Sandeep Somani vs State of Haryana and others

Sr.No.,Ex.,"Date of sale

deed","Amount of

sale","In favour

of","Rate of

per acre","Rate per

square yard","Area

sold

1,P1,17.05.2006,"1,16,87,500/-",Radha Mittal,"85,00,000/-",1756/-,11k

2,P3,17.05.2006,"2,06,65,625/-",Radha Mittal,"85,00,000/-",1756/-,19k-9m

3,P5,25.04.2006,"1,72,12,500/-",Radha Mittal,"85,00,000/-",1756/-,16k-4m

4,P2,14.08.2006,"55,00,000/-","Grandier Real

Estate Pvt.

Ltd.","65,67,164/-",1356.85,6k-14m

5,P4,08.12.2006,"1,45,00,000/-","M/s Baru Tax

Fashion Pvt.

Ltd.","98,30,508/-",2031/-,11k-16m

been registered for more than Rs.85 lakhs per acre and the location of the land which was just near to the acquired land. The land was situated near,,,,,,,

the municipal limits of Karnal City and, therefore, had potential of building sites.",,,,,,,

As noticed the only defence was that the land is situated within the controlled area and the acquired area is to be used only for the public purpose for,,,,,,,

expansion and systematic development of Tourist Complex, OASIS at Uchana, Karnal. The plea was that as per the Haryana Government Policy, the",,,,,,,

petitioner was also entitled to get the royalty amount of the acquired land every year upto 33 years. The factum of the potential location of the land as,,,,,,,

such or the in the neighbourhood the Haveli Tourist Complex was situated and there was a Mall constructed opposite was never denied.,,,,,,,

A perusal of the statement of Paramvir Singh Patwari- PW-9 would go on to show that he proved the Akshazra (Ex.P7) to show the location of the,,,,,,,

khasra number mentioned in the sale deed Ex.P1, which was on the western side of the G.T. Road and the acquired land was situated on the eastern",,,,,,,

side of the G.T. Road. He, accordingly, stated that the acquired land was situated at a distance of 2/2½ acres from the sale deed Ex.P1 dated",,,,,,,

17.05.2006 for 11 kanals. He had, accordingly, stated that the acquired land as well as land mentioned in sale deed Ex.P1 was of same nature and",,,,,,,

same quality situated near the Karnal City. The distance between the acquired land and the Chandigarh City which had been developed by the,,,,,,,

builders was about 2/2½ acres and he stated that there is no other business center near the acquired land.,,,,,,,

Similarly, PW-1 Sunder Lal in his cross-examination denied that the Haveli Tourist Complex is at a considerable distance from the acquired land and",,,,,,,

stated it is half an acre from the acquired land. Similar was the deposition of PW-9 Ram Niwas in the cross-examination that the acquired land is at a,,,,,,,

distance of only half acre from the National Highway and on the western side there was a Chandigarh City near the acquired land. He also in his,,,,,,,

cross-examination stated that Haveli Tourist Complex is at a distance of half kilometer from the acquired land.,,,,,,,

The Draftsman-Harminder Singh, who had appeared as PW-8 proved the site plan Ex.PW8/A of the acquired land and the site is shown in green",,,,,,,

colour. The land shown in yellow colour is the land sold prior to the acquisition and the site shown in red colour were commercial sites.,,,,,,,

The statement of the RW-1 Dilbag Rai- Project Officer, of the Tourist Department would go on to show that though after the acquisition no",,,,,,,

construction was raised over the acquired land, but a project was being prepared. He admitted that just opposite the acquired land there was",,,,,,,

Chandigarh City and Haveli Tourist Complex was situated after some distance. He denied the suggestion that adjoining the Karna Lake there was,,,,,,,

Delhi Public School, Savoy Green and MC. Donald Resort.",,,,,,,

A perusal of the Ex.PW-8/A the site plan itself would go on to show that portion of the land was abutting the highway whereas the balance portion,,,,,,,

was situated separately and away from the highway. Right across the highway was the land subject matter of the three sale deeds which have been,,,,,,,

executed in favour of Radha Mittal for Rs.85 lakhs on 17.05.2006 and 25.04.2006 (Ex.P1, P3 and P5), a year earlier from the date of initiation of",,,,,,,

acquisition, which was dated 07.05.2007.",,,,,,,

The land sold through Ex.P1, Ex.P3 and Ex.P5 is situated on the G.T. Road itself and is a contiguous block and having been purchased by a buyer as",,,,,,,

noticed by three separate sale deeds within a close period of time and, therefore, the same value is liable to be granted to the appellants.",,,,,,,

It is a known phenomena that land situated on the highway will command better value than the land situated away from the highway.,,,,,,,

The evidence would also go on to show that portion of the land was away from the national highway, though might only be half acre from the National",,,,,,,

Highway as stated in the statement of Ram Niwas and also in the statement of Sunder Lal and the averments in the reference petition are that it had,,,,,,,

easy access to the G.T. Road. In such circumstances, the land on the highway would command higher price than the land lying in the interior.",,,,,,,

The Apex Court, in 'V. Hanumantha Reddy (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. The Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal R. Officer' ' 2003 (12) SCC 642, held that",,,,,,,

land abutting National Highway always fetches more price than the land lying in the interior and it is now a established principle of law and by no,,,,,,,

stretch of imagination, the sale instances could not be kept into mind.",,,,,,,

In 'Haridwar Development Authority, Haridwar Vs. Raghubir Singh and others' 2010 (11) SCC 581, the issue was regarding the adoption of the",,,,,,,

belting method. Resultantly, it was held that proximity to access to the main road and highway were factors which were to be taken into consideration,",,,,,,,

while upholding uniform market value given, since a compact contiguous land had been acquired. The relevant portion reads as under:-",,,,,,,

“6. The question whether the acquired lands have to be valued uniformly at the same rate, or whether different areas in the acquired lands have to",,,,,,,

be valued at different rates, depends upon the extent of the land acquired, the location, proximity to an access road/Main Road/Highway or to a",,,,,,,

City/Town/Village, and other relevant circumstances. We may illustrate :",,,,,,,

(A) When a small and compact extent of land is acquired and the entire area is similarly situated, it will be appropriate to value the acquired land at a",,,,,,,

single uniform rate.,,,,,,,

(B) If a large tract of land is acquired with some lands facing a main road or a national highway and other lands being in the interior, the normal",,,,,,,

procedure is to value the lands adjacent to the main road at a higher rate and the interior lands which do not have road access, at a lesser rate.",,,,,,,

(C) Where a very large tract of land on the outskirts of a town is acquired, one end of the acquired lands adjoining the town boundary, the other end",,,,,,,

being two to three kilometres away, obviously, the rake that is adopted for the land nearest to the town cannot be adopted for the land which is farther",,,,,,,

away from the town. In such a situation, what is known as a belting method is adopted and the belt or strip adjacent to the town boundary will be given",,,,,,,

the highest price, the remotest belt will be awarded the lowest rate, the belts/strips of lands falling in between, will be awarded gradually reducing",,,,,,,

rates from the highest to the lowest.,,,,,,,

(D) Where a very large tract of land with a radius of one to two kilometres is acquired, but the entire land acquired is far away from any town or city",,,,,,,

limits, without any special Main road access, then it is logical to award the entire land, one uniform rate. The fact that the distance between one point",,,,,,,

to another point in the acquired lands, may be as much as two to three kilometres may not make any difference.",,,,,,,

The acquisition with which we are concerned relates to a comparatively small extent of village land measuring about 38 bighas of compact,,,,,,,

contiguous land. The High Court was of the view that the size and situation did not warrant any belting and all lands deserved the same rate of,,,,,,,

compensation. The Authority has not placed any material to show that any area was less advantageously situated.,,,,,,,

Therefore the view of the High Court that compensation should be awarded at an uniform rate does not call for interference.â€​,,,,,,,

It is to be noticed that if Ex.P1, Ex.P3 and Ex.P5 are taken into consideration, then of two of them were executed on the same date and one was",,,,,,,

executed 22 days earlier and the joint holding of the said three sale deeds would be 46.13 kanals (5.85 acres), which is slightly more than half the",,,,,,,

amount of the land which was being acquired, which is of 10 acres. The cut in such circumstances of 60% which has been put is on the higher side.",,,,,,,

Once land falling on the highway was valued and it had been purchased @ Rs.85 lakhs a year earlier this Court is of the opinion that the process of,,,,,,,

taking average of all sale deeds and applying major cut of 60% is not justified in the facts and circumstances. Firstly on the sale deeds of May, 2006 of",,,,,,,

Rs.85 lakhs 10% enhancement is liable to be granted. The amount would come to Rs.93,50,000/- and on the same if a development cut of 20% is put",,,,,,,

which amounts to Rs.18,70,000/-, the market value would work out to Rs.74,80,000/- for the land abutting the G.T. Road.",,,,,,,

Similarly, cut of 20% is liable to be further granted on the land which is away from the main road and, therefore, an amount of Rs.14,96,000/- is liable",,,,,,,

to be reduced from the value of the land situated on the national highway. Resultantly, for the land situated away from the national highway the",,,,,,,

market value is fixed @ Rs.59,84,000/-. Reliance upon 'Kasturi Vs. State of Haryana' 2003 (1) SCC 354 can be placed upon for applying the 20% cut,",,,,,,,

wherein acquisition was for 84.23 acres of land for setting up of residential and commercial area of Sector 13 and 23 in Bhiwani. The 20% cut applied,,,,,,,

by the Single Judge and upheld by the Division Bench was not interfered by the Apex Court on the ground that even though it was noticed that normal,,,,,,,

1/3rd deduction is granted. In the said case, the exemplar was only of land measuring 3 kanals (1800 square yards).",,,,,,,

In similar circumstances, in 'Trishala Jain and another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and another '2011 (6) SCC 47, 10% deduction was made on the",,,,,,,

market value of the land, whereby the land was acquired for construction of Government Polytechnic Institute. In 'Chakas Vs. State of Punjab and",,,,,,,

others' 2011 (4) RCR (Civil) 211, 10% was again deducted on account of the fact that Corporation is setting up its own industry and the land utilized",,,,,,,

for roads, sewerage and other such facilities were to be minimum as most of the land has been utilized by the Corporation.",,,,,,,

In the present case, the acquisition is for the extension of Tourist Complex at Karna Lake, Karnal and, therefore, 20% cut would be reasonable as",,,,,,,

such.,,,,,,,

The argument raised by the counsels that it is a contiguous piece of land has not been substantiated from the record and, therefore, the applicability of",,,,,,,

the principles laid down in 'HSIIDC Vs. Pran Sukh' (2010) 11 SCC 175 cannot be applied and uniform compensation has rightly not been granted.,,,,,,,

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the land owners are allowed and those of the State are dismissed. The market value stands enhanced to the tune of",,,,,,,

Rs.74,80,000/- for the land situated on the highway upto the depth of 2 acres and beyond that @ Rs.59,84,000/-alongwith all statutory benefits.",,,,,,,