Dayal Singh vs State of Haryana

G.S. Singhvi, J.—These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 26.9.1988, passed by the learned Single Judge in R.F.A. No.

2040 of 1986 and connected appeals as well as crossobjections filed by the claimants and the State against the judgment dated 19.4.1986 passed

by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala on various reference applications filed by the claimants.

Vide notification dated 1.9.1982 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ''the Act'') the Government of Haryana

acquired land measuring 263 bighas 14 biswas situated in villages Nangal Sodhian, Ishlam Nagar and Bhogpur, Tehsil Kalka, District Ambala.

Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 14.2.1983. Land Acquisition Collector passed the award dated 7.7.1983 for payment of

compensation at a uniform rate of Rs. 4785/ per acre along with 15% solatium. In the reference applications filed by the appellants, the Additional

District Judge determined the market value of the land in question at the uniform rate of Rs. 8/ per square yard. He also directed the payment of

30% solatium and interest in terms of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. Still not satisfied, the claimants filed regular first appeals and

crossobjections, which were later on treated as regular appeals, and pleaded for further enhancement of compensation.

By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 9/ per square yard. He also extended the benefit of

Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment Act), 1984.

The first contention urged by Shri H.S. Gill, learned counsel for the appellants, is that while fixing the market value of the land with reference to

Exs. P.2 to P.4 and P.5/3, the learned Single Judge should not have ignored the earnest money paid to the prospective vendors by the vendees.

He argued that the advance payment of earnest money is natural in such transactions and, therefore, the total value of the land as indicated in the

sale deeds should have been taken into consideration for determination of the market value. Shri Gill placed reliance on Rani v. Santa Bala, AIR

1971 SC 1028. Shri Vashishth argued that the learned Additional District Judge and the learned Single Judge have given cogent reasons for not

taking into consideration the so, called earnest money paid by the vendors of the saledeeds Ex. P.2, P.3, P.4 and P.5/3 and the Appeal Bench

should not interfere with the same.

We considered the rival arguments and agree with Shri Vashishth that the learned Additional District Judge and the learned Single Judge have

not committed any error by refusing to accept the version of the claimants that the advance money/earnest money indicated in the saledeeds had in

fact been transferred to the vendees and therefore the same was not liable to be taken into consideration for determination of the market value.

While dealing with the plea of the respondents in the context of the saledeeds produced by the claimants, the learned Additional District Judge

observed as under :

Vide Ex. P.2, 1 bigha of land situate in village Naggal Sodhian, Tehsil Kalka was sold for Rs. 18,000/ on 2.12.81 by Tara Singh claimant

(P.W.1) to Amar Chand claimant (PW2) and that land was acquired under the present award. Ex. PX/8 is the certified copy of this saledeed Ex.

P.2 and Ex. PX/3 is the certified copy of the mutation entered on the basis of this sale transaction, Rs.10,000/ out of the sale consideration, were

paid before the Sub Registrar, at the time of the registration of the sale deed Ex. P.2, whereas Rs. 8,000/ were stated to have been paid in

advance to the vendor by the vendee. However, no receipt or other documentary evidence was produced either by Tara Singh vendor or Amar

Chand vendee to prove the payment of the advance money of Rs. 8,000/. In this situation, it appears that the actual sale consideration was Rs.

10,000/ in all and so much amount was fixed in good faith and actually paid by the vendee to the vendor and the remaining amount of Rs. 8,000/

alleged to have been paid in advance, was never paid to the vendor by the vendee. As such, this sale instance (Ex. P.2) clearly goes to suggest that

one bigha of land, situate in village Naggal Sodhian was actually sold for Rs. 10,000/ on 30.11.1981 vide sale deed Ex. P.2 at the rate of Rs. 10/

per sq. yd. and that the remaining amount was got entered in the sale deed just to create the evidence of higher amount of sale out of the fear of

acquisition. It would also the worthwhile to mention here that the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued in the present case on 1.9.82

and published on 28.9.82 and it is but natural that the landowners including the present claimants, were well aware of the acquisition of their

present acquired land even before the issuance of notification, as the measurement work starts much earlier to the issuance of the notification under

Section 4 of the Act and the present case is also no exception to it. So having come to know of the impending acquisition, the claimants got some

sale transactions effected of exaggerated price in order to claim higher amount of compensation after the acquisition of their land. Amar Chand

P.W.2 vendee of saledeed Ex. P.2 frankly admitted that he had not obtained any receipt of the advance payment of Rs. 8,000/ from Tara Singh

(P.W.1) vendor, although the same amount was paid to him a day earlier to the registration of the said saledeed. It creates doubt regarding the

payment of the advance money, inasmuch as hardly there would be any person nowadays would make the payment of Rs. 8,000/ without

obtaining any receipt. Moreover, neither the vendor, nor the vendee could furnish any explanation as to why that alleged advance money was paid

just a day earlier to the registration of the saledeed and that too without any receipt. In such a situation, it would not be advisable to believe the

payment of the advance amount of Rs. 8,000/, as all get in saledeed Ex. P.2. Hence, it is concluded that the part of the acquired land itself was

sold at the rate of Rs. 10/ per sq. yd. vide saledeed Ex. P.2 on 30.11.1981 and not at the rate of Rs. 18/ per sq. yd. as mentioned therein.

Vide saledeed Ex. P.3, 5 biswas of land situate in village Naggal Sodhian was sold for a sum of Rs. 3,000/ to Bhajan Singh claimant on 27.11.81

at the rate of Rs. 12/ per sq. yd. but out of the sale consideration of Rs. 3000/, Rs. 1000/ were stated to have been paid in advance to the vendor

by the vendee and that land too was acquired under the present award and in that case also, the payment of the advance money appears to be

doubtful, as no receipt was produced in this behalf. After deducting the advance money from the sale consideration, the sale price comes to Rs. 8/

per sq.yd. from this saledeed Ex. P.3.

Similarly the payment of advance amount of Rs. 2000/ out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 18,000/ in sale deed Ex. P.4 is also doubtful in the

absence of any receipt of the advance amount and so after deducting this advance amount, the market value of the land mentioned in Ex. P.4

would come at the rate of Rs. 14/ per sq.yd.

Vide Ex.P.W. 5/3, 1 bigha of land was sold for Rs. 20,000/ at the rate of Rs. 20/ per sq. yd. on 19.2.82 just a few months prior to the issuance of

notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case and as such incorporating of exaggerated price therein for the apprehension of the

acquisition cannot be ruled out.

The learned Single Judge has expressed his agreement with the Reference Court that the claimants have failed to adduce satisfactory evidence to

prove the payment of advance money for part of sale consideration. Thus, there is no legal justification to interfere with the approach adopted by

the Reference Court and the learned Single Judge.

The second contention urged by Shri Gill is that the learned Single Judge should not have reduced the average price of the land, as indicated in

the saledeeds, by 1/3rd for the purpose of fixing the market value. He relied on the judgment of a learned Single Judge in Brijender Singh v. The

Land Acquisition Collector, P.S.E.B., Patiala and another, 1994 LACC 46 : 1993(2) RRR 684 and Chimanlal Hargobinddas v. The Special Land

Acquisition Officer, 1988 LACC 491 : 1988(2) RRR 136. Shri Vashishth submitted that the learned Single Judge has applied the standard scale

of reducing the rate of the land keeping in view the purpose for which the land was being acquired, namely, construction of the Housing Board

Colony and therefore the Appellate Court should not interfere with the same.

It is trite proposition of law that the sale of small plots cannot form safe basis for determination of market value of the large tracts of land as the

two are not comparable properties. However, where no other evidence is available, sale transaction relating to smaller pieces of land can be taken

into consideration and after making necessary deductions to the extent of land acquired for the construction of roads and other civic amenities,

expenses of development of sites can be taken into consideration. In Chimanlal Hargobinddas''s case, the Supreme Court upheld the cut imposed

by the High Court to the extent of 25% of the price disclosed by the transactions. In our opinion, the formula of the deduction can appropriately be

applied in the present case also because even though the land covered by the four saledeeds constitute smaller pieces but the purpose for which

the land was sold was similar to the purpose for which the acquisition in question was made. To this extent, the impugned judgment deserves to be

modified.

In the result, we partly allow the appeals and direct that the market value of the land should be equivalent to an amount arrived at after deducting

the from the average rate per square yard i.e. Rs. 13/. Thus, the market value of the property is fixed at Rs. 9.75 and by rounding the figure of Rs.

9.75 comes to Rs. 10/ per square yard.

The respondents are directed to pay the additional compensation to the appellants along with benefits of Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the

Act on the enhanced compensation. This shall be done by the respondents within three months of the submission of certified copy of this judgment.

Appeals allowed.