AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.—This Regular First Appeal has been filed by the claimant landowner against the award dated 10.8.1983 passed by Addl. Distt. Judge, Bhiwani vide which the reference of the appellant was dismissed and it was held that the claimants-landowners were not entitled to any enhancement of compensation of their acquired land.
Vide notification dated 26.2.1980 issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred as an Act), the State of Haryana acquired 5 kanals 12 marlas of land situated in the revenue Estate of Dadri for a public purpose, namely for installation of Radio Aid to Air Navigational Non-directional Beacon at Charkhi Dadri. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 29.4.1982 awarded the compensation by assessing the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 14/- per square yards. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the claimants-land owners sought reference u/s 18 of the Act. The learned District Judge dismissed the said reference by holding that the market value of the acquired land was correctly determined by the Land Acquisition Collector at the rate of Rs. 14 per square yards, therefore, the land owners were not entitled for any enhancement of compensation. Against this award, the instant appeal has been filed by the claimant land owners.
The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this appeal pertains to only 3 kanals 4 marlas of land, out of 5 kanals 12 marlas. He submitted that the acquired land had a great potential for residential and commercial building at the time of acquisition which is clearly borne out from the evidence and material available on the record. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant referred to the following facts available on the record.
a) Admittedly, the residential Kothi of Sh. Daya Nand, Advocate is situated on the Dadri-Loharu road and immediately adjoins the claimants land in question towards the East;
b) The office of the Municipal Committee is situated at a distance of about 200/250 yards from the land in question;
c) The Bus Stand of Charkhi Dadri, which immediately adjoins the Office of the Municipal Committee, is at a distance of only 300 yards from the claimant''s land in question.
d) There are shops and commercial buildings, Cinema Municipal Park and Rose Garden carved out plots for residential and commercial buildings, semi-constructed structures across the Dadri-Loharu road on the Opposite side of the claimant''s land in question;
e) There is a housing colony set up by the Municipal Committee itself in front of the acquired land across the Dadri-Loharu road;
f) The famous "Upkar Hospital" which is also known as Clinic of Dr. Sushila Dogar is hardly at a distance of 150 yards from the bus stand;
g) There are built up shops and commercial buildings between the said "Upkar Hospital" and claimant''s land in question towards the East and other buildings and semi-constructed buildings towards West in the same line;
h) There are residential houses on the side of the back of the land in question extending right upto "Upkar Hospital" on the East and similarly extending upto a great distance on West".
i) The acquired land is within the municipal limits of Charkhi Dadri.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the aforementioned facts are discernible from a bare perusal of the statements of witnesses namely PW1 to PW4. In the light of Exhibit AW6/A (Site Plan) produced by the claimants in the evidence brought on record is contrary to the claim made by the State. Thus, the conclusion arrived at and the finding recorded by the learned Additional District Judge to the effect that the land in question was undeveloped agricultural land and has no residential or commercial potential, is not only contrary to the unquestioned and un-impeachable evidence produced on the records of the case, but is also perverse and against the record and the said finding is liable to be reversed.
The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the sale instance produced by the claimants-appellant such as Ex.A1, Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW8/A and Ex. PW9/A could not be legally ruled out by the learned Additional District Judge for fixing the fair market value of the acquired land. He has submitted that the learned Additional District Judge discarded these sale transactions only on the ground that these transactions pertain to a small portion and were got effected in the year 1974. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the learned Additional District Judge has wrongly discarded Ex.A3. (Copy of the judgment delivered by District Judge, Bhiwani on 25.4.1977) awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 75/- per square yard for the piece of land acquired for the bus stand of Charkhi Dadri in March, 1974, which is hardly at a distance of 300 yards from the acquired land. It has further been argued that the learned Additional District Judge has illegally discarded the sale instances by sale deeds Ex.A2, A4 and A5 which fetched sale price of Rs. 40 to 55 per square yards. These sale transactions were effected in the year 1981 and pertain to the housing colony which was situated just opposite to the acquired land. Therefore, the learned Additional District Judge did not rely upon any of the sale transactions produced by the appellants and dismissed the reference sought by him by holding that there was no material in the case for enhancement of compensation. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned award passed by the learned Additional District Jude and the same is liable to be affirmed.
I have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
I am of the opinion that the award passed by the learned Additional District Judge is not sustainable. The learned Additional District Judge has wrongly ignored the evidence available on the record which clearly established that the acquired land was having potential value for residential and commercial use. May be the acquired land was undeveloped agricultural land at the time of acquisition but it was situated in the town of Charkhi Dadri and was having residential and commercial value. It has been established on record that one kothi of Shri Dayanand Advocate was existing near the acquired land. It has also come in evidence that the acquired land is situated in front of the housing colony established by the municipal committee and there was only one road in between them and which was intervened by Loharu road. It is also undisputed that the acquired land is situated on the Dardi-Loharu road. Thus, from the aforesaid findings available on the record. I find that the learned Additional District Judge has wrongly held that the acquired land was having no potentially for using the same for commercial and residential-purposes at all. The site plan produced by the appellant Ex.AW6/A clearly indicates the existence of shops near the acquired land. The learned Additional District Judge has wrongly not relied upon these documents which clearly establish the commercial potentiality of the acquired land. Thus, I am of the opinion that the acquired land was having residential and commercial potential at the time of acquisition and on the basis of these premises, the market value of the acquired land had to be assessed.
There are two types of sale transactions available on the record. First are Exhibits A2.A4 and A5. Exhibit A2 is dated 24.9.1981 vide which 300 square yards of land was sold at the rate of Rs. 40/- per square yard. Ex.A4 is dated 7.10.1981 vide which one kanal of land was sold at the rate of Rs. 49.56 paise and Ex.A5 is dated 9.2.1982 vide which 8 marlas of land was sold at the rate of Rs. 54 per square yard. These sale transactions pertain to the housing colony established by the Municipal Committee. The land under the sale transactions may be the developed land. These are transactions pertain to the year 1981-82 whereas in the instant case the notification u/s 4 was issued on 26.2.1980. The second set of sale transactions pertain to the year 1974 i.e., Ex. PW7/A, Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW9/A. Vide these sale transactions small pieces of land measuring 30/60 square yards were sold at the rate of Rs. 155-216 per square yards. The land under these sale transactions is situated within 500 yards from the acquired land. There is another piece of evidence available on the record which is Ex.A3, the award dated 25.4.1977 passed by the District Judge, Bhiwani pertaining to the acquisition of the land of the Bus Stand which took place in the year 1974. It has also come in evidence that the Bus Stand is situated within 500 yard from the acquired land. The learned Additional District Judge has not taken into consideration the aforesaid three sets of evidence by recording one reason that these transactions are not relevant from the point of time of acquisition and the area of the land. I do not agree with the reasoning recorded by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani in this regard.
The learned Addl. District Judge has only put reliance upon the sale transactions Ex.R3 vide which 19 marlas of land was sold on 14.10.1980 at the rate of Rs. 8.80 paise per square land. There is no evidence available on the record that the aforesaid sale transactions pertain to the land which was situated on the road side. Admittedly the acquired land was situated and abutting the road. Therefore, the learned Addl. Distt. Judge has wrongly justified the award made by the Land Acquisition Collector on the basis of aforesaid sale transactions Ex.R13. Though the sale transactions Ex.PW7/A, PW8/A and PW-9/A may not be relevant for the purpose of determination of the market value of the acquired land but the sale transactions Ex.A2, A4 and A5 and award Ex.A3 are certainly the pieces of evidence which could have been taken into consideration by the learned Addl. District judge for determination of the market value of the acquired land. Two reasons are certain that the sale transactions Ex.A2, A4 and A5 are of the year 1981 and pertain to the land situated in front of the acquired land. The learned Addl. Distt. Judge has discarded the sale transactions Ex.A2, A4 and A5 on the grounds that the sale instances pertain to the developed land though sale transactions were of bigger land than the acquired land. On account of the development, some deduction could have been made. On average, price of these sale transactions come to Rs. 50 square yards. If the deduction of 50% is made the price of land came to near about Rs. 25 per square yards. The said price of Rs. 25 per square yards would be reasonable. In my view, the price for the acquired land should be fixed at the rate of Rs. 25% per square yard. The said price would be a reasonable and just I have determined this price keeping in view the potential value of the acquired land. In view of this, I determine the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 25 per square yard.
In view of the above, this appeal is allowed. The market value of the acquired land is fixed at the rate of Rs. 25 per square yard. However, the appellant shall not be entitled for additional amount u/s 23(1-A) of the Act but he shall be entitled for solatium at the rate of 30% on the enhanced amount of compensation u/s 23(2) and the interest at the rate of 9% for one year and 15% for subsequent years u/s 28 of the said Act.