation for a period of one year from the date of taking possession and thereafter 15 per cent per annum till payment u/s 28 of the Act. The amount of compensation was applied to the entire land in question. Still being dissatisfied from the award, the claimants filed the aforestated Regular First Appeals before this Court.

The main ground of attack to the impugned award is that the land of different villages including Pipli, Ratgal etc. which was acquired by the same notification by the Haryana Urban Development Authority, this Court has already awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,19,333/- per acre in R.F.A. No. 2756 of 1988 decided on 21.2.1991 copy thereof was placed on as Ex.P.37. Keeping this and aforementioned judgments the enhancement is prayed for as the amount awarded by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra is inadequate and is not in consonance with the principles applicable to the present case.

The learned counsel appearing for the State of Haryana raised no argument to the contrary nor any judgment was cited on behalf of the State of Haryana.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussion mentioned hereinafter, it is not necessary for this Court to discuss the controversy arising in these appeals in great detail.

At the very outset reference can be made to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Arjan Singh and Ors. v. The State of Haryana, R.F.A. No. 2756 of 1989 decided on 21st February, 1991. In that appeal the same notification u/s 4 of the Act dated 11.3.1981 was in controversy and the land was identical to the land in question. The learned Single Judge after discussing the respective case of the parties held as under-

"In fact, this court on appreciation of evidence will have to determine independently as to whether the acquired land has got the same potentialities which the land of village Devidaspura had or not. After examining the factual position which has emerged from the evidence on the record of the case, this Court is of the firm view that the acquired land of village Ratgap is not inferior to the land of village Devidaspura. PW. 1 Suraj Bhan has after giving the location of the land, as has been noticed above in paragraph 3 stated on oath that the land of village Ratgal was better situated. From the site plan, when examined more closely, it can be seen that the acquired land is situated adjacent to Pipli-Kurukshetra metalled road, F.C.I. Godowns, Housing Board Colony and Arora Rice Mills were part of the acquired land of village Ratgal. Sector 7 has been carved out of the acquired land of village Ratgal. The existence of Bus Stand, Mini Secretariat and Radio Station under construction can also be seen which places are situated just across the proposed road in between the acquired and the land meant for Bus Stand, Mini Secretariat etc. etc. The State has not produced any witness who could state that the land of village Ratgal was inferior in quality to the acquired land of village Devidaspura. Statement of PW-1 regarding better location of the land has gone unrebutted. The statement made in examination-in-chief was not challenged by the State counsel in the cross-examination. Even if the claim of PW. l regarding better situation of the acquired land than that of land of village Devidaspura be presumed to be exaggerated one, this Court on the basis of evidence recorded in the case and on the basis of site plan in unable to hold that the acquired land of village Ratgal is inferior to the land of village Devidaspura. This Court on the basis of evidence produced in this case holds both villages Ratgal and Devidaspura to be having the same advantages as regards the price. Even otherwise, the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal was of the view that the land of village Devidaspura was little better in situation potential and even this observation was made when the entire evidence of the situation of the land of village Ratgal was not before the Division Bench. Once both the pieces of lands of villages, Devidaspura and Ratgal are found to be having the same advantages and once it is held, as has been discussed above, that a notification u/s 4 of 1963 Act was issued regarding the acquired land, no cut can be applied in the case of acquired land, of village Ratgal as was done by the Division Bench in Khusi Ram''s case (supra). Consequently the acquired land without any cut stands evaluated at Rs. 1,19,333/0 per acre."

Reference can be made to the judgment of another Hon''ble Single Judge of this Court in R.F.A. No. 1739 of 1989, (1990-2)98 P.LR. 197, Shiv Ram v. The State of Haryana and Anr., decided on 23rd October, 1992. The R.F.A. was decided by the learned Single Judge in terms of the order passed by the same Hon''ble Judge in R.F.A. No. 1252 of 1989 titled as Smt. Ram Kaur and Ors. v. State of Haryana, decided on 23rd October, 1992. The relevant portion of this judgment reads as under-

"For the proposition that no cut is to be imposed as the acquired land comes within the controlled area as per Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 counsel referred to the judgment of this Court in LPA No. 747 of 1985, Khushi Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana, decided on 19.5.1988. In this case the court declined to impose cut on the ground that since land acquired comes within the purview of Act, 1963, the building activity in the area has come to standstill. The assertion of the claimant that the whole- area acquired comes within the prohibition of Act of 1963; has not been contested by the counsel for the State and in this way claimants are entitled to claim compensation at the rate of Rs.1,18,000/-. Seeking little increase from this amount, the learned counsel for the claimant relied upon the judgment of R.F.A. No. 2756 of 1989 Arjan Singh v. State of Haryana decided on 21.2.1991 vide which this court awarded compensation in respect of the same acquisition i.e. 11.3.1981 at the rate of Rs. 1,19,333/- per acre. Since the land acquired is also of village Ratgal and the notification is also of the identical date. I too follow the decision of my brother N.C. Jain and award compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,19,333/- per acre. In addition to the amount of compensation the claimants shall also be entitled to grant of statutory benefits of the amended provisions of Section 23(1-A), Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the Act. The appellants are also entitled to the proportionate costs. Deficiency in the Court fee if any shall be made good within two months from the date of this order."

It is conceded before me by the learned counsel appearing for the State that as of today the aforestated judgments hold the filed and compensation stands disbursed as per the decision in the aforestated judgments. The aforesaid judgments have not only direct bearing on the matter in controversy in the present appeals but they even relate to the same notification.

In view of the above settled position of law, these Regular First Appeals are hereby accepted, the amount awarded vide award dated 1.4.1994 is enhanced to a sum of Rs. 1,19,333/- per acre for the land in question. In addition thereto the claimants would be entitled to the amount of compensation and the statutory benefits of the amended provisions of Section 23(1-A), Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the Act. The appellants would also be entitled to proportionate cost. Copy of this judgment be placed on the files of all the connected appeals.