AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajesh Bindal, J.—This order will dispose of a bunch of above mentioned appeals, as common questions of law and facts are involved.
R.F.A. Nos. 992, 1088, 1159 to 1161 of 1997 have been filed by the State seeking reduction in compensation awarded by the learned court below on account of acquisition of land, whereas R.F.A. Nos. 734 and 879 of 1997 have been filed by the land owners seeking enhancement of compensation.
Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 9 kanals 12 marlas, situated in village Dhani Jatan, Hadbast No. 117, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa was acquired by Government of Haryana vide notification dated 3.1.1989, published on 17.1.1989, issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'') for construction of PWD Rest House at Ellenabad. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector''), vide his award dated 8.5.1990, assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 15,040/- per acre. Feeling dissatisfied, the land owners filed objections. On reference u/s 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value at Rs. 3,90,000/- per acre.
Vide same notification, adjoining land situated in the revenue estate of Ellenabad, Hadbast No. 113 measuring 4 kanals 10 marlas was acquired for the same purpose. The Collector assessed the market value of the land @ Rs. 45,120/- per acre. On reference u/s 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value at Rs. 3,90,000/- per acre.
The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 734 of 1997.
Learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana in the bunch of appeals filed by the State submitted that the award of compensation in the present case by the learned court below is exhorbitant, as the enhancement is from Rs. 15,040/- to Rs. 3,90,000/- per acre. The learned court below had merely relied upon one sale deed (Ex. P14) produced by the land owners, whereas sale deeds (Ex. R1 to R11) produced by the State, which fully justified the award of the Collector, the same being much more than the value depicted in those sale deeds, have been totally ignored. He further submitted that the learned court below has gone wrong in observing that certified copies of sale-deeds produced on record could not be considered as the vendors and the vendees had not been produced.
No one has appeared for the land owners.
Heard learned Counsel for the State.
The land involved in the present cases is merely 14 kanals and 2 marlas, which was acquired for the purpose of construction of a PWD Rest House. It pertains to revenue estate of two villages, namely, Dhani Jatan and Ellenabad, though a compact block. In the evidence led by the land owners and also as is evident from site plan (Ex. P12) produced by them on record, it was proved that the acquired land falls near the main Bazar on Ellenabad-Sirsa road. It falls within the municipal limits of Ellenabad. Octroi Post on this road was 1-1/2 kilometers towards Sirsa. The bus stand was about two killas away from the acquired land. The entire area in the vicinity was already developed and commercialised. In fact, the abadi of Deh Har Chand Ka Bass, Ward No. 10, Ellenabad was just opposite the acquired land. Grain market and Railway Station were not far off. Though the land owners had produced various sale deeds on record, most of them were not considered by the learned court below on the ground that vendors and vendees had not been produced. This may be correct view considering the position of law at that stage, however, in view of subsequent judgment of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Cement Corporation of India Ltd. etc. v. Purya and Ors. AIR 2004 SC 4830, the vendors and vendees are not required to be produced and the certified copy of the sale deed is admissible as such in evidence.
It has also come on record that land pertaining to sale deed (Ex. P14) dated 14.7.1988, whereby two marlas of land purchased by one Hardial, was part of the acquired land. The genuineness of the aforesaid sale deed was not disputed by the State. In the other sale deeds produced by the land owners, the value of the land shown therein varied from Rs. 3,33,636/- to Rs. 32,00,000/- per acre. The learned court below found the sale deed (Ex. P14) forming part of the acquired land to be the most relevant piece of evidence and considering the fact that the same was for two marlas of land and the acquisition in the present case was not for quite big chunk of land, applied a cut of 40% therein and adding for the time gap of six months therein @ Rs. 1,000/- per acre determined the compensation at Rs. 3,90,000/- per acre which, in my opinion, considering the location of the land and its potentiality cannot be said to be on the higher side.
The sale deeds produced by the State were rightly discarded by the learned court below for various reasons, first being that the value shown in all the sale deeds was less than the award of the Collector. The notification u/s 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 3.1.1989, published on 17.1.1989. Sale deeds (Ex. R6, R10 and R11) were registered after the issuance of notification u/s 4 of the Act and, therefore, the same were not relevant. Sale deeds (Ex. R1 to Ex. R5) were registered much prior to the acquisition of the land. The land pertaining to sale deeds (Ex. R6 to Ex. R11) was located far off from the main road leading from Ellenabad to Sirsa. RW3- Vijay Kumar even admitted that the same was located 20 killas deep from the main road, whereas the land in question is situated on main Sirsa-Ellenabad road.
In view of the aforesaid factual position, the established fact on record being that the land pertaining to none of the sale deeds produced by the State was comparable in its location with the acquired land, the learned court below did not commit any illegality in not considering those sale deeds as relevant piece of evidence.
For the reasons mentioned above, the appeals filed by the State seeking reduction in compensation for the acquired land, are dismissed. However, as no one has appeared for the land owners in the appeals filed by them, the same are dismissed for non-prosecution. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 5.4.2010 mk