Devinder Singh vs State of Haryana

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—These are six appeals. The landowners complain that the learned Single Judge has erred in fixing the market value of the land acquired for the King Fisher Tourist Complex, Ambala at Rs. 25/- per square yard. Is it so? A few facts may be noticed.

On January 15, 1982, the State of Haryana issued a notification u/s 4 for acquisition of 73 kanals 14 marlas of agricultural land situate in village Dhulkol for setting up a tourist complex. The collector announced his award on January 12, 1983. He divided the land into four categories. He awarded compensation @ Rs. 17,500/-, Rs. 14,000/-, Rs. 7,000/- and Rs. 3,500/- per acre for chahi, Barani Banjar and Gair Mumkin categories of land respectively. The landowners were not satisfied. They sought reference u/s 18. The District Judge on consideration of the matter, divided the land into two categories. The market value of the land upto 1.00 yards was assessed at Rs. 7/- per square yard. For the remaining land, compensation was awarded at Rs. 5/- per square yard. The award given by the District Judge on October 20, 1986 was challenged through different appeals in this Court. The learned Single Judge found that there was no justification for categorisation of the land on the basis of distance from the road. He enhanced the compensation to Rs. 25/- per square yard. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge, the landowners have filed these six letters Patent Appeals.

The arguments on behalf of the appellants were addressed by M/s. Manmohan Sarin, Matwinder Singh, G.S. Sandhawalia and P.S. Kang. Opening the arguments, Mr. Sarin contended that a piece of land which is only at a distance of about 500 feet from the land in question had been acquired by the State Government on March 10, 1983. In that case, the compensation had been assessed by the High Court at Rs. 50/- per square yard. Mr. Sarin vehemently contended that the decision of this Court provided a fair yard-stick for the grant of compensation to all the landowners in these case. The argument was supplemented by the other counsel. The claim was, however, controverted by the counsel for the respondents.

The short question that arises for consideration is - Has the learned Single Judge erred in fixing the market value of the land at Rs. 25/- per square yard.

Admittedly, the learned District Judge had fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 7/- and Rs. 5/- per square yard on the basis of the distance from the main road. It is also true that in respect of another piece of land, vide award Ex. PW 14/1, the District judge had assessed the market value at Rs. 50/- per square yard. This award was affirmed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in R.F.A. No. 566 of 1986 (State of Haryana v. Devinder Singh) vide his judgment dated July 21, 1988. Yet, the learned Single Judge assessed the market value of the instant land at a lower rate. This was so because the land covered by Ex. P14/1 "fell within the municipal limits of Ambala City and was surrounded by the residential buildings of senior officers of the District including that of the Deputy Commissioner and the Senior Superintendent of Police". Still further, the land which is the subject matter of the present appeals "was a low lying area". It was noticed that "the department had to spend about Rs. 8 lacs for raising its level......" On taking these factors into consideration, the learned Single Judge found it fair and just to give the appellants "half the rate of what was determined by Ex. PW 14/1". Thus, the market value of the acquired land was determined at Rs. 25/- per square yard.

Mr. Sarin contended that even if the amount of Rs. 8 lacs which was spent on raising the level of the area was debited to the account of the appellants, the market value shall be much above Rs. 25/- per square yard as assessed by the learned Single Judge. Mr. Matwinder Singh went a step further. He contended that there is no documentary evidence to indicate that the area was low lying. The State had not produced the documentary evidence regarding the expenditure as well as survey report etc. Thus, the appellant were entitled to compensation at the same rate as had been assessed vide Ex. PW 14/1.

Normally, the market value is the price which a willing purchaser shall be ready to pay to a willing seller, With the object of making a fair assessment, the Court looks into the bona fide transactions regarding adjacent lands subject to the considerations like location, size and potential etc. While doing so, the proximity of time in the execution of the sale deeds and the quality of land are also taken into consideration.

It is true that the land covered by the award at Ex. PW 14/1, is at a distance of about 500 feet from the land which is the subject matter of the present appeals. It is also true that the market value of this land has been assessed at Rs. 50/- per square yard. However, we cannot loose sight of the fact that the land falling within the municipal limits is different from that outside those limits. Still further, the land near the residential houses meant for senior officers of the District would certainly command a higher price than agricultural land even if it is only at a short distance. The notification regarding acquisition of land measuring 73 kanals 14 marlas belonging to the appellants had been issued on January 15, 1982. It was made known that a Tourist Complex would be set up in a sizable area. Such a complex was bound to enhance the value of the land in the vicinity. Still further one cannot be oblivious of the reality that a willing purchaser shall be ready to offer a much higher value for the land near the house of a Deputy Commissioner or a Senior Superintendent of Police than a piece of agricultural land at a distance of 500 feet. Added to all this is the factor of the quality of land. It is true that the land which is acquired is normally surveyed. Such a survey was conducted in the present case also. The survey is for the purpose of ascertaining the levels, the expenditure on filling up of the area as also to prepare the plan for establishing the complex. It is also true that the survey report etc. were not produced. Yet the fact that Rs. 8 lacs, had been spent for filling up the area is duly established on the record. The statement of Hari Singh, RW-1 is clear in this behalf. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of this statement. Thus, a willing purchaser would not have been ready to pay the same price for an equivalent piece of land which was acquired more than a year later near the officers'' colony.

The compensation assessed by the Single Judge viz. Rs. 25/- per square yard was just and fair. It gives a price of Rs. 1,21,000/- per acre. The Collector had merely assessed the value of the best part of the land at Rs. 17,500/- per acre. Added to all this is also the fact that the appellants have not been able to refer to even a single transaction which may indicate a higher value for a similar piece of land.

Mr. Matwinder Singh also emphasised that the land has commercial value. It was located at the trijunction of the roads. There are important colonies in the vicinity. Counsel is right to the extent that today the land would have a much higher value. However, the price has to be assessed with reference to the date of the issue of notification u/s 4. Was the value higher than Rs. 1,21,000/- per acre at that time? There is nothing on record to suggest that it was so. Resultantly, it cannot be said that the learned Judge had erred in assessing the value at Rs. 25/- per square yard.

Before parting with the case, we may notice that in L.P.A. No. 1943 of 1989, the Motion Bench vide its order dated November 29, 1989, had directed this appeal be heard along with LPA No. 1294 of 1988. Mr. Matwinder Singh, counsel for the ap- pellants stated that this was a mistake. The appeal had to be heard with LPA No. 1292 of 1988. He appears to be right. The land which is the subject matter of LPA No. 1943 of 1989 was acquired by the same notification as that involved in LPA No. 1292 of 1988.

No other point was raised.

Consequently, no ground for interference is made out. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.