Krishan Lal vs State of Haryana

I.S. Tiwana, J.—These three Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 927 to 929 of 1980 are being disposed of together as these are directed against the common judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court. Otherwise too these arise out of the same acquisition proceedings. The claimant-appellants are not feeling satisfied with the adequacy of the compensation awarded by the learned Single Judge.

It is not a matter of dispute that in pursuance of a notification published u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) on August 10, 1983, the State Government acquired 13 08 acres of land within the municipal limits of Yamunanagar for constructing a by pass (earth work for bridge approaches). The learned Judge keeping in view the potentiality of the suit land and its proximity to the Radaur Road, has divided the same into two blocks for purpose of its evaluation and awarded the following rate of compensation:

First Block: upto a depth of 130 feet from the above

noted road.

... Rs. 18/- per Sq. Yd.

Second Block or the remaining land.

...Rs. 6/- per Sq. Yd.

Besides this learned Judge has also opined that out of the First Block of the acquired land, no compensation will be payable to the claimants for an area measuring 30''xl30''as the said area is likely to be consumed if a road is constructed for approaching the land comprising the Second Block.

It is now contended by Mr. Sarin, Learned Counsel for the Appellants that firstly, there is no justification for the categorisation of the suit land into blocks for purposes of evaluating its market value and the compensation should have been allowed at a flat rate; secondly, the Appellants could not be deprived of compensation for the above noted strip of land measuring 30''xl30''as the State Government is acquiring that land too; and thirdly, in case the entire suit land is not to be evaluated at the same rate, then there was no justification for applying a double cut to the rate of compensation awarded for the land falling within the Second Block. The learned Advocate General appearing for the Respondent authorities, while contesting the first claim of the Appellants that the entire land has to be evaluated at the same rate, very fairly and franky accepts the correctness of the remaining two contentions urged on behalf of the Appellants. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties at some length we find that the first contention of the Appellants'' Learned Counsel must be pepelled and the rest of their claim deserves to be allowed.

It is well established on record in the light of site plan Exhibit P-9, that the entire development that had taken place by the time notification u/s 4 of the Act was issued, was all along the Radaur Road but only upto a depth of 130 feet Suit land too has 219 feet wide opening on this road. As a matter of fact one of the claimants had sold four plots covered by sale deeds Exhibits P-1 to P-4 along this road within the period from June 1969 to June 1973 at rates varying from Rs. 14.76 to Rs. 33.33 per square yard. No other significant development had taken place near or around the rest of the land forming part of the Second Block. It is thus patent that the entire suit land had not the same degree or extent of potentiality for being used as a residential or commercial area. Thus we find that the learned Judge was well justified in treating the land of the First Block differently from the land of the Second Block.

As already pointed out, the learned Advocate General appearing for the Respondents does not contest the remaining two claims of the Appellants. Otherwise also we find that there is no justification for not awarding compensation to the claimants for their area 30''xl30'' forming part of the First Block, which area too is undisputably being acquired by the State Government and they are being deprived of that property. So far as the evaluation of land of the Second Block is concerned, this is how the learned Judge has dealt with the matter:

That area can be utilised for industrial purposes provided development is made and land is left for making road and open spaces for approach to each one of the plots. In doing so, the claimants will have to spend about 1/3rd of the price In making development of the roads and l/3rd of the area of the back portion will have to be left out for carving out approach roads and open spaces and in this manner, if two deductions of l/3rd each are made from Rs. 18/- per square yard, the value of back pardon would come to Rs 6/- per square yard and I award Rs. 6/- per square yard for whole of the remaining acquired land.

The approach of the learned Judge does not appear to be reasonable in applying double cut to the market value of the First Block of'' land for determining the compensation payable for the Second Block of land It is conceded at all hands that in case the land of the Second Block is to be sold in the form of plots of the size and type which had been sold by the claimants vide Exhibits P-l to P-4 on the basis of which the area forming part of the First Block has been evaluated then the claimants or landowners were bound to lose area to the extent of 1 /3rd for providing roads and leaving other open spaces for common use or community services. Besides that there was no question of losing any more area in case the land of this block was to be sold in the form of plots. In case the charges for developing this area into a modern colony by providing sewerage, electricity and other modern facilities are to be taken into account, then this area could obviously not be treated as undeveloped area and could not be compared for purpose of its evaluation to the area of the First Block which too at that moment was an undeveloped area. If the market value of the First Block of land is to be taken as the basis which, according to our view, has rightly been taken, then only 1/3rd cut is to.be applied, to that rate for determining the market value of the land falling within the Second Block. Since the Advocate General appearing for the Respondents concedes the correctness of the Appellants'' demand so far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, we need not dilate on it any further.

Thus the set result is that the judgment under appeal is set aside and these appeals are allowed to the following extent:

(i) For the First Block of land that is, upto a depth of 130 feet from the Radaur Road, the Appellants would be paid compensation at the rate of Rs. 18/- per square yard, and

(ii) for the remaining land or the Second Block, they would be paid compensation at the rate of Rs. 12/- per square yard.

Besides this, they would also be paid the statutory solatium and interest at the rate of 15% and 6% respectively on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of their dispossession. They are also held entitled to have the proportionate costs of these appeals. All this, however, is subject to the claim made by them in their respective memorandums of appeals and the Court fees paid thereon.

Appeals partially allowed.