Chander Bhan vs State of Haryana

N.C. Jain, J.—This judgment of mine will dispose of R. F. A. Nos. 1251 and 1924 of 1986. The former has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation whereas the latter has been filed by the State of Haryana praying for reduction in the amount of compensation. The facts lies in a narrow compass and are as follows :-

Land measuring 122 acres 7 Kanals and 10 marlas out of which 110 Kanals and 11 marl as owned by the claimant in R. F. A. No. 1251 of 1986 was acquired by the State of Haryana as per notification dated 25.3 1983 issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ''the Act'') for the construction of Co-operative Sugar Mills at Jind. The land is situated in village Jhanj Khurd and Atirika District Jind. The Land Acquisition Collector granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per acre for all types of land other than land under the brick kiln. The land under the brick- kiln was evaluated at Rupees 21,000/-.per acre. The land-owners sought reference u/s 18 of the Act. The Additional District Judge by his Award, under challenge before me, has assessed the market value of the acquired land of all types of land at the rate of Rs. 3600/- per acre wheras the valuation of the land under brick kiln has been upheld.

It has remained undisputed before me at the time of hearing of the appeal that D. V. Sehgal, J (as he then was) in R. F. A. No. 964 of 1985 - Rati Ram v. State of Haryana, R. F. A. No. 964 of 985. decided on 19.3.1987 dealt with the same notification which is involved in the present cases. In Rati Ram''s case (supra) D. V. Sehgal, J. has assessed the compensation of Nehri land at the rate of Rupees 10/- per square Yard whereas Barani land was evaluated at Rupees 9/ per square yard. In the cases before me some of the land is canal fed whereas the rest of the land was under brick-kiln. For the well irrigated land, I hereby determine the market value at the rate of Rupees 10/per square yard, As regards the land under brick kiln, the first question which arises is as to how much land was under brick kiln. It has been noticed by the learned Additional District Judge that the land under brick kiln was 55 kanals 2 Marias whereas it has come in the statement of PW. 1 Chander Bhan that the land which was given on lease for the brick kiln was 5 acres. The executing court would verify the factual position as to how much land was under brick-kiln so that compensation for well irrigated land can be given.

Regarding the evaluation of the land brick kiln, it has been vehemently argued by the counsel for the landowner that the land which was given for the brick kiln was at a great height, With the removal of the earth, the land had come to the normal level. The counsel argued that since the land had come to the normal level, it should be evaluated at the same rate which has been fixed by this Court for the well irrigated land The argument is not acceptable. It has nowhere been stated by the claimant in his statement that after the levelling of the land the same was receiving water from the well and that it was under cultivation at the time of its acquisition. On the other hand, it has come in the statement of RW J. B. P. Jasra, Civil Engineer, that the Sugar Mill had to spend a sum of Rs. 3.52 lacs to fill up the ditches and is to spend about Rupees. 6 lacs more. It has further been stated by him that the land in question was rendered uncultivable because of the setting up of the brickkiln.

It is a matter of common knowledge that whenever land is given for working of a brick-kiln, there ditches come into being in the land on account of removal of the earth. Such a land can never be equated with the well irrigated land. Even if it be assumed that there was some exaggeration of the expenditure amount incurred for filling up the ditches, it cannot be said that the land after the removal of the earth could not be used by the State for any purpose what solver. Even if the same was unfit for cultivation, it could still be Used. The land owner, in any case, has lost ownership as well as possessory rights and. therefore, he is entitled to just and reasonable compensation. After applying all my guess work which is inherent in land acquisition cases, I think that a deduction of 40 per cent upon the valuation put for the well irrigated land would be fair and reasonable in the present case.'' Consequently, the land underneath the brick-kiln is hereby evaluated at the rate of Rs. 6/- per sq. yard.

For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the State of Haryana is dismissed with no order as to costs whereas the appeal filed by the land-owner is allowed to the extent indicated upon. The land owner would be entitled to the statutory benefits of the amended provisions of Sections 23(1A), 23 (sic) and 28 of the Act. He shall have proportionate costs of the appeal filed by him.