Punjab Wakf Board vs Chamba Ram and Others

S.S. Sodhi, J.—The controversy here is with regard to the compensation payable for the land acquired and the share if any, payable out of it; to persons holding a part of such acquired land as lessees, at the time of its acquisition.

It was on September 20, 1982, that the notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act'') was published for the acquisition of 49 Acres 1 Kanal and 15 Marlas of land in Sirsa, for the Municipal. Committee, Sirsa for setting up an Auto Vehicle and Commercial Market. The major portion of this land a little over 47 Acres, belonged to the Punjab Wakf Board.

The Land Acquisition Collector by his a ward of March 18 1985, assessed compensation payable for the land acquired at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per acre for Chahi and Gair Mumkin land and Rs. 20,000/- per Acre for Nehri Land.

The District Judge on reference, under Sections 18 and 30 of the Act, by his award of February 28, 1986, divided the Sand acquired into two parts The compensation for the land upto a depth of 60 feet from the Sirsa-Hissar road was assessed at the rate of 110/- per sq. yard and the remaining area, that is beyond 60 feet, at Rs. 55/- per sq yard. The land of the Punjab Wakf Board was, however, assessed at Rs. 30,000/- per Acre for Nehri land and Rs. 35000/- per Acre for Chahi and Ghair Mumkin land This rate being fixed keeping in view the fact that all the land of the Punjab Wakf Board was low lying land.

Before proceeding further, it deserves note that it is the common case of the parties that the rate of compensation for the acquired land other than that of the Punjab Wakf Board, is covered by the decision of this Court in R. E. A. 1707 of 1986 Shashi Prabha v. State of Haryana, R. F. A. 1707 of 1986) decided on February 10, 1988, where the compensation for the land on the Sirsa-Haryana-road upto a depth of 60 feet was fixed at Rs. 120/- per sq yard and beyond that at Rs. 60/- per sq. yd.

The main question to consider here is with regard to the rate at which compensation deserves to be assessed for the land of the Punjab Wakf Board. According to the material on record and also found by the learned Single Judge, this land is located in one compact block which is about 5 to 6 Killas of, land away from the Sirsa Hissar road. All this land is within the municipal limits of Sirsa. It has also come on record that towards the eastern side of road, some commercial establishments have already come up besides a Gas Agency, a factory and a Petrol Pump also being near this land. There is the specific finding of the learned single Judge that this land possesses the same'' potentiality as that of the, other acquired land located beyond 60 feet from the Sirsa Hissar road.

The fact that the acquired land of the Punjab Wakf Board is low lying is accepted beyond dispute. The point however to determine is what is the extent to which it is low lying, because that would determine the cost of its filling, which in turn, would provde the basis of fixing its market value In this behalf, it would be pertinent to adverse to the evidence of PW-7, Chamba Ram, one of the lessees on a part of the acquired land, who stated that on account of the land being low lying rain water used to collect there. The other lessee Mangat Ram also admitted to the land being low lying. There is then the testimony of RW-1 Ram Chand who appeared on behalf of the respondent State, to the effect that the acquired land was low lying with reference to the surrounding land to the extent of 5 to 6 feet. Much credence cannot, however, be given to the testimony of this witness as he admitted that he had never seen, the acquired land. What thus emerges from the evidence on record is that the acquired land of Punjab Wakf Board is no doubt, low lying but the extent, to which it is so, has not been brought on record.

In fixing and assessing the market value of the land acquired some deduction has to be made from the prevailing market value, for the cost of filling up this land, to give it the same potentiality and advantages as possessed by the other land nearby In the absence of evidence of the extent to which it is, low, lying and, indeed, also of the cost of the earth filling that would be required, we have per force to enter into the realm of guess work and adopt the rule of thumb, peculiar to the facts and circumstances of this case. The learned single Judge had taken this cost of earth filling to be equal to half of the of the land and consequently reduced the compensation payable to the extent. The extent of this deduction on this account is in view excessive. We would consequently, reduced the deduction to 1/3rd of the market price of the land acquired.

As pointed out earlier, it is the common case of the parties that the market value of the land acquired is covered by the judgment of this Court in Shashi Prabha''s case (supra), where for land beyond 60 feet in depth from the Sirsa-Hissar Road was assessed at Rs. 60/- per sq. yard. On this basis, the market value of the acquired land of the Punjab Wakf Board must be assessed at Rs. 40/- per sq. yard.

Faced with this situation, it was sought to be contended that the market value of the land acquired could not be assessed at a rate higher, than Rs. 50,000/-per acre, in view of the statement made by PW 11 Ali Mohammhad, Rent Collector of the Punjab Wakf Board, that the market value of this acquired land was Rs. 40,000/-, Rs. 50,000/- per acre. This statement, it was said, estops the Punjab Wakf Board from claiming compensation at any higher rate. This is indeed a wholly untenable contention.

In dealing with this matter, it would be pertinent to note that PW. 11 Ali Mohammad was merely a witness for the Punjab Wakf Board. He was not a person authorised by the Punjab Wakf Board to appear and make a statement on its behalf. What is more, the Punjab Wakf Board had put in a claim at the rate of Rs. 200/- per sq. yard for the land acquired and even in his statement, this witness had sought to produce copies of awards P-35 and P-36, where the rate at which compensation had been awarded was much higher than Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- per acre. At any rate, as held in Jalal Din v. Nawab A.I. R. 1941 Lah. 55 there is no rule of law that a party must be bound by the statements of its witnesses. It being further observed "though the belief in such a rule is not uncommon and does great harm in judicial trials in some of the Subordinate Courts. The compensation payable to the Punjab Wakf Board is not, therefore, to be restricted to Rs. 56,000/- per acre merely on account of the statement of one of its witnesses.

The question next arises with regard to the amount payable to the lessees of the Punjab Wakf Board who were in possession of land at the time of its acquisition. According to the evidence as has come on record, Chamba Ram was in possession of 11 Kanals and 5 Marlas of land from 1971-72 onwards while Mangat Ram held 112 Kanals from 1980-81. The contention of Mr. J. K. Sibal, counsel for the Board was that as, in view of the provisions of Wakf Board Act, 1954, a lease beyond a period of three years was void, compensation payable to the lessees for the land acquired, must stand restricted to this extent. This contention cannot, indeed be sustained. There is no doubt a bar on leases beyond three years, but even as a lessee holding over, there is a protection available to the lessees under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 and the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, even though the rights conferred thereunder do not extend to enabling them to purchase the land u/s 18 of the 1953 Act. In the context of the provisions of these Acts neither Chamba Ram nor Mangat Ram could have been evicted from the land even after the expiry of their lease except in accordance with the provisions of these Acts.

Counsel for the Wakf Board then sought to lay stress upon the fact that suits had been filed against both Chamba Rant and Mangat Ram for non-payment of rent after 1981. Mere filing'' of such a suit would not, however, establish non-payment of rent rendering their possession contrary to law.

It follows, therefore, that no exception can, indeed, be taken to the learned single Judge awarding to the lessees Chamba Ram and Mangat Ram l/4th of the compensation awarded for the land hold by them as such.

In the result, the compensation payable to the Punjab Wakf Board for the land acquired is enhanced to Rs. 40/- per sq yard. The lessees Chamba Ram and Mangat Ram would be entitled to 1/4th thereof, in respect of the land held by them as lessees. The compensation payable shall, of course, be paid alongwith 30% solatium thereon and interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year from the date the possession of the land was taken and 15% thereof till payment of compensation.

The appeals filed by the Punjab Wakf Board and lessees are, consequently, accepted to this extent. In the circumstances, however, there will be no order as to costs.